Legal Analysis of the Supreme Court's Considerations Regarding Tender Rigging and its Implications for Legal Certainty in Business Competition (Study of Decision Number 43 PK/PDT.SUS-KPPU/2025)

Abstract

This study examines the Supreme Court’s legal considerations in annulling the decision of the Indonesian Business Competition Supervisory Commission (KPPU) in a tender rigging case through Decision Number 43 PK/Pdt.Sus-KPPU/2025. The research is motivated by the growing inconsistency in the application of evidentiary standards in Indonesian competition law, particularly regarding the use of indirect evidence in proving tender collusion. The study aims to analyze the consistency of judicial reasoning applied by the Supreme Court and its implications for legal certainty and the effectiveness of competition law enforcement in Indonesia. This research employed a normative juridical method using statutory, conceptual, and case approaches. Legal materials were collected through literature review and analyzed qualitatively using descriptive-analytical techniques. The findings reveal that the Supreme Court tends to apply a formalistic evidentiary approach emphasizing direct evidence, whereas the KPPU adopts a broader evidentiary framework based on behavioral and economic analysis through indirect evidence. This divergence has resulted in inconsistencies between administrative and judicial institutions, creating uncertainty in the enforcement of competition law. The study further demonstrates that inconsistent judicial reasoning weakens the deterrent effect of competition law enforcement and reduces predictability for business actors. The novelty of this study lies in its specific examination of judicial consistency in tender rigging cases and its contribution to the discourse on harmonizing evidentiary standards in Indonesian competition law. The study concludes that clearer evidentiary guidelines and institutional synchronization between the KPPU and the judiciary are essential to strengthen legal certainty and ensure more effective enforcement of anti-collusion regulations.