Jabatan Rangkap Dalam Hukum Persaingan Usaha Di Indonesia Dan Amerika Serikat

Under the Indonesian Competition Law, interlocking directorate in companies is not absolutely prohibited. This is in contrast to the US Competition Law which prohibits it per se. Nevertheless, the enforcement of competition law for cases relating to interlocking directorate held in the two countries have similarities, namely that it is necessary to prove should there be any impacts on competition. For this reason, this research was conducted by proposing two questions, namely, first, how is the regulation of interlocking directorate in Indonesian and the US Competition Law? Second, how is the enforcement of competition law in regards to interlocking directorate in Indonesia and the US? This normative legal research uses statutory, conceptual, case, and comparative law approaches to answer the question. This study concludes that the US applies the per se illegal approach, whereas Indonesian Competition Law applies the rule of reason approach. However, in the application of the rule of reason approach in Indonesia, it was identified that there was a non-uniformity in the considerations of the Commission Council and KPPU's Decisions for cases of interlocking directorate. The non-uniformity referred to is related to whether or not there has been a violation of the prohibition of interlocking directorate and its impact on unfair competition. Even though the US uses the per se illegal approach, its application still causes controversy because there is a court opinion stating that proof of impact or contrary to all provisions of competition law is required for a violation of interlocking directorate.