JAKARTA – The Business Competition Supervisory Commission (KPPU), today held a third follow-up hearing against Grab Indonesia or PT Solusi Transportation Indonesia together with PT Indonesian Transportation Technology (TPI) in the courtroom of the KPPU Building Jakarta.

In the trial, the panel of judges was led by Hari Agus Susanto accompanied by members, namely Guntur Saragih and Afif Hasbullah. Whereas Grab’s attorney is represented by lawyer Hotman Paris.

Chairperson Hari Hari Agus Susanto began a follow-up hearing on the alleged monopoly of online taxi orders allegedly conducted by Grab and PT TPI. And invite the attorney to submit a defense.

Grab

“I invite the attorneys of the two companies to submit their defense,” Hari said, Tuesday (10/08/2019).

Meanwhile, Grab’s attorney and TPI, Hotman Paris said that the essence of this report or session was not worthy of continuing. Because this case only questioned matters that were narrow in scope and only had a civil attitude.

“As if it did not elaborate on the elements described in Article 14. And those reported using one application using other services are wrong,” said Hotman.

Then, he continued, this issue did not harm the public and harm the general agreement. And does not describe competition.

Hotman Paris

“Therefore, who is disadvantaged, there is no one. It does not elaborate at all,” explained Hotman.

From this issue, Hotman Paris asked the Chairperson of the KPPU Assembly to replace Guntur Saragih as a Member of the Commission Council in a trial of alleged violations involving PT Indonesian Transportation Solutions (Grab Indonesia) and PT Indonesian Transportation Technology (TPI).

“We ask the KPPU Chairperson to replace Guntur Saragih. Because he (Guntur), yesterday told the media that the appointment of Hotman Paris as a legal representative by the management of Grab and TPI indirectly strengthened the accusation which was pinned to the two companies as the article alleged, “he said in the KPPU Building Jakarta, Tuesday (10/08/2019).

Then he continued, it was a violation of the code of ethics. The reason is considered to have given an oral verdict.

“So, in our opinion, it’s a very serious violation of the code of ethics
because we feel uncomfortable and it has already come out of the initial oral opinion or verdict from members of the assembly to the public, “he said.

He explained one example of the ideal justice system, such as the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK). Where the interfaith institution, investigators and judges have their respective functions.

“We see the KPK as an investigator and as a prosecutor, those who judge are outsiders right in court (Corruption). KPPU is different, they are investigators, they are the prosecutors, and those who judge, “he explained.

Therefore, he said, asking the House of Representatives (DPR) to revise the Business Competition Law, especially related to the system of the institution’s organization.

“All of us want justice. Then there must be serious attention from the Parliament to change the law, “he said.

As is known, Grab was dragged to court along with PT Telekomunikasi Indonesia (TPI), for allegedly monopolizing online taxi orders. Grab and PT TPI are suspected of violating business competition by prioritizing driver partners who are members of PT TPI to get passengers, than other partners.

From the KPPU’s official website, at the case trial number 13 / KPPU-I / 2019, Grab and TPI were suspected of violating Article 14, Article 15 Paragraph 2 and Article 19 letter d of Law Number 5 of 1999.

Article 14 of the regulation states that business actors are prohibited from making agreements with other business actors aimed at mastering the production of a number of products included in a series of production of certain goods and or services in which each series of production is the result of processing or further processing, both in one direct series or indirectly, which may result in unfair business competition and or be detrimental to the community.

Grab

Article 15 Paragraph 2, business actors are prohibited from making agreements with other parties that contain requirements that the party receiving certain goods and or services must be willing to buy goods and or other services from the supplier business actor.