ABSTRACT: This research purposed to analysis and the fulfilment of the rights of business actors in filing object legal effort by KPPU's decisions in the District Court and understanding the KPPU's position in the case of objection. The research method was used a statute approach by reviewing Statute Number 5 of 1999 concerning the Prohibition Of Monopolistic Practices and Unfair Business Competition and Supreme Court Regulation Number 3 of 2005 concerning Procedures For Handling Object Legal Effort by KPPU’s decision and regulations relating to legal issues. Based on the analysis of the results of the research, the authors conclude that (1) the rights of business actors in filing object legal effort by KPPU's decisions have not been fulfilled as in the civil procedural law in general (HIR and RBg) because the business actors were not given the opportunity to submit a replication and submission of evidence in the hearing at the trial (violating the principle of audi et al partam); (2) The position of KPPU as the ligitant party of an objection is not in line with its authority in carrying out additional checks on the orders of the panel of judges, so that the KPPU is considered to try its own case (Indonesian Nemo Judex in Propria).

KEYWORD: Objection, KPPU, and Legal Efforts