Article Per Year (5 Year)
p-Index From 2020 - 2025
2.17
P-Index
This Author published in this journals
All Journal Masalah-Masalah Hukum LAW REVIEW JURISDICTIE Jurnal Hukum dan Syariah Pembaharuan Hukum Sriwijaya Law Review Hasanuddin Law Review Undang: Jurnal Hukum Jurnal Yudisial Jurnal Hukum Bisnis Journal of Judicial Review Justisi : Jurnal Ilmu Hukum Global Legal Review Notary Journal Locus Journal of Academic Literature Review Enrichment: Journal of Multidisciplinary Research and Development Jurnal Hukum dan Pembangunan Jurnal Ilmiah Pengabdian Kepada Masyarakat (Nyiur-Dimas)
Jur. M. Udin Silalahi
Fakultas Hukum Universitas Pelita Harapan
Religion Aerospace Engineering Agriculture, Biological Sciences & Forestry Arts Humanities Astronomy Automotive Engineering Biochemistry, Genetics & Molecular Biology Chemical Engineering, Chemistry & Bioengineering Chemistry Civil Engineering, Building, Construction & Architecture Computer Science & IT Control & Systems Engineering Decision Sciences, Operations Research & Management Dentistry Earth & Planetary Sciences Economics, Econometrics & Finance Education Electrical & Electronics Engineering Energy Engineering Environmental Science Health Professions Immunology & microbiology Industrial & Manufacturing Engineering Languange, Linguistic, Communication & Media Law, Crime, Criminology & Criminal Justice Library & Information Science Materials Science & Nanotechnology Mathematics Mechanical Engineering Medicine & Pharmacology Neuroscience Nursing Physics Public Health Social Sciences Transportation Veterinary Other

Published : 21 Documents Claim Missing Document
Claim Missing Document
Check
Articles

Found 21 Documents
Search

 1   2   3 
SINGLE ECONOMIC ENTITY: Kajian Hukum Persaingan Usaha di Indonesia Silalahi, Udin
Jurisdictie: Jurnal Hukum dan Syariah Jurisdictie: Vol. 9, No. 1 (2018)
Publisher : Fakultas Syariah

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.18860/j.v9i1.4903

Abstract

Single economic entity doctrine has just been applied in Indonesia. KPPU applied this doctrine in the Temasek case. This application becomes controversial among law practitioners, exactly between lawyers and KPPU. Single economic entity doctrine has been well-known in the terminology of competition business law meanwhile some law practitioners argued that this doctrine is not common yet in Indonesia. This article discusses and elaborates whether the competition business law in Indonesia has been regulated and how KPPU applies the aforementioned doctrine based on the competition business law in Indonesia. This article is normative using library research. There are three approaches used in the article; they are the act, the case, and the conceptual approaches. The result shows that single economic doctrine is implicitly regulated in the Act No. 5 Year 1999. KPPU has applied the act and decided that Temasek Group contravened the Article 27, the Act no. 5 Year 1999 about share cross ownership.
PELAKSANAAN PERJANJIAN KONSESI DITINJAU DARI PERSPEKTIF HUKUM PERSAINGAN USAHA Silalahi, Udin
Jurnal Hukum Bisnis Vol. 3 No. 4 (2015)
Publisher : jurnalhukumbisnis.com

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar

Abstract

Pelaksanaan Perjanjian Konsesi Ditinjau dari Perspektif Hukum Persaingan Usaha
INDIRECT EVIDENCE DALAM HUKUM PERSAINGAN USAHA silalahi, Udin
Jurnal Hukum Bisnis Vol. 3 No. 4 (2015)
Publisher : jurnalhukumbisnis.com

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar

Abstract

Indirect evidence dalam hukum persaingan usaha
PERJANJIAN FRANCHISE BERDASARKAN HUKUM PERSAINGAN EROPA Silalahi, M Udin
Jurnal Hukum Bisnis Vol. 7 No. 2 (2018)
Publisher : jurnalhukumbisnis.com

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar

Abstract

Perjanjian Franchise Berdasarkan Hukum Persaingan Eropa
DASAR HUKUM OBLIGATION TO CONTRACT Silalahi, M Udin
Jurnal Hukum Bisnis Vol. 7 No. 5 (2019)
Publisher : jurnalhukumbisnis.com

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar

Abstract

Dasar Hukum Obligation To Contract
KEDUDUKAN KREDITOR SEPARATIS ATAS HAK JAMINAN DALAM PROSES KEPAILITAN Udin Silalahi; Claudia Claudia
Masalah-Masalah Hukum Vol 49, No 1 (2020): MASALAH-MASALAH HUKUM
Publisher : Faculty of Law, Universitas Diponegoro

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | Full PDF (205.41 KB) | DOI: 10.14710/mmh.49.1.2020.35-47

Abstract

Kedudukan kreditor separatis yang diatur dalam Pasal 55 ayat (1) UUK-PKPU, Pasal 21 UU Hak Tanggungan dan Pasal 27 ayat (3) UU Jaminan Fidusia yang dapat mengeksekusi hak jaminan walaupun terjadi pailit, seolah-olah bertentangan dengan ketentuan Pasal 56 ayat (1) UUK-PKPU yang menangguhkan hak eksekutorial tersebut. Adanya ketentuan Pasal 56 ayat (3) jo Pasal 59 ayat (2) dapat merugikan kreditor separatis, karena jika kreditor separatis tidak dapat mengeksekusi hak jaminan kebendaan yang dikuasainya dalam waktu 2 (dua) bulan, maka kurator dapat mengeksekusi dan menggunakan benda tidak bergerak atau menjual harta pailit benda bergerak untuk kelangsungan usaha debitor. Penelitian ini adalah penelitian yuridis normatif dengan pendekatan undang-undang dan pendekatan kasus. Adapun hasil penelitian ini adalah bahwa walapun hak eksekutorial kreditor separatis ditangguhkan, tetapi hak kreditor separatis tetap dijamin oleh UUK-PKPU dan peralihan hak eksekutorial dari kreditor separatis kepada kurator, kurator harus memberikan hak-hak kreditor separatis, yaitu pelunasan piutangnya.
PENEGAKAN HUKUM PERSAINGAN USAHA DI INDONESIA MELALUI HARMONISASI PUBLIC ENFORCEMENT DAN PRIVATE ENFORCEMENT [Competition Law Enforcement in Indonesia through the Harmonization of Public Enforcement and Private Enforcement] Carissa Christybella Wijaya; Micheline Hendrito; Monica Patricia Aripratama; Udin Silalahi
Law Review Volume XX, No. 3 - March 2021
Publisher : Fakultas Hukum, Universitas Pelita Harapan | Lippo Karawaci, Tangerang

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.19166/lr.v0i0.2963

Abstract

KPPU (Commission for the Supervision of Business Competition) as the authority for business competition law in Indonesia still has many shortcomings. This is related to the KPPU’s failure to accommodate compensation payments to victims of business competition law violations. This can happen because Indonesia has only provided room for public enforcement to be implemented. In public enforcement, compensation payments are not paid directly to consumers who have suffered losses but instead come into the state treasury. This article discusses the compensation mechanism that should be received by victims of competition law violations through private enforcement, which is a mechanism for enforcing competition law by using the regulations of the Competition Law in civil courts to demand compensation. This research was conducted with the aim of creating a healthy business competition climate through the enforcement of private enforcement in Indonesia by implementing harmonization between public and private enforcement. In this article, the Authors used normative juridical method and refers to statutory and comparative approaches. The research method used is juridical normative with a statute approach, a case approach, and a comparative legal approach. The results and conclusions of this study are that the KPPU's failure to provide compensation for compensation to victims of business competition violations encourages the need to implement private enforcement in Indonesia which is harmonized with the previous mechanism, namely public enforcement.Bahasa Indonesia Abstrak: KPPU (Komisi Pengawas Persaingan Usaha) sebagai lembaga otoritas dalam hukum persaingan usaha di Indonesia masih memiliki banyak kekurangan. Salah satunya terkait dengan kegagalan KPPU dalam mengakomodir pembayaran ganti rugi kepada korban pelanggaran hukum persaingan usaha. Hal ini dapat terjadi karena selama ini Indonesia hanya memberikan ruang bagi public enforcement untuk diterapkan. Dalam public enforcement, pembayaran ganti rugi tidak dibayarkan langsung kepada konsumen yang dirugikan melainkan masuk ke dalam kas negara. Oleh sebab itu, terdapat sebuah urgensi untuk mengalihfungsikan fungsi kompensasi dari KPPU kepada pelaku usaha melalui private enforcement, yaitu sebuah mekanisme penegakan hukum persaingan usaha dengan menggunakan regulasi UU Persaingan Usaha di peradilan perdata untuk menuntut ganti rugi. Penelitian ini dilakukan dengan tujuan untuk menciptakan iklim persaingan usaha yang sehat melalui ditegakkannya private enforcement di Indonesia dengan menerapkan harmonisasi antara public enforcement dan private enforcement. Metode penelitian yang digunakan, yaitu yuridis normatif dengan pendekatan undang-undang, pendekatan kasus, dan pendekatan komparatif hukum. Hasil dan kesimpulan dari penelitian ini adalah kegagalan KPPU dalam memberikan kompensasi ganti rugi kepada korban pelanggaran persaingan usaha mendorong perlu diterapkannya private enforcement di Indonesia yang diharmonisasikan dengan mekanisme sebelumnya, yaitu public enforcement.
Tender Conspiracy Under KPPU Decision and Prohibition of Monopolistic Practices Act Udin Silalahi; Priskilla Chrysentia
Sriwijaya Law Review VOLUME 4 ISSUE 1, JANUARY 2020
Publisher : Faculty of Law, Sriwijaya University, Indonesia

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.28946/slrev.Vol4.Iss2.347.pp91-108

Abstract

Tender conspiracy is one of the anti-competition acts prohibited under Article 22 Law No. 5 of 1999 on Prohibition of Monopolistic Practices and Unfair Business Competition. As one of the violations which are almost always injurious, tender conspiracy is only regulated by a rule of reasonable approach giving an interpretation room of the consequences of the violation. The tender conspiracy is also proven conducted by reported parties in the case that it had been decided by KPPU, such as in the KPPU Decision Number 06/KPPU-L/2015. The questions arising in connection with the rampant practices of tender conspiracy are how they regulate in the applicable law and how KPPU decides on the practice of tender conspiracy in the case concerned with the law. The aim is to examine the causes of the rampant practice of tender conspiracy in relation to the regulations governing it, as well as to review the KPPU's decision on real tender conspiracy case. For this reason, this research is normative legal research with qualitative analysis techniques on secondary data and uses the statute approach, and case approaches. The results of the study indicate that Article 22  is not sufficient yet to regulate the prohibition of tender conspiracy and often leads to multi-interpretation. the KPPU decided that there is a horizontal conspiracy among defendantsindetermining of the tender winner
Perjanjian Perdamaian pada Proses Penundaan Kewajiban Pembayaran Utang Berulang: Kedudukan dan Implikasi Udin Silalahi; Beatrix Tanjung
Undang: Jurnal Hukum Vol 4 No 2 (2021)
Publisher : Fakultas Hukum Universitas Jambi

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.22437/ujh.4.2.371-401

Abstract

The composition agreement that has been approved or homologated by the commercial court in the process of Suspension of Obligation for Payment of Debt (PKPU), should bind the parties, except for creditors who do not agree to the composition plan. In practice, there are creditors who re-submit a PKPU process, even though there has been a composition agreement, as stated in the decision of the Commercial Court at the Central Jakarta District Court No. 80/Pdt.Sus PKPU/2020/PN.Niaga.Jkt.Pst. Normatively, the law does not prohibit the submission of repeated PKPU applications. In this article will be discussed how is the actual position and legal implication of the composition agreement in the repeated PKPU process, because the composition agreement that has been ratified by the Commercial Court is binding on all creditors; meanwhile, in the recurring PKPU, the Commercial Court issues a new composition agreement. This article concludes, firstly, the composition agreement in the repeated PKPU process remains valid even though the temporary repeated PKPU is granted by the court. Second, the legal consequence of the granting of repeated PKPU, the previous composition agreement remains valid and until the new composition agreement legitimated and the debts of the PKPU Respondent are renewed into the new composition agreement. Abstrak Perjanjian perdamaian yang telah mendapatkan pengesahan atau homologasi pengadilan niaga dalam proses Penundaan Kewajiban Pembayaran Utang (PKPU), seharusnya mengikat para pihak, terkecuali kreditor yang tidak menyetujui rencana perdamaian tersebut. Dalam praktiknya, ada kreditor yang mengajukan ulang suatu proses PKPU, sekalipun telah ada perjanjian perdamaian, sebagaimana pada putusan Pengadilan Niaga pada Pengadilan Negeri Jakarta Pusat No. 80/Pdt.Sus-PKPU/2020/PN.Niaga.Jkt.Pst. Secara normatif, undang-undang tidak melarang pengajuan permohonan PKPU berulang. Dalam artikel ini dibahas, bagaimana sebenarnya kedudukan dan implikasi hukum dari perjanjian perdamaian pada proses PKPU berulang, karena perjanjian perdamaian yang telah disahkan Pengadilan Niaga mengikat kepada semua kreditor, sementara dalam PKPU berulang, Pengadilan Niaga mengeluarkan perjanjian perdamaian baru. Artikel ini menyimpulkan, pertama, perjanjian perdamaian dalam proses PKPU berulang kedudukannya tetap sah walaupun PKPU sementara berulang dikabulkan oleh pengadilan. Kedua, akibat hukum dikabulkannya PKPU berulang, perjanjian perdamaian yang terdahulu tetap sah dan berlaku sampai disahkannya perjanjian perdamaian yang baru dan utang-utang Termohon PKPU berulang diperbarui ke dalam perjanjian perdamaian yang baru.
PEMBUKTIAN PERKARA KARTEL DI INDONESIA DENGAN MENGGUNAKAN BUKTI TIDAK LANGSUNG (INDIRECT EVIDENCE) Udin Silalahi; Isabella Cynthia Edgina
Jurnal Yudisial Vol 10, No 3 (2017): ALIENI JURIS
Publisher : Komisi Yudisial RI

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.29123/jy.v10i3.216

Abstract

ABSTRAKDalam rangka membuktikan terjadinya pelanggaran Pasal 5 (kartel harga), Pasal 9 (kartel wilayah pemasaran), dan Pasal 11 (kartel produksi) Undang-Undang Nomor 5 Tahun 1999, masing-masing pasal mensyaratkan pemenuhan unsur perjanjian. Namun demikian karena kartel biasanya dilakukan secara diam-diam, maka KPPU membutuhkan bukti tidak langsung untuk membuktikan adanya perjanjian kartel di antara pelaku usaha. Rumusan masalah dalam penelitian ini adalah 1) bagaimana penetapan pasar bersangkutan oleh KPPU dalam Putusan Nomor 17/KPPU-I/2010 dan Putusan Nomor 08/KPPU-I/2014 dihubungkan dengan Peraturan KPPU Nomor 3 Tahun 2009; dan 2) bagaimana penggunaan bukti tidak langsung oleh KPPU dalam Putusan Nomor 17/KPPU-I/2010 dan Putusan Nomor 08/KPPU-I/2014 dihubungkan dengan Undang-Undang Nomor 5 Tahun 1999. Jenis penelitian yang digunakan adalah penelitian hukum normatif dengan menggunakan pendekatan undang-undang, pendekatan kasus, dan pendekatan konseptual. Dari hasil penelitian yang dilakukan diperoleh kesimpulan bahwa KPPU tidak konsisten dalam menetapkan pasar bersangkutan dalam Putusan Nomor 17/KPPU-I/2010 dan Putusan Nomor 08/KPPU-I/2014. Di samping itu dalam membuktikan dan memutuskan terjadinya pelanggaran Undang-Undang Nomor 5 Tahun 1999, KPPU hanya menggunakan bukti tidak langsung. Dalam Putusan Nomor 294 K/PDT.SUS/2012, majelis hakim kasasi menolak penggunaan bukti tidak langsung. Sedangkan dalam Putusan Nomor 221 K/PDT.SUS-KPPU/2016, majelis hakim menerima penggunaan bukti tidak langsung. Namun demikian dalam pertimbangan hukumnya majelis hakim tidak dimuat dasar hukum tentang diterimanya bukti tidak langsung sebagai alat bukti dalam Undang-Undang Nomor 5 Tahun 1999. Di samping itu tidak pula dimuat pertimbangan hukum tentang prinsip pembuktian yang mensyaratkan sekurang-kurangnya dua alat bukti yang sah dalam memutus pelanggaran atas Undang-Undang Nomor 5 Tahun 1999.Kata kunci: kartel, pasar bersangkutan, bukti tidak langsung.ABSTRACTIn order to prove the violation of Article 5 (price cartel), Article 9 (allocation of territory cartel), and Article 11 (production cartel) of Law Number 5 of 1999, each article requires the fulfillment of agreement element. However since the cartels between the businesses actors are conducted in silent, therefore the Business Competition Supervisory Commission (KPPU) needs an indirect evidence to prove the existence of cartel agreement between them. The concerns of this analysis are 1) how the KPPU determines the relevant market based on the KPPU’s Decision Number 17/KPPU-I/2010 and Decision Number 08/KPPU-I/2014 in relation to KPPU Regulation Number 3 of 2009, and 2) how the evidentiary process using indirect evidence by the KPPU based on Decision Number 17/KPPU-I/2010 and Decision Number 08/KPPU-I/2014 in relation to Law Number 5 of 1999. The research method of this analysis is normative legal research by using legal approach, case study approach and conceptual approach. The end result shows that KPPU is inconsistent to determine the relevant market on the Decision Number 17/KPPU-I/2010 and the Decision Number 08/KPPU-I/2014. In addition, KPPU only uses indirect evidence to prove the violation of Law Number 5 of 1999. The Supreme Court through the Court Decision Number 294 K/PDT.SUS/2012 rejects the using of indirect evidence while through the Court Decision Number 221K/PDT.SUS-KPPU/2016 the Supreme Court accepts the indirect evidence. However, in the legal considerations the judges do not contain the legal basis on the receipt of indirect evidence as evidence in Law Number 5 of 1999. Besides, the consideration of the Supreme Court does not contain the principle of evidentiary process which requires at least two valid evidences to prove the violation of Law Number 5 of 1999.Keywords: cartel, relevant market, indirect evidence.
Co-Authors Abdul Latif Agustini, Shenti Ahmad, Faradina Banke, Ricky Beatrix Tanjung Carissa Christybella Wijaya Claudia Claudia Daryono, Julius Wahyu Dian Parluhutan Elsa Elsa Fitriah, Siti Nimah ginting, sryani Hartono Agus Salim Henry Soelistyo Budi, Henry Soelistyo Isabella Cynthia Edgina Jonker Sihombing Kurniawan, Alvin Leonardo Leonardo Lu Sudirman M. Hadi Shubhan Micheline Hendrito Monica Patricia Aripratama Priskilla Chrysentia Putri, Sheila Aliya Rigan Gymnastiar Setiadi, Edwin Siahaan, Albert Sibuea, Hengki M. Sihombing, Andy Tonggo M. Sinaga, Japansen Sitorus, Rolib Tobing, Christina NM. Tranggono, Emiral Rangga