Perbedaan Rumusan Ketentuan Penutup Dalam Berbagai Peratutan Perundang-Undangan di Indonesia dan Implikasi Hukumnya

Kebutuhan Indonesia akan peraturan perundang-undangan sebagai sumber hukum utama dalam penyelenggaraan pemerintahan cukup tinggi. Puluhan Undang-Undang beserta peraturan pelaksanaannya diberlakukan setiap tahun. Banyaknya jumlah peraturan perundang-undangan yang berlaku dapat memunculkan konflik antar peraturan perundang-undangan. Untuk menghindari konflik ini, ‘Ketentuan Penutup’ yang merupakan bagian utuh dari sebuah peraturan perundang-undangan dapat merumuskan hubungan peraturan perundang-undangan itu dengan berbagai peraturan perundang-undangan lainnya yang telah berlaku sebelumnya. Namun demikian, rumusan Ketentuan Penutup tidaklah sama dalam berbagai peraturan perundang-undangan yang ada. Perbedaan rumusan Ketentuan Penutup ini tentu akan memberikan implikasi hukum yang berbeda pula. Oleh karenanya perlu dilakukan penelitian terhadap variasi rumusan Ketentuan Penutup tersebut dan kajian tentang implikasi hukum atas perbedaan itu. Penelitian ini merupakan penelitian normatif dengan meneliti dan menganalisa undang-undang yang dikeluarkan setelah berlakunya Undang-Undang Nomor 12 Tahun 2011. Hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwa variasi rumusan Ketentuan Penutup dalam menjelaskan hubungan dengan berbagai peraturan perundang-undangan yang telah ada terbagi atas empat model, yakni: pertama, menyatakan secara tegas mencabut peraturan perundang-undangan secara keseluruhan; kedua, menyatakan secara tegas mencabut peraturan perundang-undangan secara parsial; ketiga: memberlakukan secara bersyarat peraturan perundang-undangan secara keseluruhan, dan keempat: memberlakukan secara bersyarat peraturan perundang-undangan secara parsial. Perbedaan rumusan Ketentuan Penutup ini memberikan implikasi hukum yang berbeda pula. Karenanya rumusan Ketenttuan Penutup ini perlu diatur secara lebih rinci dalam Undang-Undang Pembentukan Peraturan Perundang-Undangan agar dapat dipahami oleh segenap penyelenggara negara dan masyarakat Indonesia's need for legislation as the main legal source of governance is quite high. Dozens of laws and their regulations of implementations are implemented every year. The large number of applicable laws and regulations can create conflicts between laws and regulations. To avoid this conflict, the 'Closing Provisions' which constitute an integral part of a laws and regulations can form the relationship between the laws and regulations with various other laws and regulations that have been being applied before. However, the formulation of the Closing Provisions is not the same in other various existing laws and regulations. The difference in the formulation of the Closing Provisions will certainly have different legal implications. Therefore, it is necessary to do a study of the variations in the formulation of the Closing Provisions and the study of the legal implications regarding the differences. This research was a normative research by examining and analyzing the laws issued after the enactment of Act No. 12 of 2011. The results of the study showed that the variation in the Closing Provisions in explaining the relationship with various existing laws and regulations was divided into four models, namely: first, expressly revoking the laws and regulations as a whole; secondly, expressly revoked the laws and regulations partially; third: entirely enforce conditional laws and regulations, and fourth: partially enforce conditional laws and regulations. The difference in the formulation of the Closing Provisions will certainly have different legal implications. Therefore, the formulation of this Closing Provisions needs to be regulated more detailed in the Laws of the Establishment of Legislation Regulations so that it can be understood by all state organizers and the community.

BROWNIAN SEMISTATIONARY PROCESSES AND CONDITIONAL FULL SUPPORT

In this note, we study the infinite-dimensional conditional laws of Brownian semistationary processes. Motivated by the fact that these processes are typically not semimartingales, we present sufficient conditions ensuring that a Brownian semistationary process has conditional full support, a distributional property that has two important implications. It ensures, firstly, that the process admits no free lunches under proportional transaction costs, and secondly, that it can be approximated pathwise (in the sup norm) by semimartingales that admit equivalent martingale measures.