PSHKPusat Studi Hukum & Kebijakan Indonesia

Indonesia Centre for Law & Policy Studies

Study on Unfair Trade Practices

(UTPs) in Indonesia

Research Project on Unfair Trade Practices in Select ASEAN CountriesFirst Policy Dialogue

Ho Chi Minh City (Vietnam), 12th September 2012

Team Leader: Ningrum Natasya SiraitTeam Members: 1. Muhammad Faiz Aziz

2. Siti Maryam Rodja 3. Rachmad Maulana Firmansyah

ContentsContentsI

II

IV

III

Activities of Study

Result Findings from Literature Research

Findings from Perception Survey

Conclusion & The Way Forward

Objectives

Highlighting the relevance of designing appropriate regulatory frameworks

Capturing the perceptions and expectations of relevant stakeholders groups

Facilitating contacts and networking between relevant stakeholder groups

Generating attention and supporting dialogues amongst members

Activities

Research on UTPs legal and institutional framework (and also enforcement record and cases)

Perception surveys

Perception surveys

Policy dialogues

Details

Study on regulation, institution and cases

Survey on 35 respondents from business actors, resource persons, practitioners and authorized agencies

In depth interview with relevant stakeholders

Participation in Policy Dialogue

ContentsContentsI

II

IV

III

Activities of Study

Result Findings from Literature Research

Findings from Perception Survey

Conclusion & The Way Forward

Definition of UTPsDefinition of UTPsUnfair Trade Practices encompass a broad

array of torts, all of which involve economic injury brought on by deceptive or wrongful conduct (UTPs annotations by CUTS).

No formal definition of UTPs in Indonesia.

Similar concept is found in Indonesian Criminal Code Article 382 bis 383. However, the Code regulates lesser detail than Competition Law and Consumer Law.

Art 382 bisFraudulent act or misled in business expansion which caused loss to competitorsArt 383Deceptive act regarding goods quality, quantity and delivery

UTPs related regulations and authorized institutions

UTPs related regulations and authorized institutions

On Law on consumer protection, 352 district courts possess the authority to handle consumers’ complaints in addition to BPSK.

Both Competition Law No.5/1999 and Consumers Law No. 8/1999 have definition of consumer. However, each definition posed a different scope of meaning.

UTPs related regulations and authorized institutions

(specific sector regulations and agency)

Only Banking Mediation has authority to settle consumer dispute and remedies.

UTPs related regulations and authorized institutions

(specific sector regulations and agency)

*BPOM has no authority to settle consumers’ disputes.

Enforcement Record Enforcement Record (only KPPU provides data)(only KPPU provides data)Five largest Number of Cases in

Competition Law (2000-2010)

KPPU is the only institution providing complete enforcement record regarding UTPs in competition area since others do not provide detail data regarding UTPs in each specific sector and difficult to access.

Enforcement Record Enforcement Record (only KPPU provides data)(only KPPU provides data)UTPs cases of Competition

Law (2000-2010)

The Facts on UTPs Cases in The Facts on UTPs Cases in Competition LawCompetition Law

The Facts on UTPs Cases in The Facts on UTPs Cases in Consumers LawConsumers Law

The Way It Has Been DealtThe Way It Has Been Dealt

ContentsContentsI

II

IV

III

Activities of Study

Result Findings from Literature Research

Findings from Perception Survey

Conclusion & The Way Forward

Stakeholder’s PerspectivesStakeholder’s Perspectives35 respondents: 23 respondents or 65.71% from business

actors (including small-scaled business actors and business organizations); 8 respondents (22.86%) from resource persons/practitioners; and 4 respondents (11.43%) from relevant authorities related to UTPs.

Methodology: Interview and open-ended questionnaires.

Stakeholder’s PerspectivesStakeholder’s PerspectivesContact with relevant authorities Access to relevant authorities

Stakeholder’s PerspectivesStakeholder’s PerspectivesCooperation with relevant authorities Regulation Enforcement

Stakeholder’s PerspectivesStakeholder’s PerspectivesDo current regulations need to be amended? UTPs still prevail or

resolved?

Widespread of UTPs

Stakeholder’s PerspectivesStakeholder’s PerspectivesDo the UTPs affect small-scaled business actors, consumers and investment climate?

Effect of UTPs in investment climate and consumers’ demand

Stakeholder’s PerspectivesStakeholder’s PerspectivesMost UTPs in

Competition LawMost UTPs in

Consumer Law

Stakeholder’s PerspectivesStakeholder’s PerspectivesUTPs Actors

The Cause of UTPs

Stakeholder’s PerspectivesStakeholder’s Perspectives

Stakeholder’s PerspectivesStakeholder’s PerspectivesJoint Arrangement

ContentsContentsI

II

IV

III

Activities of Study

Result Findings from Literature Research

Findings from Perception Survey

Conclusion & The Way Forward

Thank you

Pusat Studi Hukum & Kebijakan IndonesiaIndonesian Centre for Law & Policy Studies

Pusat Studi Hukum & Kebijakan IndonesiaIndonesian Centre for Law & Policy Studies

““Toward Socially Responsible Toward Socially Responsible Lawmaking”Lawmaking”

The fall of the “New Order” regime in 1998 revealed the long-standing flaws within government systems; flaws that were hidden and buried for the benefit of certain people. Subsequently, commitments to reform were declared on topics ranging from politics to economics. Law is primary area in dire need of reform. Law is also needed to provide a sound regulatory platform for systemic changes in many areas. Clearly, legal reform is needed in Indonesia; and legal reform needs serious study and advocacy. Thus, PSHK (Centre for Indonesian Law and Policy Studies) was established in 1 July 1998. PSHK is not about jargons on legal reform, nor it is about mere complaints and anger on present situation. Rather, PSHK is focused on having a highly-engaged, meaningful role in Indonesian legal reform.