EFFECTIVENESS OF LAW ENFORCEMENT CASE BY THE CARTEL COMMISSION HONDA AND YAMAHA BASED ON JUSTICE PANCASILA

This research aims to reconstruct the effectiveness of law enforcement by the Commission in a cartel case Honda and Yamaha justice based on Pancasila. The first reaserch discuss about the effectiveness of the Business Competition Supervisory Commission (KPPU) in law enforcement justice cartel cases Pancasila. Both reconstruct the article in Law No. 5 of 1999 concerning Prohibition of Monopolistic Practices and Unfair Competition for law enforcement effectiveness. This research is a doctrinal approach of legislation and research . Study shows the first enforcement by the Commission is not operating effectively. The imposition of administrative sanctions from the Commission do not have permanent legal force, where they opened a space for parties reported to object to the level of the Supreme Court (MA). The process to obtain permanent legal force very long whereas 73% of MA won the Commission's decision. Both to achieve effective enforcement, it is necessary to expand the authority of the Commission, which sanctions the administration carried out by the Commission are final or not opened space object. Agae ensure the Commission's decision is fair, then there needs to be a power-sharing within the Commission to establish the field of internal controls.


INTRODUCTION A. Background
Indonesia is currently the automotive world increasingly characterized by rapidly increasing transportation needs, especially motorcycles are almost evenly distributed throughout Indonesia. Along with the growth of the automotive companies are competing to gain market share resulting inevitability of competition among them. Therefore a business competition law enforcement that purpose can be found in Article 3 of the Law Antitrust and Unfair Competition of Monopolistic Practices and Unfair Competition. An example of a monopoly cartel salt that occurred in North Sumatra that there are seven (7) business operators, PT Garam, PT Budiono, and PT Garindo which acts as a supplier of major salt called and belonging to the group G3 and PT Graha Mutual, PT Sumatera Palm, Anchor Waja UD and UD Source ocean called called and incorporated in the G-4 acts as a distribution of salt in North Sumatra. Of practices conducted by seven (7) business actor violates some article in Law No. 5 of 1999 on Prohibition of Monopolistic Practices and Unfair Competition, namely Article 4 (prohibition oligopoly), Article 5, Article 6 (prohibition pricing), and Article 11 (prohibition of cartels). Such practices can not be justified because it was not appropriate and objective of this legislation is to safeguard public interest and improve the efficiency of the national economy, to create a conducive business climate, to prevent monopolistic practices and or unfair competition posed by businesses, creation of effectiveness and efficiency in business activities 6 , To supervise the implementation of this Act established the Business Competition Supervisory Commission (KPPU), which is an independent agency free from the influence and control of the Government and other parties and is directly responsible to the President.
Previous studies of 7 Zihaningrum in the case tender conspiracy explained that the Commission has limited authority in the application of sanctions. Sanctions imposed only to businesses, whereas the third party involved should also dropped sanksi. Rekomendation of study in order to expand the authority of the Commission to reach a third party does not attempt healthy. Inside of competition in dispute study comparing the Commission with similar institutions in the United States the Federal Trade Commission (FTC ). Explained that it is necessary to expand the law enforcement authority of the Commission in the case of unfair competition by providing authority to the Commission to conduct an investigation and enforcement wiretaps in law 8 Simbolon in the study of the legal status of the Commission found inter alia that the first district court judge in capacity is still much less understanding of the substance of competition. Commission assigned the positive assessment since has provided input to the government related to the alignment of competition policy 9 . Previous studies linked to the Commission's limited authority in law enforcement cases healthy. While business competition novelty in this research is the researcher recommends the expansion of the authority of the Commission in deciding cases unfair competition until the end of the level. Basic considerations of the expansion of the Commission because the Commission's authority have adequate capacity while the District Court's limited capacity to understand the problems of competition.
In some cases the Commission has requested feedback by the Government related to the problems they face, especially those that have indicated the presence of unfair competition in the sector is now the Commission. To get a good place in the enforcement of competition law which the 73% strengthening of the Commission by the Supreme Court case .This is proof that the Commission could be trusted in the enforcement of competition law 10 , The Commission as the regulatory agencies have contributed a great competition both from the legal and economic aspects of Indonesia.
The purpose of this study is an extension of authority based on Law No. 48 of 2009 on Judicial Power, Article 2 (4) describes the principle is simple, fast and low cost is a principle of justice that most fundamental of the implementation of services and the administration of justice that leads the principle and the principle of effective and efficient 11 , So with the expansion of the authority of the Commission's principles of justice in the form of simple, quick and low cost can be achieved. This study elaborates on the authority of the Commission, in particular will highlight the "Effectiveness of Law  prescriptive analysis is to analyze the legal norms, values and concepts by using the approach of legislation (statute approach) and the approach of the case (case approach). Using secondary data source that comes from the law of primary, secondary and tertiary literature. Analysis collected through studies conducted by legal interpretation.

II. DISCUSSION A. Unfair Competition Practices In The Motorcycle Industry Type Scoter Matic 110-125 Cc
Cartel cases done by. Astra Honda Motor (Reported 1) and PT. Yamaha Indonesia Motor (Reported 2) .Terlapor 1 and Party 2 is a manufacturer of twowheeled motor vehicle which conducts its business activities in Indonesia and joined as a member Asosisi Indonesian Motorcycle Industries (AISI) reported .Terlapor 1 and 2 do not deal in a joint venture or a treaty-based laws and regulations. Testament begins with a meeting between the President Director of PT. Astra Honda Motor (Reported 1), and President Director of PT. Yamaha Indonesia Motor Manufacturing (Reported 2) where the meeting be discussed and it was agreed that the reported 1 will follow the selling price of motor scooter matic 110-125 CC 2 is reported.
Through the investigation, the Commission decided that the Party 1 and Party 2 has violated the Act -Act No. 5 of 1999 on Prohibition of Monopoly and Unhealthy Competition, in particular Article 5 (1) that businesses are prohibited from making agreements with business competitors to set prices above goods and or services to be paid by the consumer or customer in the same relevant market.
Cartel agreement carried out by the reported 1 and 2 have been reported hurt consumers, because consumers do not have alternative purchase automatic scooter type motorcycle 110-125 CC. Reported 1 and 2 control 80% market share for this type of vehicle. Indonesian Decree KPPU number 4-KPPU-1-2016 states reported 1 and 2 problem. Each parties involved in cartel cases received fines that depend on large size his role as the parties in the case of Raw Tobacco cartel in Spain 12 , In cartel cases this 110-125cc automatic motor scooter, Party 1 is obliged to pay a fine of up to 25 billion and reported 2 shall pay a fine of some 22.5 billion.  1 and 2). The judicial process spent three years to get a decision that is legally binding.

B. Competition In view Postner And Justice Pancasila
Interest establishment of Law No. 5 of 1999 on Business of competition as stated in Article 3 that safeguard public interest and protect consumers, fostering a healthy climate effort, guaranteeing the same attempted opportunity for everyone, preventing practice cult of monopoly and business competition healthy incurred by businesses, creating efetifitas and efficiency in business activities in order to improve people's welfare.
Interest establishment competition law, in line with the thinking of Richard Postner that put forward in his Economy Analysis of Law.Gagasan Posner on the principle of efficiency is influenced by the utilitarian theory of Jeremy Bentham prioritizing usability principle or expediency.
One important principle is the principle of economic efficiency, as well as being one of the objectives of the Competition Act effort. According to Posner involvement of law must be seen in terms of value (value), usefulness (utility), and efficiency (efficiency). Posner defines eficiensi "... the allocation of resources in wich value is maximized" 13 Posner defines efficiency as "conditions where resources are allocated so that its value (value) is maximized". In the economic analysis, the efficiency in this case focused on ethical criteria in the context of social decisions (social decision making) concerning public welfare arrangements. Posner efficiency in the glass eye associated with increasing one's wealth without causing any damages to the other party.
The emphasis of the theory Postner is efficiency must be placed in ethical criteria in decisions concerning the welfare Public. In this context, Posner consider one aspect of justice that includes not just distributive justice and corrective. Posner pressing the "Pareto improvement" in which the purpose of the rule of law can provide valuable input for justice and social welfare 14 , Legal arrangements for the attainment of justice raised by Posner, in line with the idea that Gustav Radbruch returned values of justice as the crown of every ordinance law. Hi looked Sein and sollen, material and form as two sides of one coin, the material filling the form, and shape protect the contents, this 13

Effectiveness Of Law Enforcement Case By The Cartel Commission Honda And Yamaha Based On Justice Pancasila Otih H, Juliana S. N, Achmad Jumeri P, Douglas N
phrase depicts Radbruch theory of law and justice. The value of justice is "material" that should be the content of the rule of law, while the rule of law is a "form" which should protect the values of justice 15 .
John Rawls 16 states that the principle of social justice is a floor for the distribution of the prospects for getting goods principal. Needs covers basic fundamental rights, freedom, power, authority, opportunity, income and welfare. Principles of justice have to do two things first principle of justice must give a fair assessment about the absence of concrete institutions and institutional practices. Both principles of fairness should guide us in develop policies and laws to correct the injustice in the basic structure of a particular society.
Speaking of justice in Indonesia can not be separated from Pancasila. Pancasila as a way of life is a value system covers all values are arranged systematically -hierarchical, starting from the value of the Godhead to Social Justice.
Soerjanto Puspowardoyo 17 declare Pancasila as the national ideology can provide basic provisions on the formation of the legal system in Indonesia, namely: a) The legal system was developed based on the values of Pancasila as the source. Orientation Pancasila who crave human life fair atmosphere and sejahaterah. b) The legal system shows its significance as far as justice. c) The legal system has the function to maintain the dynamics of the life of the nation. d) The legal system guarantees a process of self realization for the citizens of the nation in the development process.
Describe cartel cases of denial of justice by the perpetrator kartel. Principle profit as much as possible as the concept of efficiency is not laid out in terms of ethics in order to address the sense of justice of the largest groups in terms of consumers and the country as a party to harmed. Kartel an injury against any form of value -the value Pancasila. As justice in a sovereign state and is based on Pancasila, Indonesia via its laws guarantee freedom to every individual or legal entity in economic activity for profit. However the profit obtained should not cause harm to the other party in this context consumer. Economy is based on Pancasila aimed at creating economic growth for the achievement of a prosperous society, just and prosperous. mobilization of law 4) the existence of the dispute settlement mechanism that not only must be easily accessible and accessible by every citizen 21 .
The judiciary as an institution created by the legal system to function as a fair means of dispute resolution through the judicial process that is simple, fast and inexpensive 22 , Act No. 48 of 2009 on Judicial Power, Article 2 (4) describes the principle is simple, fast and low cost is the most fundamental principle of justice that the implementation of services and the administration of justice that led to the principle and the principle of effective and efficient 23 , Simple interpreted as a process that is straightforward, uncomplicated, clear, straightforward, non-interpretable, easy. understand, easy to do, easy to implement, systematic, concrete both in seeking justice standpoint, as well as in law enforcement standpoint. Fast, should be interpreted as a strategic effort to make the justice system as an institution that can ensure the accomplishment / achievement of justice in law enforcement quickly by seeking justice, juridical considerations, accuracy, precision, and considerations that guarantee sosilogis sense of justice was also considered. This principle includes the fast in the process, rapid results, and fast in the evaluation of the performance and productivity of the judicial institution 24 , "Justice delayed is justice denied", as an expression of British politician William Gladstone to illustrate the importance of the principle of speedy trial. The process of the settlement of protracted means tantamount to a disregard for the justice system itself phrase "Justice delayed is justice denied" has been a rallying cry for reform of the law born of context than the courts or the government in resolving legal issues.
Referring to the principles of justice cepan simple and low cost, we can conclude that the judicial process for cases Cartel Honda and Yamaha have not been in line with these principles. The judicial process becomes ineffective, spent a very long time ie for 3 years. While the decision handed down by the Supreme Court upheld the ruling of the Commission. Other data showed that 75% of cases of competition, in a ruling by the Supreme Court was won by the Commission. This condition indicates that the Commission as an institution has adequate capacity so as to carry out their duties properly in the resolution of the case competition. Becomes ineffective when it opened space to appeal to the Supreme Court for the imposition of administrative sanction by the Commission, while the Supreme Court decided together with the Commission. 25

Effectiveness Of Law Enforcement Case By The Cartel Commission Honda And Yamaha Based On Justice Pancasila Otih H, Juliana S. N, Achmad Jumeri P, Douglas N
stated that it is important to amend the Law No. 5 of 1999 to strengthen the Commission's institution. The proposed amendments include the institutional strengthening and expansion of the authority of the Commission to simplify the process to obtain the Commission's case. The results of this study to formulate reconstruction article as follows:

Effectiveness of Law Enforcement by the Commission On Cartel Case Honda and Yamaha Pancasila Values-Based Justice
No .

Before Reconstructed
Weakness After Reconstructed In paragraph (2) -(5) be deleted. if the provisions referred to in paragraph (1) and (2)

Reconstruction of Value Law
a) In Article 44 Paragraph (2) to (5) of Law Number 5 of 1999 removed with consideration: according to the theory of the effectiveness of this article makes the proceedings became long, this has actually not in line with the principle of organizing the judicial power: the judiciary that is simple, fast and low cost. This principle is expressly mentioned in Article 2 (4) of Law No. 48 Year 2009 on Judicial Power. Simple means of examination and settlement is done in a way that is effective and efficient. Fast principle, the principle of universal, related to the completion time is not protracted. Quick principle is known adage delay justice, justice denied, meaning the slow judicial process would not give justice to the parties. The principle implies lighter cost of court fees can reach the community. b) The addition of article about the Commission's division of authority. In Indonesia, the Commission should blaze authority in competition law enforcement process to ensure a fair verdict. For that we need an additional division within the Commission established separate and have a much higher position than the law enforcement division.

III. CONCLUSION
The first mechanism for resolution of the problems in the Law of the Republic of Indonesia Number 5 Year 1999 concerning Prohibition of Monopolistic Practices and Competition is not healthy, especially in Article 44 paragraph (4) and (5) can be interpreted that if businesses do not execute the decision of the Commission then the Commission the verdict handed to investigators to do an investigation and eventually will follow the dispute resolution process such as litigation in general, which would be time consuming and lengthy process. It is very contradiction with the ideal destination establishment Law of the Republic of Indonesia Number 5 of 1999 concerning Prohibition of Monopolistic Practices and Unfair Competition which simplifies the process and shorten the time of settlement of disputes.
To achieve the ideal goal, should some of the provisions in the Law of the Republic of Indonesia Number 5 of 1999 concerning Prohibition of Monopolistic Practices and Unfair Competition the first to be eliminated in part, plus most notably chapter adds KPPU. Subtraction Article authority duly carried out mainly against Article 44 paragraph (4) and (5) which resulted in the Commission's decision into a legal product that is final and binding on the businesses. Both the addition of sub-structure of supervision of the implementation tasks of the Commission as a function of avoiding abuse of authority of the Commission.