• Siti Anisah Fakultas Hukum Universitas Islam Indonesia



Essential Facilities, Market Control, State-Owned Enterprises


State-Owned Enterprises (SOE) business activities often control an essential facility, raising market control. In cases of market control, this study identifies that the Indonesian Competition Commission has different considerations and decisions in two cases with the same object. In one case, the Commission Assembly did not justify monopolistic market control by SOE based on the essential facilities doctrine (EFD). However, it justified monopolistic market control by SOE in another case based on Article 33 of the 1945 Constitution of Indonesia, which is categorized as a monopoly by law. In this case, the aspect of market control by SOEs is rarely analyzed based on the business competition doctrine regarding essential facilities. Therefore, this study focuses on how market control by SOEs under the EFD. With the normative method, this study found that every enterprise with control over an essential facility, including SOE, must provide access to competitors on reasonable terms based on the EFD. So, this article defends the argument that the Commission Assembly should consider EFD in every case of market control by SOE, which controls essential facilities.


Download data is not yet available.



Areeda PE dan Turner DF, Antitrust Law: An Analysis of Antitrust Principles and Their Application (Littler Brown & Co. 1978).

Asch P, Industrial Organization and Antitrust Policy (ed. Rev, John Wiley and Sons 1983).

Fahmi A, dkk, Hukum Persaingan Usahaa antara Teks dan Konteks (Creative Media 2009).

Hansen K, dkk, Undang-Undang Larangan Monopoli dan Persaingan Usaha Tidak Sehat (Katalis 2001).

Jones A dan Sufrin B, EU Competition Law: Text, Cases, and Materials (Oxford University Press 2014).

Kintner EW, Federal Antitrust Law (Anderson Publishing Co. 1980).

Motta M, Competition Policy: Theory and Practice (Cambridge University Press, 2004).

Scherer FM, Industrial Market Structure and Economic Performance (ed. 2, Rand McNally College Pub. Co. 1980).

Schmalensee R, Standards for Dominant Firm Conduct: What can Economics Contribute? (ed. Rev, Basil Blacwell 1985).

Sirait NN, Fahmi A, dan Wulandari HW (ed), Hukum Persaingan Usaha. Buku Teks (ed. 2, Komisi Pengawas Persaingan Usaha 2017).

Sullivan ET dan Hovenkamp H, Antitrust Law, Policy and Procedure: Cases, Materials, and Problems (ed. 1, Michie Publishing Co. 1984).


Carlton DW, ‘A General Analysis of Exclusionary Conduct and Refusal to Deal: Why Aspen and Kodak are Misguided’ (2001) 68 (3) NBER Working Paper Series.

Chang FB, ‘Financial Market Bottlenecks and the “Openness” Mandate’ (2015) 23 (1) George Mason Law Review.

Day G, ‘The Necessity in Antitrust Law’ (2021) 78 (4) Washington and Lee Law Review.

Graef I, ‘Rethinking the Essential Facilities Doctrine for the EU Digital Economy’ (2019) 53 (1) Revue juridique Thémis de l'Université de Montréal.

Gundlach GT dan Bloom PN, ‘The ‘Essential Facility’ Doctrine: Legal Limits and Antitrust Considerations’ (1993) 12 (2) Journal of Public Policy & Marketing.

Hay GA, ‘Horizontal Agreements: Concept and Proof’ (2006) 51 (4) Antitrust Bulletin.

_______, ‘Market Power in Antitrust’ (1992) 60 (3) Antitrust Law Journal.

Hou L, ‘Excessive Price within EU Competition Law’ (2011) 7 (1) European Competition Journal.

Jain N, ‘Defining Dominance: Ana Analysis of the Competition Act, 2002’ (2014) 8 Nuals Law Journal.

Lang JT, ‘Defining Legitimate Competition: Companies' Duties to Supply Competitors and Access to Essential Facilities’ (1999) 18 (2) Fordham International Law Journal.

Lao M, ‘Search, Essential Facilities, and the Antitrust Duty to Deal’ (2013) 11 (5) Northwestern Journal of Technology and Intellectual Property.

Lipsky AB dan Sidak JG, ‘Essential Facilities’ (1999) 51 (5) Stanford Law Review.

Maurer SM, Scotchmer S, ‘The Essential Facilities Doctrine: the Lost Message of Terminal Railroad’ (2014) 5 California Law Review Circuit.

Opi SB, ‘The Application of the Essential Facilities Doctrine to Intellectual Property Licensing in the European Union and the United States: Are Intellectual Property Rights Still Sacrosanct?’ (2001) 11 (409), Fordham Intellectual Property, Media and Entertainment Law Journal.

Parluhutan D, ‘Analisis Hukum Kompetisi terhadap “Big Data” dan Doktrin “Essential Facility” dalam Transaksi Mergerdi Indonesia’ (2021) 1 (1) Jurnal Persaingan Usaha.

Pitofsky R, dkk, ‘The Essential Facilities Doctrine under United States Antitrust Law’ (2002) 70 Antitrust Law Journal.

Posner RA dan Landes WM, ‘Market Power in Antitrust Cases’ (1981) 94 (5) Harvard Law Review.

Pramoediyanto FL, ‘Essential Facilities Doctrine untuk Membatasi Hak Eksklusif Paten’ (2020) 5 (2) Jurnal Ilmiah Pendidikan Pancasila dan Kewarganegaraan.

Price RG, ‘Market Power and Monopoly in Antitrust Analysis’ (1989) 75 (1) Cornell Law Review.

Purcell JM ‘The “Essential Facilities” Doctrine in the Sunlight: Staking Patented Genetic Traits in Agriculture’ (2011) 85 (3) St. John’s Law Review.

Spulber DF & Yoo CS, ‘Mandating Access to Telecom and the Internet: the Hidden Side of Trinko’ (2007) 107 Columbia Law Review.

Wentz DE, ‘Monopoly Power in Completed and Attempted Monopolization Litigation: The Convergence of Law and Economics’ (1985) 90 (2) Dickinson Law Review.

Working Paper

Humped C & Cyril Ritter, ‘Refusal to Deal’ (2015) Global Competition Law Research Paper, Global Competition Law Center, College of Europe.

Goyal Y, Malik J, dan Sharma G, ‘Essential Facilities Doctrine’ (2013) Briefing Paper Centre for Competition, Investment & Economic Regulation.


F. Hilmer, M. Rayner dan G. Taperell, ‘The National Competition Policy: Report by the Independent Committee of Inquiry, Canberra’ (, 1993) <> diakses 25 Juni 2021.

Hukum Online, ‘Keberatan Pelindo II Dikabulkan, KPPU Berencana Kasasi’ (, 17 Februari 2014) <> diakses 10 Agustus 2021.

Massimiliano Vatiero, ‘Power in the Market: on the Dominant Position’ (, 2006) <> diakses 25 Juni 2021.

OECD, ‘Competition Assessment Toolkit Volume 2 Guidance’ (OECD 2019) 82. <, > diakses 25 Juni 2021.

OECD, ‘Refusals to Deal Policy Roundtabes, DAF/COMP/WD 100’ (OECD, 2007) 10 < > diakses 25 Juni 2021.

Sally Van Siclen, ‘The Essential Facilities Concept 1996, Policy Roundtables’ (OCDE, 1996) 7 <>diakses 25 Juni 2021.

Thomson Reuters, ‘Dominant Position’ (Glossary, < Data=(sc.Default)&firstPage=true> diakses 30 Juni 2021.

US Departement of Justice, ‘the 1984 Merger Guidelines’ (, 1984) <> diakses 25 Juni 2021.

Peraturan Perundang-Undangan

Undang-Undang Dasar Negara Republik Indonesia Tahun 1945.

Undang-Undang Nomor 5 Tahun 1999 tentang Larangan Praktek Monopoli dan Persaingan Usaha Tidak Sehat.

Undang-Undang Nomor 19 Tahun 2003 tentang Badan Usaha Milik Negara.

Peraturan Komisi Pengawas Persaingan Usaha Republik Indonesia Nomor 3 Tahun 2011 tentang Pedoman Pasal 19 huruf d.

Peraturan Komisi Pengawas Persaingan Usaha Republik Indonesia Nomor 03 Tahun 2009 tentang Pedoman Penerapan Pasal 1 angka 10 tentang Pasar Bersangkutan.

Peraturan Pemerintah Republik Indonesia Nomor 57 Tahun 1991 tentang Pengalihan Bentuk Perusahaan Umum (Perum) Pelabuhan II Menjadi Perusahaan Perseroan (Persero).

Keputusan Menteri Perhubungan Republik Indonesia Nomor KP 98 Tahun 2011.

Putusan Pengadilan

PT Pelabuhan Indonesia II (Persero) melawan Komisi Pengawas Persaingan Usaha, No 01/PDT.KPPU/2013/PN.JKT.UT., 13 Februari 2014.

Komisi Pengawas Persaingan Usaha melawan PT Pelabuhan Indonesia II (Persero), No.302K/Pdt.Sus-KPPU/2014.

PT Pelabuhan Indonesia II (Persero), No. 02/KPPU-I/2013, KPPU, 4 November 2013.

PT Pelabuhan Indonesia III (Persero), No.15/KPPU-L/2018, KPPU, 23 Agustus 2019.

Apartment Source of Philadelphia vs. Philadelphia Newspapers, Civ. Action No. 98-5472, WL 191649, 1999.

Aspen Highlands Skiing Corp vs. Aspen Skiing Co, 738 F.2d 1509, 10th Cir., 1984.

Aspen Skiing Co. vs. Aspen Highlands Skiing Corp., 472 U.S. 585, 596 n.20, 1985.

Ball Memorial Hosp., Inc. vs. Mutual Hosp. Ins., Inc., 784 F.2d 1325, 1334-35, 7th Cir. 1986.

Ball Memorial Hosp., Inc. vs. Mutual Hosp. Ins., Inc., 784 F.2d 1325, 1334-35, 7th Cir. 1986.

Broadway Delivery Corp. vs. United Parcel Service of Am., Inc., 651 F.2d 122, 126-27, 2d Cir., cert. denied, 454 U.S. 968, 1981.

Case T-321/05 AstraZeneca vs. Commission, 6 Desember 2012.

General Leaseways, Inc. vs. National Truck Leasing Ass'n, 744 F.2d 588, 596, 7th Cir. 1984.

GTC Communications Corp., 77 F. Supp. D. Me., 1999.

Hecht vs. Pro-Football, Inc., 570 F.2d 982, DC. Cir, 1977, 992-993, Cert. Denied, 436 U.S. 956, 9178.

Int'l Audiotext Network, Inc. vs. AT&T Co., 893 F. Supp. 1207, 1213, S.D.N.V., 1994;

Jefferson Parish Hosp. Dist. vs. Hyde, 466 U.S. 2, 1984.

Kramer vs. Pollock-Krasner Found., 890 F. Supp. 250, 257, S.D.N.V., 1995;

MCI Comm. Corp. vs. American Tel. & Tel. Co., 708 F.2d 1081, 7th Cir. 1983, Cert. Denied, 464 U.S. 891, 1983.

Metro Net Servs. Corp. v. Qwest Corp., 383 F.3d 1124, (9th Cir. 2004).

Nederlandsche Banden-Industrie-Michelin vs. Commission (322/81) E.C.R 3461, 1983.

Northern Pacific Railway Co. vs. United States, 356 U.S. 1, 5, 1958.

Novell, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 731 F.3d 1064, 1074 (10th Cir. 2013).

Otter Tail Power Co. vs. United States, 410 US 366, 1973.

Pennsylvania Dental Ass'n vs. Medical Serv. Ass'n, 745 F.2d 248, 261, 3d Cir., 1984.

Polk Bros., Inc. vs. Forest City Enters., Inc., 776 F.2d 185, 191, 7th Cir. 1985.

Polk Bros., Inc. vs. Forest City Enters., Inc., 776 F.2d 185, 191, 7th Cir. 1985.

Supermarket of Homes, Inc. vs. San Fernando Valley Bd. of Realtors, 786 F.2d 1400, 1404, 9th Cir., 1986.

Swift & Co. vs. United States, 196 U.S. 375, 1905.

TCA Building Co. v. Nw. Resources Co., 873 F. Supp. 29, 39 (S.D. Tex. 1995).

TCA Building Co., 873 F. Supp. at 39.

United States v. Dentsply International, 399 F.3d 181, 3d Cir., 2005.

United States v. Dentsply Int’l, Inc., 399 F.3d 181, (3d Cir. 2005).

United States v. Microsoft Corp., 253 F.3d 34, D.C. Cir. 2001.

United States v. Terminal Railroad Association, 224 U.S. 383, 1912

United States vs. E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 351 U.S. 377, 391; 1956.

Verizon Communications Inc. v. Trinko, 540 U.S. 398, 2004.

Viacom Int'l Inc. vs. Time Inc., 785 F. Supp. 371, 376 n.12, S.D.N.V., 1992.

Williamsburg Wax Museum vs. Historic Figures, Inc., 810 F.2d 243, 252, D.C. Cir. 1987.



How to Cite