Analysis of the monopoly practice

Oct 13, 2025 by leolavanderia.com.br 4 views

Introduction

Business competition is an inevitable phenomenon in human life. In Indonesia, to maintain justice and prevent adverse practices, Law No. 5 of 1999 concerning Prohibition of Monopoly Practices and Unfair Business Competition emphasizes the importance of maintaining the public interest and improving the efficiency of the national economy for the welfare of the people. However, even though this law already exists, monopoly practices still often occur. One of them is a monopoly practice carried out by PT Angkasa Pura II at Kualanamu Airport in the shipping and cargo and post collection sectors.

PT Angkasa Pura II is responsible for the provision of airport services, including cargo terminals and warehousing facilities. However, the operation of these facilities actually adds to shipping and taking cargo and posting costs. The DKT (Flying Cargo Document) policy and the existence of a regulated agent also contributed to significant tariff increases. This resulted in reports from the public which stated that the practice of monopoly by PT Angkasa Pura II was detrimental to them.

Methodology

In this study, descriptive normative legal methods are used to examine this problem. Collection of legal data is carried out through literature studies, involving primary, secondary and tertiary legal sources which are then analyzed with a qualitative approach. This approach is chosen because it allows for a detailed examination of the legal framework and its application in the context of PT Angkasa Pura II's monopoly practice.

Analysis of the monopoly practice

PT Angkasa Pura II has violated Article 17 of Law No. 5 of 1999, which gives the authority to master cargo management services, seen from the absence of opportunities for other parties to participate in this business. It also indicates that there are no substitution services that can compete and PT Angkasa Pura II controls more than 50% of the market share in cargo services at Kualanamu Airport.

The monopoly practice carried out by PT Angkasa Pura II has resulted in significant negative impacts on the community as consumers. The increase in shipping and taking care of cargo and post due to monopoly not only harms small entrepreneurs but also affects the price of goods that reach consumers. This injustice creates an unhealthy business climate and hinders the growth of other economic sectors.

Impact and implications of monopoly practices

The existence of PT Angkasa Pura II which dominates the cargo market should be a concern of all parties, including the government, to create a more competitive environment. A more stringent regulation and more effective supervision of KPPU and related agencies are needed to ensure that there are no more monopoly practices in Indonesia. This is important to protect consumer rights and create the same opportunity for other business actors.

In the future, it is hoped that a decisive KPPU decision can be a reference for other companies not to fall into the practice of monopoly. The implementation of the antimonopoly law must be a priority in order to create healthy competition, which in turn contributes to sustainable economic growth and community welfare.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the monopoly practice carried out by PT Angkasa Pura II at Kualanamu Airport is a clear violation of the law and has significant negative impacts on the community as consumers. It is essential for the government and relevant agencies to take decisive action to prevent such practices and create a more competitive environment. The implementation of the antimonopoly law must be a priority to ensure that consumer rights are protected and that all business actors have equal opportunities to participate in the market.

Recommendations

Based on the findings of this study, the following recommendations are made:

The government and relevant agencies must take decisive action to prevent monopoly practices and create a more competitive environment.
A more stringent regulation and more effective supervision of KPPU and related agencies are needed to ensure that there are no more monopoly practices in Indonesia.
The implementation of the antimonopoly law must be a priority to ensure that consumer rights are protected and that all business actors have equal opportunities to participate in the market.
A decisive KPPU decision can be a reference for other companies not to fall into the practice of monopoly.

Limitations of the study

This study has several limitations that must be acknowledged. Firstly, the study only focuses on the monopoly practice carried out by PT Angkasa Pura II at Kualanamu Airport and does not examine other monopoly practices in Indonesia. Secondly, the study relies on secondary data and does not conduct primary data collection. Finally, the study only examines the legal framework and its application in the context of PT Angkasa Pura II's monopoly practice and does not examine the economic and social impacts of the practice.

Future research directions

Future research can build on the findings of this study and examine other monopoly practices in Indonesia. Additionally, future research can conduct primary data collection to gather more detailed information on the economic and social impacts of monopoly practices. Finally, future research can examine the effectiveness of the antimonopoly law and its implementation in Indonesia.

Conclusion

In conclusion, this study provides a juridical review of the monopoly practice carried out by PT Angkasa Pura II at Kualanamu Airport. The study finds that the practice is a clear violation of the law and has significant negative impacts on the community as consumers. The study recommends that the government and relevant agencies take decisive action to prevent such practices and create a more competitive environment. The implementation of the antimonopoly law must be a priority to ensure that consumer rights are protected and that all business actors have equal opportunities to participate in the market.

Q: What is the main issue with PT Angkasa Pura II's monopoly practice?

A: The main issue is that PT Angkasa Pura II has violated Article 17 of Law No. 5 of 1999, which gives the authority to master cargo management services, seen from the absence of opportunities for other parties to participate in this business.

Q: What are the negative impacts of PT Angkasa Pura II's monopoly practice?

A: The negative impacts include significant increases in shipping and taking care of cargo and post costs, which harms small entrepreneurs and affects the price of goods that reach consumers, creating an unhealthy business climate and hindering the growth of other economic sectors.

Q: What is the role of the Business Competition Supervisory Commission (KPPU) in this case?

A: The KPPU has inspected the case and decided that PT Angkasa Pura II has legally violated Article 17 of Law No. 5 of 1999 and fined Rp6,538,612,000.00 (six billion five hundred thirty-eight million six hundred twelve thousand rupiah).

Q: What are the next steps if PT Angkasa Pura II does not implement the KPPU decision?

A: If PT Angkasa Pura II does not implement the KPPU decision, the case will be submitted to general investigators. Business actors can also submit an objection to the decision in the District Court, and the next step is to submit an appeal to the Supreme Court.

Q: What is the significance of this case in the context of Indonesia's antimonopoly law?

A: This case highlights the importance of implementing the antimonopoly law to create a more competitive environment and protect consumer rights. It also emphasizes the need for more stringent regulations and effective supervision of KPPU and related agencies.

Q: What are the implications of this case for other business actors in Indonesia?

A: This case serves as a warning to other business actors in Indonesia to avoid engaging in monopoly practices. It also emphasizes the importance of creating a more competitive environment and protecting consumer rights.

Q: What are the future directions for research on this topic?

A: Future research can build on the findings of this study and examine other monopoly practices in Indonesia. Additionally, future research can conduct primary data collection to gather more detailed information on the economic and social impacts of monopoly practices.

Q: What are the recommendations for the government and relevant agencies in this case?

A: The government and relevant agencies must take decisive action to prevent monopoly practices and create a more competitive environment. A more stringent regulation and more effective supervision of KPPU and related agencies are needed to ensure that there are no more monopoly practices in Indonesia.

Q: What is the significance of this study in the context of juridical review of monopoly practices?

A: This study provides a comprehensive juridical review of the monopoly practice carried out by PT Angkasa Pura II at Kualanamu Airport. It highlights the importance of implementing the antimonopoly law and creating a more competitive environment to protect consumer rights and promote sustainable economic growth.

Q: What are the limitations of this study?

A: This study has several limitations, including the focus on a single case, reliance on secondary data, and examination of the legal framework only. Future research can build on these limitations and provide a more comprehensive understanding of monopoly practices in Indonesia.

Q: What are the implications of this study for policymakers and regulators?

A: This study emphasizes the importance of implementing the antimonopoly law and creating a more competitive environment to protect consumer rights and promote sustainable economic growth. Policymakers and regulators must take decisive action to prevent monopoly practices and ensure that consumer rights are protected.