PALMOILMAGAZINE, TANA TIDUNG — A partnership dispute between the Plasma Majelutung Perdana Lestari Cooperative (KUB PMPL) and palm oil company PT Pipit Citra Perdana (PCP) has resurfaced, following allegations of a lack of transparency in the signing of an addendum to their plasma partnership memorandum of understanding (MoU).
The cooperative’s management has filed a formal complaint with the Indonesia Competition Commission (KPPU), accusing the company of withholding key documents related to the partnership agreement.
According to Ares Wahyudi, Secretary of KUB PMPL, even the Regent of Tana Tidung participated in signing the minutes and the MoU addendum. However, the cooperative’s board and members reportedly never received copies of the documents.
Also Read: A Touching Courtroom Moment: Palm Fruit Theft Case Ends with Restorative Justice in Pasangkayu
“The draft MoU addendum was only given to the cooperative chairman. The rest of us never saw it. We had to go to PCP’s office in Tarakan on 22 November 2025 just to request a copy — and they only handed it over after expressing anger,” Ares told Palmoilmagazine.com on Monday (24/11/2025).
Ares added that the mechanism stipulated in the previous 2019 MoU addendum requires both the Chairman and the Secretary of the cooperative to be involved before any signing takes place. “They violated that requirement,” he said.
KPPU Begins Investigation
KPPU has accepted the cooperative’s initial report and moved it into the investigation phase. “Once the investigation is complete, the case goes to the commission leadership, then proceeds to Preliminary Partnership Examination. After that, a Written Warning I is issued to PT PCP, instructing improvements. If ignored, warning II and III will follow,” Ares said, citing KPPU’s explanation.
However, in the middle of this process, the company reportedly attempted to halt the investigation. The alleged attempt was made through a profit-sharing (SHU) agreement document between KUB PMPL and PT PCP.
“Point 8 of that document states the company’s request for us to withdraw our report to KPPU,” Ares claimed.
A technical issue also emerged: the cooperative’s report to KPPU did not include the chairman’s signature. Ares clarified that this was because the chairman was ill at the time, and his duties had been officially delegated to the deputy chairman.
“Our report is legitimate. The chairman cannot unilaterally withdraw our complaint,” he emphasized.
KPPU Conducts Field Inspection
As part of the investigation, a four-member KPPU team conducted a field inspection on 23 September 2025 at KUB PMPL’s plasma plantation area. The visit serves as an early verification step before KPPU determines its next actions.
The case continues to develop, and the cooperative hopes KPPU will issue a fair decision to ensure a sustainable plasma partnership and protect smallholders. (P2)
