This paper discusses the need to reform the Indonesian Competition Law (the Law Number 5 of 1999) due to the implementation of the ASEAN Economic Community (AEC), which undoubtedly influences the business condition in Indonesia. This study is expected to provide input for the revision of the Law Number 5 of 1999 by identifying the weaknesses of the current law. Accordingly, this paper aims to analyze the aspects of Indonesian Competition Law that are need to be reformed to ensure its capability in anticipating and regulating business competition after the implementation of AEC. This study found that the degree of the implementation of the Indonesian Competition Law is particularly specified in Article 1(e), which elucidates that the business actors to which the competition law applies are those who are "didirikan dan berkedudukan dalam wilayah hukum Republik Indonesia" (established and domiciled within the jurisdiction of the Republic of Indonesia) or "melakukan kegiatan dalam wilayah hukum negara Republik Indonesia" (to conduct activities within the territory of the Republic of Indonesia). The phrase "dalam wilayah hukum Republik Indonesia" (within the jurisdiction of the Republic of Indonesia) contained in Article 1(e) clearly indicates that the application of Indonesian Competition Law still relies heavily on the principle of territoriality. Therefore, the Indonesian Competition Law cannot reach business actors who are established, or are domiciled, or do conduct activities outside Indonesia, although they perform actions that affect the condition of business competition in Indonesia. Therefore, the Indonesian Competition Law needs to be reformed to enable its extra-territorial implementation based on the "effects doctrine" justifying the application of national law to any foreign business actors that causes the disruption of fair business competition conditions at the domestic level.

<p>In the competition law discourse, one of the controversial issues is the position of Government-Owned Enterprises (GOEs). There are basically two main views regarding the status of GOEs in the competition law. First, GOEs should be granted privileges, even excluded from the scope of business competition law. Secondly, since GOEs are basically businesses and competitors to private enterprises, GOEs must also be subject to competition law. This paper discusses the status of GOEs in Indonesia’s competition law, both in the context of normative framework and in the implementation of competition law provisions. For this purpose, this paper examine the rules of competition law governing the GOEs and analyze some cases of alleged violations of competition law examined by the KPPU as the Indonesian competition authority. This study found that basically Indonesia’s competition law follows the so-called “competitive neutrality” principle in which the law treat both GOEs and private enterprises in equal manner. However, at the practical domain, the cases studied indicates that monopolistic or dominant position held by GOEs may be abused to favor subsidiaries which are in direct, head to head competition, with private enterprises.</p><p><strong><br /></strong></p><p align="center"> </p>

AbstrakPutusan pengadilan merupakan produk hukum yang dihasilkan oleh hakim berdasarkan suatu pertimbangan mendalam atas fakta-fakta hukum yang diajukan kepadanya untuk diputuskan berdasarkan hukum dan keadilan. Oleh karena itu, hakim dalam memutuskan perkara yang diperiksanya, selain harus mendasarkan diri kepada hukum positif, ia juga perlu menggali rasa keadilan yang berkembang di dalam masyarakat. Tulisan ini mencoba untuk menganalisis pengaruh filsafat hukum khususnya yang menyangkut masalah keadilan dalam putusan hakim. Hal ini disebabkan putusan hakim selalu dipandang sebagai sebuah upaya menghadirkan hukum yang kontekstual bagi para pencari keadilan. Hakim oleh karenanya harus dapat menemukan hukum yang bersandar kepada nilainilai yang hidup di dalam masyarakat, khususnya konteks sosial dari perkara sedang yang diperiksanya. Untuk menemukan hukum seperti itu, hakim harus berani keluar dari paradigma legal-positivistik dalam melakukan penafsiran hukum, terutama dalam isi pertimbangan hukum putusannya.Kata-kata Kunci: Filsafat Hukum; Hakim; Putusan Pengadilan. AbstractThe court ruling is a legal product that is generated by a judge based on a deep consideration of the legal facts submitted to him/her to be decided based on law and justice. Therefore, in addition to relying on positive law, in deciding cases it is also necessary for the judge to discover the developing sense of justice in the society. This paper attempts to analyze the influence of the philosophy of law, especially concerning the issue of justice in the judge's decision. This is relevant due to the assumption that a judge's decision is an effort to bring the law in context for those seeking justice. The judge must therefore be able to find the law based on the living values of the society, especially in the light of the social context of the particular case being examined. To find such law, the judge had to venture out of the legal-positivistic paradigm on its interpretation of law, particularly in the content of the legal consideration of his/her ruling.

Insider trading is a term that refers to the practice in which corporate insiders conduct securities transactions (trading) using their exclusive information that is not yet available to the public or investors. Indonesia and the United States are 2 (two) countries that prohibit insider trading in the capital market. Through this article, the author wants to analyze the similarities and differences the regulation of insider trading in Indonesia and the United States, and explain the legal process for the settlement of Insider Trading cases in Indonesia and the United States. This research is a normative research, using the laws and regulations on the capital market originating from 2 (two) countries, there are the laws and regulations on the capital market of Indonesia and the United States. The analysis of this paper concludes that Indonesia and the United States prohibit the practice of insider trading in the capital market.