Hasil Pencarian  ::  Simpan CSV :: Kembali

"Tesis ini membahas tentang penetapan status clear and clean pada izin usaha pertambangan (IUP) oleh Direktorat Jenderal Mineral dan Batubara dengan melakukan analisa dengan mempertimbangkan ketentuan-ketentuan yang terdapat dalam Undang-Undang Nomor 4 Tahun 2009 tentang Pertambangan Mineral dan Batubara (UU 4/2009) dan peraturan lainnya yang terkait dengan analisa tersebut. Tesis ini menggunakan metode penelitian hukum normatif dengan menggunakan pendekatan undang-undang. Hasil penulisan ini memberikan kesimpulan bahwa penetapan status clear and clean pada IUP telah sesuai dengan UU 4/2009 jo. Peraturan Pemerintah Nomor 55 Tahun 2010 tentang Pembinaan dan Pengawasan Penyelenggaraan Pengelolaan Pertambangan Mineral dan Batubara. Dalam ketentuan tersebut, Direktorat Jenderal Mineral dan Batubara selaku wakil Pemerintah diberikan kewenangan untuk melakukan pengawasan kepada Pemerintah Daerah yang dijalankan melalui penetapan status clear and clean tersebut. Berbeda halnya dengan penerbitan sertifikat clear and clean dan menjadikan sertifikat clear and clean menjadi salah satu persyaratan tambahan dalam melaksanakan kegiatan pertambangan. Hal ini telah menciptakan akibat hukum baru yang mana tidak tercantum dalam UU 4/2009 dan bertentangan dengan ketentuan yang terdapat dalam Pasal 8 Ayat 2 Undang-Undang Nomor 12 Tahun 2011 Tentang Pembentukan Peraturan Perundang-Undangan dan sebagai akibat daripada itu persyaratan sertifikat clear and clean dalam kegiatan pertambangan menjadi batal demi hukum. Kedua penetapan status clear and clean oleh Direktorat Jenderal Mineral dan Batubara c.q. Kementerian Energi dan Sumber Daya Mineral telah memperhatikan pada asas penyelenggaraan kepentingan umum, namun dalam penerbitan sertifikat clear and clean dan menjadikan persyaratan tambahan dalam kegiatan pertambangan, hal ini telah bertentangan dengan asas kepastian hukum dan asas kewenangan. Tesis ini menyarankan agar pembuat undang-undang menerbitkan peraturan yang memberikan payung hukum kepada penerbitan sertifikat clear and clean yang merupakan bagian dari penetapan status clear and clean pada izin usaha pertambangan dan selanjutnya Penulis menyarankan agar Direktorat Jenderal Mineral dan Batubara sebagai pemegang kekuasaan yang diberikan oleh undang-undang melakukan pemeriksaan secara menyeluruh yang meliputi pemeriksaan administratif, teknis pertambangan di lapangan, faktor lingkungan dan finansial, yang mana kegiatan ini merupakan yang dipersyaratkan dalam undang-undang.

---

This thesis elucidates the stipulation of the clear and clean status of the mining business license (IUP) by the Directorate General of Mineral and Coal with the consideration to the provisions of the Law No. 4 Year 2009 (Law 4/2009) concerning Mineral and Coal Mining and other regulations that are related to such law. This thesis employs normative legal as its research method, using bylaw as the approach of the analysis. This thesis concluded that the clear and clean status on the IUP has a line with the Law 4/2009 jo. Government Regulation No. 55 Year 2010 concerning the Control and Supervision of the Mineral and Coal Mining Management. In such regulation, the Directorate General of Mineral and Coal as the government representative has been granted an authorization to conduct supervision toward the Local Governement that is conducted in the way of stipulation of the clear and clean status. In contrast with the issuance of the clear and clean certificate which effecting the clear and clean certificate as one of the additional requirement to perform the mining activities. This has created new norm that is not stipulated in the Law 4/2009 and violated Article 8 paragraph 2 of the Law No. 12 concerning the Establishment of Regulations and as the concequense of the regulation, the requirement of the clear and clean certificate in the mining activities turn out to be annulled. Secondly the stipulation of the clear and clean status by the Directorate General of Mineral and Coal has included the principle of governance to the public interest, however the issuance of the clear and clean certificate and causing such certificate to be the additional requirement in the mining activities had violated the principle of legal certainty and authorization. This thesis advises that the lawmaker to issue regulations that regulate the issuance of the clear and clean certificate as part of the clear and clean process on the mining business license and moreover the Author recommends to the Directorate General Mineral and Coal as the authorized authority by the law to conduct fully examination that comprise of administrative assessment, mining technical in the field, environmental elements and financial, whereby this assessments were required by the law."

"ABSTRAKTesis ini membahas mengenai penerbitan izin usaha pertambangan batubaramelalui lelang berdasarkan Undang-Undang No.4 Tahun 2009 yang bertujuanuntuk menekan jual beli izin usaha pertambangan yang sering dilakukan olehpemilik IUP Batubara. Penelitian ini adalah metode kepustakaan yang bersifatpenelitian yuridis normatif yang juga didukung dengan pendekatan kasus. Hasilpenelitian ini adalah untuk mengetahui penerbitan izin usaha pertambanganbatubara melalui lelang yang diatur dalam Undang Undang Nomor 4 Tahun 2009dan juga melihat sejauh mana hukum dapat dipatuhi oleh pemegang izin usahapertambangan tersebut. Berdasarkan hasil penelitian ditemukan bahwadibandingkan dengan undang-undang sebelumnya yaitu Undang-Undang No.11Tahun 1967, maka Undang-Undang No.4 tahun 2009 lebih baik dalam menekanadanya jual beli IUP. Namun dalam penelitian ini ditemukan juga adanyakelemahan dari sistem lelang yang menyebabkan pelaku usaha masih melakukanjual beli izin usaha pertambangan.

---

Abstract This thesis discusses the issuance of coal mining license by auction under The ActNo. 4 of 2009 which aims to suppress the sale of the mining license which is oftendone by the owner of the coal mining business license (IUP). This study is amethod of research literature that is normative juridical approach and alsosupported by the case. The results of this study was to determine the issuanceof coal mining business licenses through the auction as regulated in The Act No. 4of 2009 and also to see how far the law can be obeyed by the holderof the mining license. Based on the result of the study found, compared with theprevious legislation the Act No. 11 of 1967, the Act No. 4 of 2009 is better insuppressing the sale of IUP. But in this study also found a weakness of theauction system that caused trading of mining business license still exist."

"Pemberian Izin Usaha Pertambangan (IUP) yang dilakukan di daerah kerap kali  menimbulkan polemik. Permasalahan yang terkait dengan pemberian Izin Usaha Pertambangan (IUP) ini bisa merugikan negara hingga mencapai angka triliun rupiah. Terlebih, hal ini berkaitan dengan tindakan Badan/Pejabat Negara dalam menjalankan pemerintahan. Hal ini menjadi penting untuk meninjau kembali penerapan Asas-Asas Umum Pemerintahan yang Baik (AUPB) dalam menjalankan pemerintahan guna mewujudkan good governance untuk Indonesia yang lebih maju. Dalam menyusun tulisan ini, Penulis mencari dan mengumpulkan data sekunder yang berkaitan dengan teori hukum dan praktik pelaksanaan yang terjadi dalam penerbitan izin tersebut. Dimana dari kasus-kasus yang diambil ditemukan adanya pelanggaran terhadap kelima Asas-Asas Umum Pemerintahan yang Baik (AUPB) yakni asas kepentingan umum, asas tidak menyalahgunakan wewenang, asas pelayanan yang baik, asas keterbukaan, dan asas non-diskriminasi. Sehingga dapat mengatasi kemungkinan terjadinya pelanggaran-pelanggaran lain dalam praktik pemberian Izin Usaha Pertambangan (IUP).

---

The granting of mining business permits (IUP) is often creates polemics. Problems associated with the granting of mining business permits (IUP) can cause losses to the state up to trillions of rupiah. Moreover, this is related to the actions of State Agencies/Officials in running the government. This is important to review the implementation of the General Principles of Good Governance (AUPB) in running the government in order to realize good governance for a more advanced Indonesia. In compiling this paper, the author looks for and collects secondary data to re-examine the granting of Mining Business Permits (IUP) in the Minister of Energy and Mineral Resources Regulation Number 7 of 2020 against the five General Principles of Good Governance (AUPB), namely the principle of public interest, the principle of not abusing authority, the principle of good service, the principle of openness, and the principle of non-discrimination. So that it can overcome the possibility of other violations in the practice of granting Mining Business Permits (IUP)."

"ABSTRAKKegiatan usaha pertambangan mineral dan batubara mempunyai peranan penting dalammemberikan nilai tambah secara nyata kepada pertumbuhan ekonomi nasional danpembangunan daerah secara berkelanjutan. Mengingat hal tersebut, pengaturan danpengawasan pemerintah sangat diperlukan khususnya pengaturan kerjasama usaha jasapertambangan agar ada pembatasan dalam pengelolaan dan pengusahaan sumber dayaalam di Indonesia oleh suatu pelaku usaha sehingga tidak merugikan kepentingannegara dan masyarakat luas. Tujuan penelitian ini untuk melihat bagaimana pengaturanPemerintah dalam membatasi kerjasama dalam pelaksanaan usaha jasa pertambangan.Metode penelitian yang digunakan dalam penelitian ini adalah metode penelitian yuridisnormatif yang menginventarisasi, mengkaji dan meneliti peraturan perundang-undangandan data sekunder lainnya yang berkaitan dengan materi penelitian. Sifat Penelitian tesisini, bersifat deskriptif analitis. Analisis data yang digunakan adalah dengan metodeanalisis kualitatif. Pengaturan pemerintah dalam pembatasan kerjasama kegiatan usahajasa pertambangan khususnya dalam pengaturan pelaksanaan kegiatan penambangandan keikutsertaan anak perusahaan dan/atau afiliasinya sangat penting dilakukan untukmenghindari adanya transfer of profit, akan tetapi pemerintah sebaiknya perlumemperhatikan adanya perbedaan penjabaran ketentuan dalam UU Minerba danperaturan pelaksananya, serta peningkatan pengawasan di lapangan, sehingga dapattercapai kemandirian dan efektifitas pengusahaan di bidang pertambangan, sertamemberi nilai tambah bagi perekonomian nasional guna mencapai kemakmuran sertakesejahteraan rakyat

---

ABSTRACTBusiness activities of mineral and coal mining significantly has an important role inproviding value-added to national economic growth and development in a sustainabledistrict. Given this, government regulation and supervision is indispensable especiallyfor mining services business partnership arrangements that exist in the organization andundertaking limitation of natural resources in Indonesia by business actor effort to notharm the national interest and the wider community. The purpose of this research is tosee how the arrangement limits the government in the implementation of jointcooperation in mining services business. Research methods used in this study isnormative juridical research, study and analyze the legislation and other secondary datarelated to study materials. The nature of this thesis research is descriptive analytics. Themethod used to analize data in this research is qualitative analysis. Limitation ofgovernment regulation in mining services business activities of cooperation in particularin the implementation of regulation of mining activities and participation subsidiariesand/or affiliates is very important to avoid any such transfer of profit, but thegovernment should have notice a discrepancy explanation of the provisions in the ActMinerba and its implementing regulations, and increased supervision on the field, so asto achieve independence and effectiveness of the undertaking in the field of mining, aswell as added value to national economy and achieve prosperity and welfare of thepeople"

"Kebijakan Clear and Clean pada awalnya bertujuan untuk menata Izin Usaha Pertambangan IUP Mineral dan Batubara dikarenakan permasalahan administrasi dan kewilayahan yang ditemukan dalam proses penerbitan IUP tersebut oleh Pemerintah Provinsi, dan/atau Pemerintah Kabupaten/Kota sesuai dengan kewenangannya. Namun, seiring berjalannya waktu, ditemukan permasalahan lainnya dalam proses penerbitan IUP salah satunya adalah tidak lengkapnya dokumen lingkungan sebagai syarat untuk menjalankan kegiatan usaha pertambangan. Maka, Pemerintah setelah itu mengeluarkan Peraturan Menteri Energi dan Sumber Daya Mineral yang mengatur bahwa penataan IUP dilakukan dengan mengevaluasi tata cara penerbitan IUP Mineral dan Batubara melalui 5 kriteria aspek, yakni administrasi, kewilayahan, teknis, lingkungan, dan finansial.Hasil dari evaluasi 5 kriteria aspek atas IUP ini yang selanjutnya menghasilkan status dan sertifikat Clear and Clean bagi pemegang IUP yang telah dinyatakan memenuhi 5 kriteria aspek tersebut. Sebagai kebijakan yang bertujuan untuk menata, kebijakan ini di sisi lain juga memaksakan ketaatan/kepatuhan compliance terhadap pemegang IUP untuk menaati/mematuhi 5 kriteria aspek evaluasi tersebut agar IUP nya dapat menjadi IUP Clear and Clean. Skripsi ini membahas mengenai Kebijakan Clear and Clean dengan mengaitkannya sebagai instrumen penaatan hukum lingkungan melalui pendekatan manajemen lingkungan dan tipologi kebijakannya.

---

The objective of Clear and Clean policy at the beginning is to manage the Mineral and Coal Mining Business License IUP due to the findings of administration and territoriality issues during the IUP issuance process by Provincial Government and or Local City Government based on their authority. However, other issues had also been found afterwards during the IUP issuance process, one of them is the incompletion of environmental documents which is required in order to run a mining business, thus, Government subsequently invoke a Minister of Energy dan Mineral Resources Regulation which regulates that IUP management is conducted by evaluating the IUP issuance procedure through 5 criterias, which are administration, territoriality, technical, environment, and financial.

The evaluation that is conducted on IUP through these 5 criterias hereafter resulting a Clear and Clean status and certificate for the IUP holder which declared the IUP holder has met all the 5 criterias. As a policy that aims to manage, this policy in the other hand is also forcing a compliance towards IUP holder to comply all the 5 evaluation criterias in order to have their IUP as Clear and Clean IUP. This thesis discusses Clear and Clean policy by associating it as an instrument of environmental law compliance through environmental management approach and the typology of its policy."

"Tesis ini membahas mengenai kepastian hukum terhadap penyesuaian perjanjian kerjasama pengusahaan pertambangan batubara (PKP2B) berdasarkan Undang- Undang Nomor 4 tahun 2009 tentang Mineral dan Batubara (UU Minerba). PKP2B adalah perjanjian yang dibuat dan disepakati antara pihak kontraktor baik dari dalam negeri ataupun asing dengan pihak pemerintah Republik Indonesia dalam rangka kerjasama pengusahaan pertambangan batubara. PKP2B diatur pertama kali melalui Undang-Undang Nomor 11 tahun 1967 tentang Ketentuan Umum Pokok Pertambangan. Kelahiran UU Minerba mengharuskan agar ketentuan yang terdapat dalam PKP2B disesuaikan paling lambat 1 tahun sejak UU Minerba diundangkan. Sebelum UU Minerba lahir sistem pengelolaan pertambangan batubara dilakukan melalui perjanjian antara pemerintah dengan kontraktor, UU Minerba tidak mengenal perjanjian dalam pengelolaan pertambangan batubara. Penyesuaian PKP2B dilakukan pemerintah melalui renegosiasi dengan rancangan amandemennya, hingga saat ini proses renegosiasi telah berjalan hampir 4 tahun sejak UU Minerba diundangkan, namun belum mempunyai titik temu. Kepastian hukum atas UU Minerba menjadi dipertanyakan. Pertanyaan yang muncul adalah apa yang harus dilakukan oleh salah satu pihak (dalam hal renegosiasi disini tentunya pemerintah) yang berinisiatif mengubah suatu ketentuan dalam PKP2B sebagai suatu perjanjian yang telah disepakati apabila di lain pihak menolak. Bagaimana dengan ketentuan yang mengatur bahwa suatu sebab adalah terlarang dalam perjanjian apabila sebab tersebut bertentangan dengan Undang-Undang. Penelitian tesis ini menggunakan penelitian hukum normatif dengan pendekatan perundang-undangan. Hasil penelitian yang didapat adalah meskipun renegosiasi PKP2B saat ini tidak menemui kata sepakat, sebenarnya PKP2B telah dilakukan beberapa kali perubahan sebelum UU Minerba diundangkan. Salah satu alasan renegosiasi PKP2B tidak menemui kata sepakat karena posisi para pihak dalam renegosiasi dibatasi ketentuan UU Minerba yang merupakan produk dari pemerintah sebagai penguasa, dan di satu sisi pemerintah sebagai pihak dalam perjanjian PKP2B itu sendiri. Sehingga hal-hal yang dibahas dalam renegosiasi tersebut cenderung mengunci dan menutup kesempatan pihak lainnya untuk merundingkan hak dan kewajibannya. Bahwa perjanjian mengikat kedua belah pihak sebagai Undang-Undang diantara mereka yang menyepakatinya dan para pihak harus menghormati perjanjian yang telah disepakati (asas kepastian hukum dalam perjanjian yang dikenal dengan istilah Pacta Sunt Servanda).

---

This thesis discusses the legal certainty against the adjustment of coal contract of work (PKP2B) based on Law No. 4 of 2009 on Mineral and Coal Mining (Mining Law). PKP2B are agreements made and agreed between the contracting parties either domestic or foreign by the government of the Republic of Indonesia in the coal mining business cooperation. PKP2B first regulated through Law No. 11 of 1967 on General Provisions of Mining. The birth of the Mining Law requires that the provision contained in PKP2B adjusted at least 1 year from the Mining Law was enacted. Before the Mining Law was born coal mining management system given through an agreement between the government and the contractor, the Mining Law does not recognize an agreement in the management of coal mining. PKP2B adjustments made by the government through the draft amendments to the renegotiation, the renegotiation process to date has been running almost 4 years since the promulgation of the Mining Law, however, does not have any common ground. Legal certainty of the Mining Law to be questionable. The question that arises is what should be done by one of the parties (in terms of renegotiation of the government here of course) who took the initiative to change a provision in an agreement PKP2B as agreed when on the other hand refused. What about the provision which provides that a cause is forbidden in the agreement if the cause is contrary to the Act. This thesis research using normative legal research approach legislation.

The results were obtained despite the renegotiation PKP2B currently not met an agreement, actually PKP2B been done several times before the Mining Law was enacted. One reason renegotiation PKP2B not meet an agreement because the position of the parties to renegotiate, under the provisions of the Mining Law is limited which is a product of government as rulers, and on one side of the government as a party to the treaty itself (PKP2B). So things are discussed in the renegotiation tends to lock and close the other parties an opportunity to negotiate their rights and obligations. That the agreement binds both parties as the Act among those who agree and the parties must honor the agreements that have been agreed upon (the principle of legal certainty in the agreement known as pacta Sunt servanda)."

"Masih terdapat polemik yang timbul pasca diperbaharuinya landasan hukum pertambangan dengan diterbitkannya Undang-Undang Nomor 3 Tahun 2020 Tentang Perubahan Atas Undang-Undang Nomor 4 Tahun 2009 Tentang Pertambangan Mineral Dan Batubara diantaranya perihal perubahan norma kaidah pertambangan yang baik khususnya lingkungan serta kaitan perizinan dengan kaidah pertambangan yang baik. Pendekatan yang dilakukan yakni menggunakan metode yuridis normatif dan hasil dari penelitian yakni berupa preskriptif analitis. Norma kaidah pertambangan yang baik di Indonesia menurut UU Nomor 3 Tahun 2020 sudah cukup baik, seperti sudah dimasukkannya ketentuan Kaidah Teknik Pertambangan di dalam Pasal 96, yang bilamana merujuk pada Pasal 3 Peraturan Menteri ESDM Nomor 26 Tahun 2018, Kaidah Pertambangan yang Baik meliputi juga di dalamnya Kaidah Teknik Pertambangan yang Baik. Perizinan kaitannya dengan kaedah pertambangan yang baik ialah pemohon serta pemegang izin wajib melaksanakan kaidah teknik pertambangan yang baik dimana hal tersebut sudah diatur secara tegas di dalam Undang-Undang Nomor 3 Tahun 2020. Hal ini penting untuk menciptakan kepastian hukum dalam pengelolaan dan pengusahaanpertambangan di Indonesia

---

There are still polemics that arise after the renewal of the mining legal basis with the issuance of Law Number 3 of 2020 concerning Amendments to Law Number 4 of 2009 concerning Mineral and Coal Mining, including changes to Good Mining Practice, especially regarding the environment and the link between licensing and Good Mining Practice. The approach taken is using a normative juridical methodand the results of the research are in the form of analytical prescriptive. Thenorms of Good Mining Practice in Indonesia according to Law Number 3 of 2020 are quite good, as has been included in the provisions of the Good MiningPractice in Article 96 when referring to Article 3 of the Minister of Energy and Mineral Resources Regulation Number 26 of 2018, the Good Mining Practice also include the following in it the Good Mining Practice. Licensing with Good Mining Practice is that the applicant and the permit holder are required to implement Good Mining Practices which has been explicitly regulated in Law Number 3of 2020. This is important to create legal certainty in mining management andexploitation in Indonesia."

"ABSTRAKPenelitian ini membahas tentang Tinjauan Yuridis Mengenai Kepastian Hukum Penyesuaian Kontrak Karya Pertambangan Terhadap UU No 4 Tahun 2009 Tentang Pertambangan Mineral dan Batubara UU Pertambangan Minerba Penelitian ini dilakukan sehubungan dengan adanya aturan di dalam ketentuan peralihan UU Pertambangan Minerba yang mewajibkan penyesuaian ketentuan di dalam Kontrak Karya KK terhadap UU Pertambangan Minerba Tujuan dari penelitian ini adalah mengetahui gambaran mengenai pengaturan penyesuaian KK serta permasalahan di dalam pelaksanaannya selain juga untuk mengetahui mengenai kepastian hukum terkait pelaksanaan penyesuaian KK terhadap UU Pertambangan Minerba Untuk itu penelitian ini menggunakan metode penelitian hukum yuridis normatif dengan menggunakan sumber daya sekunder yang dianalisis menggunakan analisis data kualitatif Hasil dari penelitian menunjukkan bahwa pelaksanaan penyesuaian KK terhadap UU Pertambangan Minerba masih memiliki sejumlah masalah dan kendala yang berasal dari belum adanya pengaturan yang mengatur secara komprehensif dan tumpang tindih pengaturan sehingga pengaturan yang ada belum menjamin kepastian hukum dalam proses penyesuaian kontrak karya tersebut Dengan demikian pemerintah bersama sama dengan para pemangku kepentingan stakeholders yang terkait perlu segera melengkapi serta memperbaiki pengaturan yang ada pada saat ini demi menjamin adanya kepastian hukum dalam proses penyesuaian KK terhadap UU Pertambangan Minerba

---

ABSTRACTThis Research discusses the legal analysis of legal certainty behind the Contract of Works CoW adjustment to Law No 4 of 2009 Concerning Mineral and Coal Mining Law No 4 2009 This research is conducted due to the clause of transitional provisions in the Law No 4 2009 which requires adjustment of provisions in the CoW to the Law No 4 2009 The purpose of this research is to determine an overview of the framework in CoW adjustment regulations and issues in its implementation as well as to find out about the legal certainty regarding its conduct pertaining to the Law No 4 2009 To that end this research uses juridical normative legal research method by utilizing analyzed secondary source and qualitative data As the result this research showed that the implementation of the adjustment the CoW to the Law No 4 2009 still contains a number of problems and constraints stemming from the lack and overlapping regulations Therefore the regulations has yet to ensure legal certainty in the process of adjustment of the CoW Thus the government together with the stakeholders needs to complete and improve existing regulations in order to ensure legal certainty in the process of adjustment of the CoW to the Law 4 2009 "

"Skripsi ini membahas mengenai permasalahan yang terdapat pada rumusan Pasal 93 Undang-Undang No. 4 Tahun 2009 tentang Mineral dan Batubara yang mengatur mengenai pengalihan Izin Usaha Pertambangan. Terdapat kontradiksi antara ayat (1) dan ayat (2) pasal tersebut. Pasal 93 ayat (1) menyatakan bahwa pengalihan Izin Usaha Pertambangan tidak diperbolehkan akan tetapi pada ayat (2) dinyatakan bahwa pengalihan kepemilikan dan/atau saham di bursa saham hanya dapat dilakukan setelah melakukan kegiatan eksplorasi tahapan tertentu. Selain itu dalam Pasal 93 ayat (3) disebutkan bahwa pengalihan kepemilikan dan/atau saham di bursa saham harus memberitahu pemberi izin. Konteks memberitahu dianggap bertentangan dengan prinsip administrasi negara. Penelitian ini adalah penelitian kualitatif dengan desain deskriptif. Hasil penelitian menyarankan bahwa rumusan pasal ini perlu diperjelas melalui peraturan pelaksananya.

---

This thesis discusses about the issue on the Article 93 Law No. 4 of 2009 on Mineral and Coal that is regulated about transfer of Mining Business Permit. There are a contradiction between paragraph (1) and paragraph (2) on this article. Article 93 paragraph (1) explain that transfer of mining business permit are not allowed but on paragraph (2) stated that transfer of ownership and/or shares on the stock exchange can be made only after perform a certain stage exploration activities. Furthermore, Article 93 paragraph (3) mentioned that the transfer of ownership and shares on the stock exchange should notify the issuer of Mining Business Permit. The context of ?notify‟ is contravene with the state administration principle. This research is qualitative with description design. This research result suggested that this article needs to be clarified through the implementing regulation."

"[Undang-Undang Nomor 4 Tahun 2009 merupakan undang-undang yang dapat dikatakan cukup kontroversial bagi pertambangan mineral logam, karena merubah alur industri pertambangan logam tanah air menjadi tidak hanya mencakup kegiatan pertambangan semata, akan tetapi juga diwajibkan untuk perusahaan-perusahaan pertambangan melakukan kegiatan pengolahan dan pemurnian di dalam negeri dalam kurun waktu hanya 5 (lima) tahun saja. Keterbatasan infrastruktur di daerah-daerah, ketidaktersediaan listrik, serta kompleksnya birokrasi yang melingkupi perluasan bidang usaha lintas sektor antara pertambangan (hulu) dengan pemurnian (hilir) membuat hal tersebut menjadi terlalu sulit diwujudkan, ditambah lagi dengan inkonsistensi Pemerintah yang menetapkan kewajiban divestasi saham bagi Perusahaan Pertambangan Penanaman Modal Asing, dari 20% (dua puluh persen) di tahun 2010, menjadi 51% (lima puluh satu persen) di tahun 2012. Selain kedua hal tersebut, pada tahun ketiga sejak Undang-Undang Nomor 4 Tahun 2009 diberlakukan, Pemerintah telah melarang kegiatan ekspor mineral mentah, akan tetapi mencabutnya kembali dan menetapkan ketentuan ekspor dengan tambahan birokrasi yang semakin panjang, sehingga menyebabkan investor pertambangan penanaman modal asing kehilangan waktu dan sulit dalam merealisasikan amanah Undang-Undang Nomor 4 Tahun 2009 tersebut. Penulisan ini bertujuan untuk menampilkan fakta kesulitan-kesulitan yang dialami oleh PT. X selaku perusahaan penanaman modal asing dalam bidang pertambangan mineral nikel oleh karena kebijakan pertambangan yang tidak cukup berimbang.

---

Law Number 4 Year 2009 could be considered as a controversy for the metal mineral mining businesses, since it has changed the scheme of domestic metal mineral mining industry to not only contains mining but also obliged the mining companies to conduct mineral smelting and processing domestically within period of only 5 (five) years. The limitation of infrastructure facilities within the counties, unavailability of electrical source, and the complexity of bureaucracies that facilitates such cross borders industrial sectors between the mining (mainstream industries) , and the smelting and processing (downstream industries) has caused such policy too unreasonable to be accomplished, moreover the inconsistency of the Government whom has stipulated the divestment terms for the foreign investing mining company, from 20% (twenty percent) in 2010, and re-stipulated it to became 51% (fifty one) percent within 2012. Apart from those two main issues herein, by the third year since the enactment of Law Number 4 Year 2009, the Government has banned the raw mineral export activities, however revoked such laws and enacted a new regulation of raw mineral export policies with additional/ longer bureaucracy’s mechanism process, therefore it has put the foreign mining investors within difficult circumstances to actualize the mandate of the laws itself. This Thesis intends to display the problematic facts that experienced by PT. X as a foreign investing mining company in nickel mining by the insufficient fairness of mining policies.;Law Number 4 Year 2009 could be considered as a controversy for the metal mineral mining businesses, since it has changed the scheme of domestic metal mineral mining industry to not only contains mining but also obliged the mining companies to conduct mineral smelting and processing domestically within period of only 5 (five) years. The limitation of infrastructure facilities within the counties, unavailability of electrical source, and the complexity of bureaucracies that facilitates such cross borders industrial sectors between the mining (mainstream industries) , and the smelting and processing (downstream industries) has caused such policy too unreasonable to be accomplished, moreover the inconsistency of the Government whom has stipulated the divestment terms for the foreign investing mining company, from 20% (twenty percent) in 2010, and re-stipulated it to became 51% (fifty one) percent within 2012. Apart from those two main issues herein, by the third year since the enactment of Law Number 4 Year 2009, the Government has banned the raw mineral export activities, however revoked such laws and enacted a new regulation of raw mineral export policies with additional/ longer bureaucracy’s mechanism process, therefore it has put the foreign mining investors within difficult circumstances to actualize the mandate of the laws itself. This Thesis intends to display the problematic facts that experienced by PT. X as a foreign investing mining company in nickel mining by the insufficient fairness of mining policies.;Law Number 4 Year 2009 could be considered as a controversy for the metal mineral mining businesses, since it has changed the scheme of domestic metal mineral mining industry to not only contains mining but also obliged the mining companies to conduct mineral smelting and processing domestically within period of only 5 (five) years. The limitation of infrastructure facilities within the counties, unavailability of electrical source, and the complexity of bureaucracies that facilitates such cross borders industrial sectors between the mining (mainstream industries) , and the smelting and processing (downstream industries) has caused such policy too unreasonable to be accomplished, moreover the inconsistency of the Government whom has stipulated the divestment terms for the foreign investing mining company, from 20% (twenty percent) in 2010, and re-stipulated it to became 51% (fifty one) percent within 2012. Apart from those two main issues herein, by the third year since the enactment of Law Number 4 Year 2009, the Government has banned the raw mineral export activities, however revoked such laws and enacted a new regulation of raw mineral export policies with additional/ longer bureaucracy’s mechanism process, therefore it has put the foreign mining investors within difficult circumstances to actualize the mandate of the laws itself. This Thesis intends to display the problematic facts that experienced by PT. X as a foreign investing mining company in nickel mining by the insufficient fairness of mining policies., Law Number 4 Year 2009 could be considered as a controversy for the metal mineral mining businesses, since it has changed the scheme of domestic metal mineral mining industry to not only contains mining but also obliged the mining companies to conduct mineral smelting and processing domestically within period of only 5 (five) years. The limitation of infrastructure facilities within the counties, unavailability of electrical source, and the complexity of bureaucracies that facilitates such cross borders industrial sectors between the mining (mainstream industries) , and the smelting and processing (downstream industries) has caused such policy too unreasonable to be accomplished, moreover the inconsistency of the Government whom has stipulated the divestment terms for the foreign investing mining company, from 20% (twenty percent) in 2010, and re-stipulated it to became 51% (fifty one) percent within 2012. Apart from those two main issues herein, by the third year since the enactment of Law Number 4 Year 2009, the Government has banned the raw mineral export activities, however revoked such laws and enacted a new regulation of raw mineral export policies with additional/ longer bureaucracy’s mechanism process, therefore it has put the foreign mining investors within difficult circumstances to actualize the mandate of the laws itself. This Thesis intends to display the problematic facts that experienced by PT. X as a foreign investing mining company in nickel mining by the insufficient fairness of mining policies.]"