<![CDATA[This study examines the differing interpretations between the Business Competition Supervisory Commission (KPPU) and the Supreme Court regarding the evidentiary standard for tender collusion in Supreme Court Decision Number 523K/Pdt.Sus-KPPU/2024, as well as the legal grounds relied upon by the panel of judges of the Supreme Court in annulling KPPU Decision Number 17/KPPU-L/2022. KPPU had previously ruled that tender collusion occurred and imposed a monetary fine, a decision subsequently upheld by the Central Jakarta District Court. At the cassation level, however, the Supreme Court overturned the ruling on the grounds that no direct or indirect evidence was found indicating cooperation or a request from the tender participants to the project owner. This research employs a normative legal method with a qualitative approach, relying on secondary data consisting of primary, secondary, and tertiary legal materials gathered through library research and analyzed descriptively. The findings show that the divergence between the two institutions lies in the standard of proof applied: KPPU considered it sufficient that one tender participant obtained a benefit, whereas the Supreme Court required two cumulative elements, namely a benefit to the tender participant and an agreement or request originating from that participant. This divergence indicates that the stricter evidentiary standard adopted by the Supreme Court provides greater legal certainty, but risks narrowing KPPU's authority to act against covert forms of tender collusion.]]>
