The suspension for one day of the Business Competition Supervisory Commission’s (KPPU) activities last week indicates how poorly the state commission is managed.
By
·3 minutes read
Kompas/Priyombodo
A view of a hearing held by the Business Competition Supervisory Commission in Jakarta few days ago to hear the testimony of witness Ircham Habib, head of supervision and service at the Customs and Excise Office, at Tanjung Perak Port in Surabaya, East Java.
The suspension for one day of the Business Competition Supervisory Commission’s (KPPU) activities last week indicates how poorly the state commission is managed.
The KPPU suspended its activities on Wednesday, Feb. 28, because the term for the current KPPU commissioners had ended, while the new KPPU commissioners had yet to be selected by the House of Representatives.
House Commission VI, which is tasked with conducting the fit and proper on the proposed candidates for commissioner, refused to do the job, so President Joko “Jokowi” Widodo extended the current KPPU commissioners’ term from Feb. 27 to Apr. 27. This is the second extension. President Jokowi had already extended the commissioners’ term from Dec. 27, 2017 to Feb. 27, 2018.
Looking into the matter further, the President had submitted 18 candidates for the KPPU commissioners on Nov. 22, 2017. The KPPU Selection Committee, consisting of Hendry Saparini, Rhenald Kasali, Ine Minara S Ruky, Paripurna P Sugarda, Alexander Lay and Cecep Sutiawan, had selected the 18 candidates. As stipulated in Law No. 5/1999 on Prohibition of Monopolistic Practices and Unfair Competition, the KPPU is an independent institution and independent from any organization. The KPPU reports directly to the President.
The KPPU members are appointed and dismissed by the President upon the approval of the House. If, by the end of a term, no replacement has been appointed and would result in a membership vacancy, the term of the current commissioners may be extended until new members are appointed. A term can be extended by a maximum of one year.
House Commission VI’s refusal to conduct a fit and proper test for the candidates indeed raises a big question. As Kompas reported, Commission VI member Aria Bima said the House commission had once discussed the selection committee’s candidates. However, some members of Commission VI had questioned the independence of the selection committee. Commission VI then returned the proposed candidate to the House leadership without making any decision. (Kompas, Feb. 12, 2018)
President Jokowi’s administration has done its job by proposing 18 candidates to the House of Representatives for approval on Nov. 22, 2017. Law No. 5/1999 does not provide further elaboration on what steps to take if the House does no carry out a fit and proper test.
The Commission VI members’ questioning the selection committee’s independence could simply be an excuse. According to Law No. 5/1999, the House of Representatives is just given the power to approve the candidates as submitted by the government, not to question the independence of the selection committee.
What the House can dispute are the candidates the government has proposed. If a candidate does not meet the House’s requirements, it should not select him or her.
The House cannot impose their selection of a certain candidate. By refusing to conduct a fit and proper test, the public can surmise that the House has a certain candidate in mind that is not on the list, so they disrupted the fit and proper test. As the legislative body, the House must obey the law, not act as it pleases!
