<![CDATA[This research aimed to analyze the application of the per se illegal and rule of reason approaches in the adjudicative practice of the Business Competition Supervisory Commission (Komisi Pengawas Persaingan Usaha [KPPU]) and their implications for legal certainty in Indonesian competition law enforcement. The research problem was motivated by differences in the characteristics of these approaches in examining competition cases, which in practice continued to create uncertainty regarding the boundaries of their application. This condition potentially resulted in differing interpretations, inconsistent decisions, and uncertainty for business actors in distinguishing between permitted and prohibited conduct. This research employed a normative legal method using statutory, conceptual, and case approaches. Data were obtained through literature studies involving relevant legislation, KPPU decisions, legal literature, and academic sources. The analysis was conducted qualitatively to examine the consistency between legal provisions and their implementation in adjudicative practice. The results showed that both approaches served different functions: the per se illegal approach was applied to conduct that was inherently anti-competitive, while the rule of reason approach was applied to conduct requiring an assessment of economic impacts and market conditions. However, the implementation of these approaches in KPPU practice still faced challenges due to the absence of clear and consistent parameters, which affected legal certainty. Therefore, clearer implementation guidelines were required to ensure that both approaches could be applied proportionally and provide greater legal certainty in Indonesian competition law enforcement.]]>
