Kewenangan Komisi Pengawas Persaingan Usaha (KPPU) dalam Pengawasan Kemitraan Usaha Mikro, Kecil dan Menengah (UMKM) di Indonesia

Abstract

Micro, Small, and Medium Enterprises (MSMEs) are the backbone of Indonesia's economy, contributing significantly to the Gross Domestic Product (GDP), tax revenue, and employment. However, MSMEs face various challenges such as limited access to markets, capital, technology, and management. To address these issues, the government enacted Law No. 20 of 2008 on MSMEs, which includes provisions for partnership schemes between MSMEs and large businesses as part of empowerment efforts. Ironically, the implementation of partnership oversight has sparked controversy and legal uncertainty, particularly regarding the overlapping authority of the Competition Supervisory Commission (KPPU) with the role of the Ministry of MSMEs, as well as the KPPU's limited resources to cover the entire Indonesian territory. This situation is exacerbated by the disharmony of norms in regulations, which has the potential to harm business actors and hinder the achievement of fair and sustainable partnership goals. This study uses prescriptive normative and empirical legal methods. The approaches used include legislative, conceptual, case, and comparative legal approaches. Primary legal materials were obtained from relevant legislation in Indonesia, Malaysia, and Vietnam, as well as in-depth interviews with various stakeholders such as the KPPU, the Ministry of SMEs, SME actors (plasma farmers), and large business actors. Secondary and tertiary legal materials were also used to support the analysis. The collected data was analysed qualitatively using deductive logic to test the suitability of the SME supervision system, compare the supervision models in Indonesia with those in Malaysia and Vietnam, and formulate the ideal concept of SME partnership supervision in Indonesia. The results of the study indicate that the SME partnership monitoring system in Indonesia is not yet fully in line with the partnership ratio legis and the duties of the KPPU, as evidenced by the disharmony of norms, unclear authority, limited capacity of the KPPU, and a passive approach to monitoring. A comparison with Malaysia and Vietnam shows that both countries focus more on facilitating and supporting SME growth through inter-agency collaboration, while Indonesia places the KPPU as the primary supervisor with all its limitations. Therefore, this study concludes that a restructuring of the SME partnership supervision system is necessary to make it more effective and fair. The recommendations include the establishment of a National and Regional Business Partnership Coordination Agency separate from the KPPU, a significant increase in the KPPU's capacity if it remains tasked with overseeing partnerships, harmonisation of laws and regulations to ensure a balance of rights and obligations, and the restoration of legal recourse for businesses against KPPU decisions. Additionally, it is recommended that the KPPU enhance public awareness, develop transparent operational guidelines, provide consultation mechanisms, strengthen institutional capacity, implement an integrated information system, and utilise mediation as an alternative dispute resolution method.