CD Skripsi

Perbandingan Putusan Kppu Nomor 04/Kppu-L/2020 Dan Putusan Nomor 30/Kppu-I/2019 Tentang Persekongkolan Tender

---

ABSTRACT
In case Number 04/KPPU-L/2020 and case Number 30/KPPU-I/2019 there
are differences in the interpretation of the KPPU assembly regarding the fulfillment
of elements of regulating and or determining the winner of the tender even though
the chronology of cases is almost the same and several reported from each case
also both have died at the administrative selection stage, but only 4 reported cases
in case Number 04/KPPU-L/2020 were acquitted of all charges while 2 reported
cases from Number 30/KPPU-I/2019 were even punished by the KPPU assembly.
Therefore, it is necessary to debate how the criteria for fulfilling the elements
regulate and/or determine the tender winner from Article 22 of Law Number 5 Year
1999 and result in discrepancies in the decisions made by the KPPU assembly.
The type of research used in this research is using normative legal research,
with data collection techniques through library research, data analysis that will be
used is qualitative data analysis, the results of the research are described in
descriptive form and draw conclusions using deductive thinking methods.
From the results of the research that has been carried out, regarding the
Action criteria that meet the elements of regulating and or determining the winner
of the tender based on Law Number 5 of 1999, nothing has been clearly explained
either from the explanation of the assembly or in all existing laws and regulations
regarding the Action criteria. which is a measure of the fulfillment of these
elements. The comparison of Decision Number 04/KPPU-L/2020 and Decision
Number 30/KPPU-I/2019 shows that the approach that should be used from the two
decisions is the rule of reason approach, this automatically makes the use of the per
se illegal approach used by the KPPU assembly Decision No. 30/KPPU-I/2019 is
deemed inappropriate.
The conclusion of this study is, firstly, the criteria for fulfilling the elements of
regulating and or determining the tender winner are not clearly explained in Law
NO 5 of 1999. The two approaches that should be used from the two decisions are
the rule of reason approach, this automatically makes the use of the per se illegal
approach used by the KPPU assembly in Decision Number 30/KPPU-I/2019 is
deemed inappropriate.
Keywords: Fulfillment of elements of KPPU-Tender Approach.

---

Ketersediaan

Informasi Detail

Judul Seri

-

No. Panggil

1809110163

Penerbit

Pekanbaru : Universitas Riau – Fakultas Hukum – Hukum Pidana., 2022

Deskripsi Fisik

-

Bahasa

Indonesia

ISBN/ISSN

-

Klasifikasi

1809110163

Tipe Isi

-

Tipe Media

-

Tipe Pembawa

-

Edisi

-

Subjek

HUKUM PIDANA

Info Detail Spesifik

-

Pernyataan Tanggungjawab

DAUS

Versi lain/terkait

Lampiran Berkas

Komentar

---

Anda harus masuk sebelum memberikan komentar