Perbandingan Kewenangan Komisi Pengawas Persaingan Usaha Indonesia dengan Komisi Pengawas Persaingan Usaha Singapura (CCCS) dalam Kasus Akuisisi Uber oleh Grab

Abstract

In economic activities, it is inseparable from the occurrence of competition between business actors. Competition in the business world is an activity recommended by law as a spice in the practice of business activities. In Indonesia, the institution that handles business competition is the Business Competition Supervisory Commission (KPPU). KPPU oversees all types of business activities, including acquisitions. Regarding the enforcement of business competition policies, it is not only applied by Indonesia, but other countries also apply it. One of them is Singapore. The commission that oversees business activities in Singapore is the Competition and Consumer Commission of Singapore (CCCS). The CCCS also oversees the act of acquisition. This research aims to find out the differences in the authority of KPPU and CCCS in deciding business competition cases and the differences in decisions applied by the two Commissions, especially in the case of Uber's acquisition by Grab. The research method used is normative juridical method with statutory, case, and comparative approaches, and qualitative data analysis. The results showed that the differences in authority and legal policies between KPPU and CCCS affected the differences in handling and decisions on the Uber acquisition case by Grab. KPPU stated that there was no violation related to the Uber acquisition case by Grab while CCCS imposed a fine on both parties of IDR141 billion. This finding reveals the limitations of KPPU's regulation and authority in overseeing asset acquisitions that have the potential to reduce competition, in contrast to CCCS's broader and stricter authority in enforcing competition law. This research confirms the need to update regulations on asset acquisitions, so that the legal source that guides asset acquisitions is not only based on the Regulations of the Competition Supervisory Commission, but also based on a higher and stronger legal source, namely the Law.