Indonesia: Supreme Court issues new appeal procedures for competition authority decisions

In brief

The new regulation was intended to facilitate a more through appeals process, following other recent legislative changes to the appeals procedure. However, companies facing investigation should factor in the possibility that appeal hearings may continue to be limited to a short review of the KPPU files. This includes  gathering as much supporting evidence as early as possible and ensuring these are all presented in a timely fashion during the investigation phase.

In more detail

During the first week of November, the Supreme Court held a series of events to publicize its Regulation No. 3 of 2021 ("Regulation 3/2021") on the procedure for hearing appeals against decisions of the Business Competition Supervisory Commission  (commonly known as KPPU) in the commercial courts. This regulation is dated 17 September 2021 and revokes Supreme Court Regulation No. 3 of 2019 ("Regulation 3/2019") on appeal procedures for KPPU decisions.

The background of Regulation 3/2021 is the issuance of the Omnibus Law, which amended Law No. 5 of 1999 ("Antimonopoly Law"), by among other things, moving the authority to hear appeals against KPPU decisions from the civil courts (pengadilan negeri) to the commercial courts (pengadilan niaga), and ending the rule that these courts must issue their decisions within 30 days. Then, Government Regulation No. 44 of 2021 ("Government Regulation 44/21"), which implemented provisions of the Omnibus Law relating to the Antimonopoly Law, provided that commercial courts must try appeal cases for at least three months and a maximum of one year and must examine the substance, not just the formality of appeals.

The below sets out how Regulation 3/2021 interprets the provisions of the Omnibus Law and Government Regulation 44/21, and the impact of this regulation on the primary legal issue of how the appeal process can improve by ensuring a high quality review and due process guarantees for the appellant.

Extension of the appeal examination procedure

Under Regulation 3/2019, examination of appeals was conducted solely by examining KPPU decisions and the case files without further hearings. This restriction was justified on the grounds that the civil courts had to strictly abide by the 30-day time limit for them to issue their decisions, mandated by the Antimonopoly Law. Consequently, there were concerns that the courts were sacrificing quality and due process of law in order to meet the 30-day deadline. As the courts merely read the KPPU dossiers, the appellant did not have adequate opportunity to present its case.

It was hoped that the 3-12 months timeline provided by Government Regulation 44/2021 would encourage the commercial courts to spend more time hearing cases, and present more opportunities for appellants to present their cases, such as by cross-examining witnesses and experts.

Regulation 3/2021 dutifully restated the 3-12 months examination period provided by Government Regulation 44/2021. However it opens the possibility for the courts to issue their decisions within less than three months, as long as the panel of judges provided justification for it.

That provision of Regulation 3/2021 opens up the possibility that commercial court appeal trials may continue to be limited to a quick review of the KPPU dossier, allowing little chance for thorough examination by the courts and contest by the appellants.

The new cross-examination procedure

Regulation 3/2021 also dutifully restated the provision of Government Regulation 44/2021 that appeal trials must examine both the substance and the formal aspects of each case. The specific reference to the formal aspects of the case (so called material aspect) gives hope that the commercial courts will allow a much more thorough re-examination of cases, perhaps allowing for cross-examination of witnesses and open review of other evidence.

As it is, Regulation 3/2021 limits the examination of witnesses and experts to those who were put forward by the appellant during the KPPU examination process, but whose explanations were not included or considered in the KPPU decision, or they were not given the opportunity to provide explanations. The appellant is not allowed to submit any evidence that was not previously submitted to KPPU.

So Regulation 3/2021 does provide for the possibility to correct omissions made by KPPU during its examination. Witnesses and evidence that were not previously allowed or considered by KPPU may now be examined and considered by the commercial courts on appeals. At the same time, Regulation 3/2021 also specifies that that examination is subject to the courts' discretion, and it does not specify that evidence that KPPU has considered must be presented again before the commercial court panel. Overall, the commercial courts are still allowed to simply rely on the KPPU dossier to make their decisions.

Civil review abolished

After an appeal decision by a commercial court, the appellant may submit a cassation. Under the Supreme Court Law (Law No. 14 of 1985, as amended in 2004 and 2009), there is a general right to ask for a civil review against a cassation decision, an extraordinary measure that is available if certain strict criteria are met. However, Regulation 3/2012 provides that appellants cannot apply for civil review at all. Cassation decisions are not subject to this extraordinary measure. While in reality success at this stage is rare, this is a concerning development because the Supreme Court has effectively denied wholesale a legal redress that is still mandated by law.


LOGO_Indonesia HHP Law Firm_Jakarta

This publication was issued by HHP Law Firm (Hadiputranto, Hadinoto & Partners), a member firm of Baker McKenzie International, a global law firm with member law firms around the world. In accordance with the common terminology used in professional service organizations, reference to a "partner" means a person who is a partner or equivalent in such a law firm. Similarly, reference to an "office" means an office of any such law firm. This may qualify as "Attorney Advertising" requiring notice in some jurisdictions. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome."

Contact Information

Copyright © 2024 Baker & McKenzie. All rights reserved. Ownership: This documentation and content (Content) is a proprietary resource owned exclusively by Baker McKenzie (meaning Baker & McKenzie International and its member firms). The Content is protected under international copyright conventions. Use of this Content does not of itself create a contractual relationship, nor any attorney/client relationship, between Baker McKenzie and any person. Non-reliance and exclusion: All Content is for informational purposes only and may not reflect the most current legal and regulatory developments. All summaries of the laws, regulations and practice are subject to change. The Content is not offered as legal or professional advice for any specific matter. It is not intended to be a substitute for reference to (and compliance with) the detailed provisions of applicable laws, rules, regulations or forms. Legal advice should always be sought before taking any action or refraining from taking any action based on any Content. Baker McKenzie and the editors and the contributing authors do not guarantee the accuracy of the Content and expressly disclaim any and all liability to any person in respect of the consequences of anything done or permitted to be done or omitted to be done wholly or partly in reliance upon the whole or any part of the Content. The Content may contain links to external websites and external websites may link to the Content. Baker McKenzie is not responsible for the content or operation of any such external sites and disclaims all liability, howsoever occurring, in respect of the content or operation of any such external websites. Attorney Advertising: This Content may qualify as “Attorney Advertising” requiring notice in some jurisdictions. To the extent that this Content may qualify as Attorney Advertising, PRIOR RESULTS DO NOT GUARANTEE A SIMILAR OUTCOME. Reproduction: Reproduction of reasonable portions of the Content is permitted provided that (i) such reproductions are made available free of charge and for non-commercial purposes, (ii) such reproductions are properly attributed to Baker McKenzie, (iii) the portion of the Content being reproduced is not altered or made available in a manner that modifies the Content or presents the Content being reproduced in a false light and (iv) notice is made to the disclaimers included on the Content. The permission to re-copy does not allow for incorporation of any substantial portion of the Content in any work or publication, whether in hard copy, electronic or any other form or for commercial purposes.