scholarly journals Inkonstitusionalitas Sistem Unbundling dalam Usaha Penyediaan Listrik

2018 ◽  
Vol 15 (1) ◽  
pp. 185
Author(s):  
Jefri Porkonanta Tarigan
Keyword(s):  
Public Interest ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
The State ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
The Public ◽  
The People

Fungsi negara tidak hanya sebagai regulator (pengatur) dan umpire (wasit), namun juga berfungsi sebagai provider (penyedia) dan entrepreneur (pengusaha). Oleh karena itu, sudah seharusnya negara terlibat langsung dalam usaha penyediaan listrik untuk kepentingan umum bagi sebesar-besarnya kemakmuran rakyat sebagaimana amanat Pasal 33 UUD 1945. Usaha penyediaan listrik untuk kepentingan umum dengan unbundling system yaitu terpisahnya antara usaha pembangkitan, transmisi, distribusi, dan penjualan listrik, telah dinyatakan inkonstitusional oleh Mahkamah Konstitusi dalam Putusan Nomor 001-021-022/PUU-I/2003, bertanggal 15 Desember 2004. Namun kemudian adanya putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 149/PUU-VII/2009, bertanggal 30 Desember 2010, justru dipandang sebagai peluang dibolehkannya kembali sistem unbundling dalam usaha penyediaan listrik sebagaimana ketentuan Pasal 10 ayat (2) Undang-Undang Nomor 30 Tahun 2009 tentang Ketenagalistirkan. Hal tersebut kemudian mendorong diajukannya kembali permohonan pengujian terhadap ketentuan Pasal 10 ayat (2) Undang-Undang Nomor 30 Tahun 2009. Melalui Putusan Nomor 111/PUU-XIII/2015, bertanggal 14 Desember 2016, Mahkamah Konstitusi pun menegaskan bahwa unbundling dalam usaha penyediaan tenaga listrik adalah tidak sesuai dengan konstitusi.The function of the state is not only as a regulator and referee, but also serves as provider and entrepreneur. Therefore, the state should be directly involved in the business of electric providing for the public interest to the greatest prosperity of the people as mandated by Article 33 of the 1945 Constitution. The unbundling system in electric providing for the public interest is the separation between the business of generation, transmission, distribution, and sales. The unbundling system has been declared unconstitutional by the Constitutional Court in Decision Number 001-021-022/PUU-I/2003 dated December 15, 2004. However, the decision of the Constitutional Court Number 149/PUU-VII/2009 dated 30 December 2010, is judged as an opportunity to re-enable the unbundling system in the business of electric providing as stipulated in Article 10 paragraph (2) of Law Number 30 Year 2009 about Electricity. It then encourages the re-submission of the petition for judicial review of the provisions of Article 10 paragraph (2) of Law Number 30 Year 2009. Then, through Decision Number 111/PUU-XIII/2015, dated December 14, 2016, the Constitutional Court confirm that unbundling in the business of providing power electricity for public interest is inconstitutional.

scholarly journals Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi yang Memuat Keadilan Sosial dalam Pengujian Undang-Undang

2020 ◽  
Vol 16 (4) ◽  
pp. 834
Author(s):  
Anna Triningsih ◽  
Oly Viana Agustine
Keyword(s):  
Social Justice ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Oil And Gas ◽  
The State ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
State Control ◽  
Social Security Systems ◽  
Security Systems ◽  
The Public ◽  
The People

Mahkamah Konstitusi sebagai lembaga yang lahir berdasarkan amandemen UUD 1945 memiliki fungsi sebagai lembaga terakhir penafsir konstitusi atau yang sering disebut sebagai the final interpreter of constitution. Fungsi ini biasanya dilaksanakan Mahkamah Konstitusi dalam kewenangannya menguji undang-undang terhadap Undang-Undang Dasar 1945. Terhadap frasa, ayat, pasal atau undang-undang yang dianggap tidak jelas atau multitafsir telah dimohonkan untuk diberikan penafsiran sesuai dengan konstitusi. Pun demikian dengan frasa keadilan sosial yang terdapat dalam beberapa undang-undang yang telah diputus Mahkamah Konstitusi. Terdapat 16 (enam belas) putusan dengan 10 (sepuluh) isu konstitusional dalam pengujian undang-undang selama periode 2003–2010 dalam bidang ketenagalistrikan, minyak dan gas bumi, ketenagakerjaan, sistem jaminan sosial nasional, sumber daya air, penanaman modal, pajak penghasilan, pengelolaan wilayah pesisir dan pulau-pulau kecil dan pertambangan mineral dan batu bara. Dari 10 isu konstitusional tersebut, dalam pertimbangan hukumnya Mahkamah lebih sering memilih menggunakan interpretasi gramatikal, interpretasi historis, interpretasi teleologis atau sosilologis dan interpretasi komparatif atau perbandingan. Mahkamah Konstitusi menyatakan bahwa keadilan sosial dalam Pembukaan UUD 1945, mengandung makna “penguasaan negara” artinya negara harus menjadikan penguasaan terhadap cabang produksi yang dikuasainya itu memenuhi tiga hal yang menjadi kepentingan masyarakat: ketersediaan yang cukup, distribusi yang merata, dan terjangkaunya harga bagi orang banyak. Dengan dikuasai oleh negara, keadilan sosial diartikan mencakup makna penguasaan oleh negara dalam luas yang bersumber dan diturunkan dari konsepsi kedaulatan rakyat Indonesia atas segala sumber kekayaan “bumi, air dan kekayaan alam yang terkandung di dalamnya”, termasuk pula di dalamnya pengertian kepemilikan publik oleh kolektivitas rakyat atas sumber-sumber kekayaan dimaksud. The Constitutional Court as an institution born based on the amendments to the 1945 Constitution has a function as the final interpreter of constitution. This function is usually carried out by the Constitutional Court in its authority to examine laws against the 1945 Constitution. Regarding phrases, verses, articles or laws that are deemed unclear or multiple interpretations have been requested to be interpreted in accordance with the constitution. Even so with the phrase social justice contained in several laws that have been decided by the Constitutional Court. There are 16 (sixteen) decisions with 10 (ten) constitutional issues in judicial review during the 2003–2010 period in the fields of electricity, oil and gas, employment, national social security systems, water resources, investment, tax income, management of coastal areas and small islands and mining of minerals and coal. Of the 10 constitutional issues, in its legal considerations the Court often chooses to use grammatical interpretations, historical interpretations, teleological or sosilological interpretations and comparative or comparative interpretations. The Constitutional Court stated that social justice in the Preamble of the 1945 Constitution, contained the meaning of "state control" means that the state must make control of the controlled branch of production fulfill three things that are in the public interest: adequate availability, equitable distribution and affordability. By being controlled by the state, social justice is interpreted to include the meaning of control by the state in a broad sense that is derived and derived from the conception of the sovereignty of the people of Indonesia over all sources of wealth "earth, water and natural wealth contained in it" the people for the intended sources of wealth.

Administrative Procedure and Judicial Review in China

2021 ◽  
pp. 44-46
Author(s):  
Xiaowei Sun
Keyword(s):  
Public Interest ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Global Market ◽  
The State ◽  
International Standards ◽  
Administrative Litigation ◽  
The Public ◽  
Administrative Procedure ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
Direct Applicability

This chapter focuses on administrative procedure and judicial review in China. Despite its willingness to adapt to the rules of the global market, China does not accept the direct applicability of international standards in administrative litigation. Judicial review of administration is based on a set of legislative texts and judicial interpretations by the Supreme People's Court. Among these texts, the Administrative Litigation Law regulates the judicial review of administrative acts. There are two lists in its chapter concerning the scope of judicial review: one includes the administrative acts that are open to judicial review, another the acts that are not reviewable. In any case, it is up to the courts to examine the following two combinations of criteria: the degree of the seriousness of the infringement with the definition of the state interest and that of the public interest; and the degree of procedural breach with the definition of the real impact on the rights of the plaintiff. According to Article 76 of the ALL, in the case of annulment and/or declaration of unlawfulness of an administrative act, a court may order the administration to take measures to compensate the damage inflicted on the plaintiff.

scholarly journals Kewenangan Mahkamah Konstitusi sebagai Negative Budgeter dalam Pengujian Undang-Undang Anggaran Pendapatan dan Belanja Negara

2018 ◽  
Vol 14 (4) ◽  
pp. 728 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mei Susanto
Keyword(s):  
Judicial Review ◽  
The State ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
State Budget ◽  
The People ◽  
Conceptual Study ◽  
The Guardian

Doktrin Mahkamah Konstitusi (MK) yang dahulu dipercaya hanya sebagai negative legislature telah bergeser menjadi positive legislature. Menjadi pertanyaan, apakah doktrin MK sebagai negative legislature maupun positive legislature, dapat pula dimaknai sebagai negative budgeter dan positive budgeter dalam pengujian Undang-Undang Anggaran Pendapatan dan Belanja Negara (UU APBN). Berdasarkan hasil kajian konseptual dan pendalaman terhadap beberapa putusan MK dalam pengujian UU APBN, secara nyata dan dalam keadaan tertentu, doktrin MK sebagai negative legislature dapat dimaknai sebagai negative budgeter dalam bentuk pernyataan mata anggaran tertentu dalam UU APBN bertentangan dengan UUD 1945. Bahkan dapat pula dimaknai sebagai positive budgeter karena MK juga mengharuskan pemerintah dan DPR untuk menambahkan mata anggaran tertentu dalam UU APBN. Hal tersebut tidak lain sebagai bentuk diakuinya supremasi konstitusi, sehingga MK yang berperan sebagai the guardian constitution harus menjaganya. Apalagi dalam UUD 1945 terdapat pasal yang spesifik menyebut batas minimal anggaran pendidikan 20% dan pasal-pasal lain yang mengharuskan APBN harus dipergunakan untuk sebesar-besarnya kemakmuran rakyat.The doctrine of the Constitutional Court which was previously believed to be only as a negative legislature has shifted into positive legislature. The question, is the doctrine of the Constitutional Court as a negative legislature and a positive legislature can also be interpreted as a negative budgeter and a positive budgeter in the judicial review of the State Budget Law. Based on the result of conceptual study and deepening of several decisions of the Constitutional Court in the judicial review of the State Budget Law, in real and in certain circumtances, the doctrine of the Constitutional Court as a negative lagislature can be also interpreted as a negative budgetary in the form of specific budget items in the State Budget Law contradictory to the 1945 Constitution. Also as a positive budgeter because the Constitutional Court requires the executive and the legislative to add a specific budget in the State Budget Law. It is a form of recognition of constitutional supremacy, so that the Constitutional Court can role as the guardian constitution. Moreover in the 1945 Constitution there is a specific article that mentions the minimum limit of 20% education budget and other articles that require the state budget should be used for the greatest prosperity of the people.

scholarly journals PENEGAKAN HUKUM TERHADAP KEPEMILIKAN TANAH INDONESIA OLEH WARGA NEGARA ASING MELALUI PERJANJIAN NOMINEE

2020 ◽  
Vol 8 (12) ◽  
pp. 1862
Author(s):  
Fithrah Fithrah
Keyword(s):  
Law Enforcement ◽  
Research Methods ◽  
Public Interest ◽  
Research Method ◽  
Scientific Paper ◽  
Land Ownership ◽  
The State ◽  
Legal Research ◽  
The Public ◽  
The People

Tujuan penulisan karya ilmiah ini adalah untuk mengkaji pengaturan terkait kepemilikan tanah di Indonesia oleh orang asing melalui perjanjian nominee dan upaya penegakan hukumnya. Metode penelitian yang digunakan ialah metode penelitian hukum normatif dengan menggunakan pendekatan peraturan perundang-undangan dan konseptual. Hasil dari penulisan karya ilmiah ini ialah penegakan hukum terhadap praktek kepemilikan tanah oleh orang asing melalui perjanjian nominee dapat dilakukan oleh kejaksaan selaku organ negara yang mewakili kepentingan publik, baik melalui sarana perdata maupun pidana. Hal ini perlu dilakukan guna melindungi tanah Indonesia dimiliki oleh orang asing dan guna mendukung upaya negara mewujudkan tugas konstitusionalnya, yakni menguasai tanah bagi sebesar-besarnya kesejahteraan rakyat tanpa harus memberikan ketidakadilan bagi Warga Negara Asing. The purpose of writing this scientific paper is to examine regulations related to land ownership in Indonesia by foreigners through nominee agreements and law enforcement efforts. The research method used is normative legal research methods using statute and conceptual approaches. The result of writing this scientific paper is that law enforcement against the practice of land ownership by foreigners through nominee agreements can be carried out by the prosecutor as the state organ representing the public interest, both through civil and criminal means. This needs to be done in order to protect Indonesian land owned by foreigners and to support the state's efforts to realize its constitutional duties, namely to control the land for the maximum welfare of the people without having to give injustice to foreign citizens.

scholarly journals Inkonstitusionalitas Pasal 19 Perma Nomor 2 Tahun 2016 dan Implikasinya terhadap Akses Keadilan Warga Negara

2016 ◽  
Vol 13 (4) ◽  
pp. 700
Author(s):  
Yogi Zul Fadhli
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Public Interest ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Development Project ◽  
Land Grabbing ◽  
The Public ◽  
Location Determination ◽  
The People ◽  
Human Rights Violation ◽  
Proportionality Principle

Judicial review as an extraordinary legal effort has constitutionally regulated by Indonesian law. However, in the administrative court, related with the dispute of location determination for the public interest, judicial review is dispensed by the Article 19 of Supreme Court Regulation No. 2 of 2016. Those article is unconstitutional because theoretically contrary with the Constitution of Indonesia and disharmonious in the types, hierarchy and substantive of the proportionality principle. Thus, human rights violation is rising especially for the people that being victims of land grabbing of development project for the public interest and disorganize of the system procedures in administrative court.

scholarly journals Pengawasan terhadap Kebijakan Pemerintah Melalui Mekanisme Citizen Lawsuit

2018 ◽  
Vol 14 (4) ◽  
pp. 906
Author(s):  
Cholidin Nasir
Keyword(s):  
Public Interest ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Class Action ◽  
Government Policies ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
State Law ◽  
Judicial Control ◽  
The Public ◽  
The Government ◽  
Settlement Of Disputes

Salah satu unsur terpenting negara hukum menurut Sri Soemantri adalah pengawasan dari badan-badan peradilan. Salah satu bentuk pengawasan adalah judicial review yang dilakukan oleh Mahkamah Agung dan Mahkamah Konstitusi. Namun, tidak semua tindakan pemerintah berdasarkan peraturan perundang-undangan yang telah ada. Beberapa tindakan atau kebijakan pemerintah justru lahir lebih dahulu sebelum adanya peraturan perundang-undangan yang mengatur dan bahkan beberapa peraturan perundang-undangan dibentuk untuk melahirkan kebijakan pemerintah yang justru merugikan warga negara.Terkadang sengketa hukum terjadi bermula dari kebijakan yang dikeluarkan oleh pemerintah, yangseharusnya mempertimbangkan kepentingan umum atau kepentingan orang banyak (publik)dan bukan hanya kepentingan orang per orang saja, namun kenyataannya banyak terjadi suatu kebijakan merugikan kepentingan umum, sehingga acapkali kepentingan umum diabaikan yang pada akhirnya kepentingan umum tidak lagi menjadi prioritas utama. Hal inilah yang menjadi penyebab pelanggaran hukum yang dilakukan oleh penguasa. Terjadinya pelanggaran hukum inilah yang menimbulkan daya dorong bagi masyarakat untuk ikut berperan serta dalam upaya menyelesaikan sengketa guna menegakkan hukum.Dalam tulisan ini penulis hanya akan membahas penyelesaian melalui badan peradilan sebagai salah satu syarat dari negara hukum (rechtstaat) yaitu judicial control. Badan peradilan merupakan suatu badan yang memegang peranan penting dalam penyelesaian sengketa. Salah satu gugatan kelompok yang dilakukan oleh para pencari keadilan adalah gugatan citizen lawsuit;One of the most important elements of state law by Sri Soemantri is the supervision of the judicial authorities. One form of oversight is judicial review conducted by the Supreme Court and the Constitutional Court. However, not all government action based on legislation that has been there. Some activities or government policies born before the legislation that governs and even some legislation established to give birth to government policies that harm the citizens. Sometimes a legal dispute occurs stems from policies issued by the government, which should take into consideration the public interest or the interests of many (public) and not just the interests of individuals. There were many cases of a policy detrimental to the public interest so that often the public interest is ignored that the ultimately the public interest is no longer a top priority. This is the cause of the violation committed by the authorities. Violations of the laws are what caused the impetus for the public to participate in efforts to resolve the dispute to enforce the law. In this paper, the authors will only discuss a settlement through the judiciary as one of the requirements of state law (rechtstaat) is judicial control. The judiciary is a body that plays important role in the settlement of disputes. One of a class action carried out by those seeking justice is a citizen lawsuit.

scholarly journals KAWIN BEDA AGAMA DAN PERLINDUNGAN HAM : STUDI KRITIS ATAS UNDANG-UNDANG PERNIKAHAN NOMOR 1 TAHUN 1974 DAN UNDANG-UNDANG DASAR 1945

Asy-Syari ah ◽  
2014 ◽  
Vol 17 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Yedi Purwanto
Keyword(s):  
Judicial Review ◽  
Community Leaders ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Marriage Law ◽  
Interfaith Marriage ◽  
Public Discussion ◽  
The Public ◽  
The Core ◽  
The People ◽  
Core Problem

The polemic of Marriage Law Number 1 of 1974 is back into hot issue to be discussed. It reminds to the public discussion in a long history and the dynamics of the appearance of this laws. This time, the spotlight is article 2, paragraph 1 of the Marriage Law Number 1 of 1974 which contains "Marriage is legitimate, if it is done according to the laws of each religion and the belief it". Against with the decision, any parties asked a judicial review to the Constitutional Court (MK) for the article. This paper wants to give exposure of reactions of the people who are doing legal efforts with the proposal, as well as how to find the best solution for its completion. The core problem in this paper is to be appointed about whether or not may interfaith marriage. Referring to the Marriage Law Number 1 of 1974 and the 1945 Constitution, this paper will describe how the views of classical scholars, ulama (Muslim jurists), community leaders, officials and legal experts in the country explain about marriage in different religion.

scholarly journals Limitations of Public Interest Clause in Land Acquisition So That Land Rights Holders Can Retain Their Rights

NORMA ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 18 (1) ◽  
pp. 58
Author(s):  
Rias Frihandini
Keyword(s):  
Public Interest ◽  
National Development ◽  
Legal Protection ◽  
Land Rights ◽  
The State ◽  
Public Interests ◽  
The Public ◽  
The People ◽  
The Government ◽  
Ownership Rights

This research aims to see and analyze legal protection for land rights holders who lost their land rights due to public interest clause, whether for the benefit of the state or the private sector. Based on the 1945 Constitution, it can be seen that the use of the earth (land), water, and natural resources contained therein by the state is required to be used for the greatest prosperity of the people, and not for certain elites from government agencies who need land. Limitations must be applied to this clause so that the use is not arbitrary because even though the land rights are ownership rights, it can lose since the Government carries it out. The public interest clause is always the way and the Government answer for those who refuse their land to be acquired. Research results are that public interests, which are the needs of many people or broad goals, must pay attention to social, political, psychological, vindication and security aspects based on the National development principle.Keywords: Land, Public Interest, Acquisition

scholarly journals Hak Atas Tanah Pada Kawasan Konservasi

2021 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 40
Author(s):  
Orias Reizal De Rooy ◽  
Hendrik Salmon ◽  
Reny Heronia Nendissa
Keyword(s):  
Public Interest ◽  
Land Rights ◽  
The State ◽  
Conservation Areas ◽  
The Public ◽  
Basic Rights ◽  
The People ◽  
The Government ◽  
Legal Concepts ◽  
Laws And Regulations

Introduction: Regulation of the land control and land use on conservation areas, especially in coastal and coastal areas refers to the agrarian regulation in general, both for the benefit of the government and the public interest. The public interest is related to the rights that the State can give to its people for certain objects. Concerning the rights of the people, the state constitution guarantees the existence of the basic rights of the people, not only to the rights to land but also to other basic rights that are indeed held by the people and must be protected by the State.Purposes of the Research: Analyze the status of land rights in conservation areas and the legal consequences of land rights in conservation areas.Methods of the Research: The research methods used in this article is Normative Research, which is to examines and identify laws and regulations as well as legal concepts, especially about Land Rights on Conservation Areas to be the subject of study in finding the answers to the issues above.Results of the Research: The nature of the law which is always open and dynamic following the dynamics of changing community needs is expected to be able to answer the need for legal certainty itself through synchronization and harmonization of laws and regulations that explicitly regulate control and use of land in conservation areas that can guarantee certainty of community rights in the area. the coast.

scholarly journals Legal Implications of the Norms Conflict in the Governance Regulation of the Water Resources

2020 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. 17-23
Author(s):  
Indro Budiono ◽  
Moch. Bakri ◽  
Moh. Fadli ◽  
Imam Koeswahyono
Keyword(s):  
Water Resources ◽  
Public Interest ◽  
The State ◽  
Legal Research ◽  
Conceptual Approach ◽  
Colonial Era ◽  
The Public ◽  
The People ◽  
Legal Implications ◽  
The Republic

AbstractArrangements for water resources or irrigation governance designs from the colonial era to the reform order always cause controversies and problems. In physiological issues, there is not known change in the meaning of water as a public good being a private good. Theoretical problems, the basis for the design of the theory of management of chaotic water resources is in line with the existence of Law No. 17 of 2019 concerning water resources. The purpose of this study is to analyze and find the implications of norm conflicts in water resources governance arrangements, both vertically between Law No. 17 of 2019 on Water Resources with Article 33 (2) and (3) with the 1945 NRI Law, and horizontally with RI Law Number 5 of 1960 concerning Basic Regulations on Agrarian Principles. This research uses normative legal research methods with various approaches, including the statute approach, historical approach and conceptual approach. The analytic part of this research is using an investigation strategy. The results showed that the article in Law No. 17 of 2019 proves that the production branches that are important for the State that control the public interest can not be controlled by the State, therefore the article in Law No. 17 Hold 2019 is contrary to Article 33 paragraph (2) and (3) of the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia cause that water is a State asset and national assets cannot be used so much for the prosperity of the people, therefore article 46 paragraph (1), Article 47, Article 48, Article 49, Article 51, Article 52 Law No.17 of 2019 is contrary to Article 33 paragraph (3) of the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document