Hasil Pencarian  ::  Simpan CSV :: Kembali

"Limitasi divestasi berjenjang merugikan negara sebagai pemilik tambang yang semestinya dikelola secara mandiri oleh negara sesuai dengan Pasal 33 ayat (3) UUD NRI 1945, yang mengamanatkan bumi dan air dan kekayaan alam yang terkandung di dalamnya dikuasai oleh negara dan dipergunakan untuk sebesar-besar kemakmuran rakyat, pemanfaatan produksi tambang oleh investasi asing selama 10 tahun sudah sangat menguntungkan bagi para investor asing mengingat mineral dan batubara bukanlan energi terbarukan sehingga pengelolaannya harus dilandasi dengan prinsip kehahati-hatian mengingat prioritas hasil bumi adalah rakyat yang artinya harus dikelola secara mandiri dalam pembangunan ekonomi nasional. Namun yang terjadi adalah dalam melakukan kegiatan penambangan investor asing malakukan kegiatan produksi dengan metode tambang terbuka dan tidak terintegrasi dengan pengolahan atau pemurnian atau kegiatan pengembangan, pemanfaatan, kepemilikan saham pemerintah pusat, pemerintah daerah, BUMN, BUMD, atau Badan Usaha Swasta Nasional dengan presentase berjenjang 10 tahun setelahnya dengan cara bertahap tahun kesepuluh sebesar 5% (lima persen), tahun kesebelas sebesar 10% (Sepuluh persen), tahun keduabelas sebesar 15 % (lima belas persen),tahun ketigabelas sebesar 20% (dua puluh persen), tahun keempatbelas sebesar 30 % (tiga puluh persen), tahun keenambelas sebesar 51 % (lima puluh satu persen) sejak berproduksi,sangatlah menguntungkan pemilik modal walapun saham mayoritas dimiliki negara, hal tersebut dikarenakan mineral dan batubara bukanlah energi terbarukan, sehingga dampak dari tambang diperlukan pemulihan dengan jangka waktu yang panjang. Kemudian peneliti melakukan wawancara dengan PT Worldera Internasional Indonesia menyatakan bahwa kebijakan limitasi divestasi saham yang diperpanjang menjadi 5 tahun dengan total akumulasi pengelolaan sepanjang 10 tahun memberikan dampak positid bagi bisnis tambang, serta tetap dapat memberikan pemasukan bagi koorporasi terkait dengan pengelolaan tambang dan juga memberi nilai tambah bagi negara melalui sektor perpajakan, dan pembangunan ekonomi.

---

The limitation of tiered divestment is detrimental to the state as the owner of a mine which should be managed independently by the state in accordance with Article 33 paragraph (3) of the 945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia, which mandates that land and water and the natural resources contained therein shall be controlled by the state and used for the greatest prosperity of the people , the utilization of mining production by foreign investment for 10 years has been very profitable for foreign investors considering that minerals and coal are not renewable energy so that their management must be based on the precautionary principle considering that the priority of agricultural products is the people, which means they must be managed independently in national economic development. However, what happens is that in carrying out mining activities foreign investors carry out production activities using the open pit mining method and are not integrated with processing or refining or development activities, utilization, share ownership of the central government, regional governments, BUMN, BUMD, or National Private Business Entities with tiered percentages. 10 years after that in stages the tenth year by 5% (five percent), the eleventh year by 10% (Ten percent), the twelfth year by 15% (fifteen percent), the thirteenth year by 20% (twenty percent), the fourteenth year by 30% (thirty percent), the sixteenth year by 51% (fifty one percent) since production, it is very profitable for the owners of capital even though the majority shares are owned by the state, this is because minerals and coal are not renewable energy, so the impact of mining requires recovery by long period of time. Then the researcher conducted an interview with PT Worldera Internasional Indonesia stating that the divestment limit policy which was extended to 5 years with a total management accumulation of 10 years had a positive impact on the mining business, and could still provide income for corporations related to mine management and also provide added value. for the state through the taxation sector, and economic developmet."

"Pelaksanaan kewajiban divestasi saham sebesar 51% bagi pemegang izin usaha di bidang pertambangan mineral dan Batubara yang sahamnya dimiliki asing kepada Peserta Indonesia yakni Pemerintah Pusat, Pemerintah Daerah, BUMN, BUMD serta Badan Usaha swata secara berjenjang  merupakan suatu kewajiban yang harus dilaksanakan sesuai dengan Pasal 112 Undang-Undang Nomor 3 Tahun 2020 tentang perubahan atas Undang-Undang Nomor 4 Tahun 2009 tentang pertambangan Mineral dan Batubara (UU Minerba) beserta peraturan pelaksanaannya.  Tulisan ini disusun dengan menggunakan metode penelitian doktrinal. Pelaksanaan Divestasi saham juga diwajibkan bagi pemegang kontrak karya atau perjanjian karya pengusahaan pertambangan Batubara yang berlaku sebelum rezim izin berlaku sesuai dengan UU Minerba. Sebagai salah satu contoh yaitu pelaksanaan divestasi saham PT Vale Indonesia yang merupakan pemegang Kontrak Karya Tahun 1968 dan terakhir diamandemen pada Tahun 2014, yang menyebutkan bahwa Divestasi Saham PT Vale Indonesia kepada peserta Indonesia hanya sebesar 40%. Perbedaan antara keberlakuan pelaksanaan divestasi saham PT Vale Indonesia dalam kontrak karya dengan UU Minerba tentu harus dipertimbangkan beberapa asas yakni asas kebebasan berkontrak dalam kontrak karya yang telah ada sebelum UU Minerba berlaku sesuai Pasal 1338 KUH Perdata, serta asas hak menguasai negara atas sumber daya alam yang terkandung di Indonesia dikuasai oleh negara dan dimanfaatkan untuk sebesar-besarnya kemakmuran rakyat sesuai Pasal 33 ayat (3) UUD NRI 1945. Adapun ketentuan pelaksanaan divestasi saham PT Vale Indonesia dalam kontrak karya merupakan salah satu pertimbangan bagi Pemerintah untuk dapat memberikan perpanjangan Kontrak Karya menjadi IUPK Sebagai Kelanjutan Operasi Kontrak/Perjanjian, namun demikian dalam UU Minerba maupun peraturan pelaksanaannya pelaksanaan divestasi bukanlah persyaratan untuk dapat diberikannya perpanjangan kontrak menjadi IUPK Sebagai Kelanjutan Operasi Kontrak/Perjanjian.

---

Implementation of the obligation to share divestment of 51% for business license holders in the mineral and coal mining sector whose shares are owned by foreigners to Indonesian Participants namely the Central Government, Regional Government, BUMN, BUMD and private business entities in stages is an obligation that must be implemented in accordance with Article 112 Law Number 3 of 2020 concerning amendments to Law Number 4 of 2009 concerning Mineral and Coal mining (UU Minerba) and its implementing regulations. This article was prepared using doctrinal research methods. Implementation of share divestment is also mandatory for holders of work contracts or coal mining business work agreements that were in effect before the permit regime came into effect in accordance with the Minerba Law. As one example, namely the implementation of the divestment of shares in PT Vale Indonesia, which is the holder of the 1968 Contract of Work and was last amended in 2014, which stated that the divestment of PT Vale Indonesia shares to Indonesian participants was only 40%. The difference between the implementation of PT Vale Indonesia's share divestment in a work contract and the Minerba Law must of course take into account several principles, namely the principle of freedom of contract in the work contract which existed before the Minerba Law came into force in accordance with Article 1338 of the Civil Code, as well as the principle of the state's right to control over natural resources. contained in Indonesia are controlled by the state and utilized for the greatest prosperity of the people in accordance with Article 33 paragraph (3) of the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia. The provisions for implementing the divestment of PT Vale Indonesia shares in the work contract are one of the considerations for the Government to be able to grant an extension of the Work Contract to become an IUPK As a Continuation of Contract/Agreement Operations, however, in the Minerba Law and its implementing regulations, the implementation of divestment is not a requirement for a contract extension to become an IUPK as a Continuation of Contract/Agreement Operations."

"ABSTRAKIndonesia memiliki suatu sistem hukum pertambangan dalam mengatur penanamanmodal asing dalam bidang pertambangan yaitu sistem kontrak karya yang dimulaipada tahun 1967 hingga tahun 2008. Pada tahun 2009, terjadi perubahan paradigmahukum pertambangan setelah Indonesia mengeluarkan suatu undang-undang baruyang mengatur pengusahaan pertambangan mineral dan batubara yaitu Undang-Undang No. 4 Tahun 2009 Tentang Pertambangan Mineral dan Batubara, yangmemiliki suatu sistem perijinan untuk menggantikan sistem kontrak karya. Tesisini meneliti hukum pertambangan Indonesia dengan digantinya sistem kontrakkarya dengan suatu paradigma hukum baru yang mengacu pada prinsip perijinandengan Izin Usaha Pertambangan, dimulai dari penelitian dasar-dasar hukumpertambangan mineral, latar belakang hukum pertambangan Indonesia dan sistemhukum pertambangan mineral dengan sistem hukum perizinan. Fokus spesifikditekankan dalam hal dalam hal kepastian hukum dan kesesuaian dengan tujuanUndang-undang No. 4 Tahun 2009 Tentang Pertambangan Mineral dan Batubarayaitu dapat memberikan hasil untuk sebesar-besar kemakmuran rakyat. Metodepenelitian yang digunakan dalam penulisan tesis ini adalah metode yuridisnormatif yang bersifat kualitatif. Hasil penelitian ini menyimpulkan bahwamengganti konrak karya dengan izin belum dapat menjamin kepastian hukumdalam bidang pertambangan mineral dan batubara sehingga tujuan hukumpertambangan untuk digunakan untuk sebesar-besar kemakmuran rakyat belumdapat dicapai.

---

ABSTRACTIndonesia had a mining law system to regulate foreign investment on mining whichwas contract of work system, starting on year 1967 to 2008. On the year 2009,there is a change on mining law paradigm after Indonesia released new law inregulating mineral and coal mining business. The law is Law of the Republic ofIndonesia Number 4 Of 2009 Concerning Mineral and Coal mining with alicensing system to replace contract of work. This thesis deals with the study ofIndonesian mining law on the changing of contract of work system with newmining law paradigm with licensing system, starting on the study of the basic ofmineral law, backgrounds of Indonesian mining law, and the mineral mining legalsystem, certainty of law and prosperity of the People. Specific focus is stressed onthe principal of certainty of law and the compliance of new law to its purpose ofgiving maximum prosperity to the people. Research method used on this thesis isjuridical normative with qualitative research. This study conclude that replacingcontract of work with licensing sistem has not resulted on certainty of law onmineral and coai mining, therefore maximum prosperity of the people targeted bythis law will not be achieved yet."

"Penelitian ini menggunakan metode penelitian hukum normatif. Data yang digunakan adalah data primer melalui wawancara dan data sekunder. Permasalahan dari penelitian ini adalah Apakah Kuasa Pertambangan milik BUMN wajib menyesuaikan ketentuan di dalam Undang-Undang No. 4 Tahun 2009? dan Apakah BUMN pemegang KP dapat mendapatkan prioritas sebagaimana diatur didalam Pasal 75 ayat (3) UU No. 4 Tahun 2009. KP milik BUMN tidak langsung menyesuaikan menjadi IUP. Sebab UU No. 4 Tahun 2009 tidak memerintahkan demikian. penyesuaian KP harus diatur didalam peraturan setingkat undang-undang sebab amanat Pasal 33 ayat (3) jo ayat (5) Konstitusi, dimana pengusahaan sumber daya alam harus diatur didalam Undang-Undang dan BUMN sebagai wujud fungsi pengelolaan dari Hak Penguasaan Negara juga harus diatur oleh peraturan setingkat Undang-Undang. Pemberian WIUPKhusus kepada BUMN harus didahului dengan penetapan WPN dan persetujuan DPR agar WPN dapat diusahakan. Masa transisi UU No. 4 Tahun 2009 akan berakhir tanggal 12 Januari 2010, untuk memberikan kepastian hukum dan amanat Pasal 33 ayat (3) dan ayat (5) Konstitusi maka Pemerintah membuat PERPU yang mengatur KP milik BUMN dan pemberian keistimewaan BUMN.

---

This research methodology is normative legal analysis. It uses the prime data along with the secondary data. This research issues are whether or not state-owned enterprise?s mining authorization should- by law- adjust to the new mining law since it is not regulated in the transitory article and whether or not state-owned enterprise should be given the priority according to the Article 75 verse 3. Mining authorizations owned by the state-owned enterprises are not ?by law- adjust to the new mining law for there isn't any regulation in the new mining Law's transitory article. State-Owned Enterprise should be given the priority to exploit the Special Area according to the Article 73 verse 3. In the name of legal certainty and Article 33 verse 3 and verse 5 Constitution, those issues required immediate respond from the Government of The Republic of Indonesia to draft the PERPU for the transitory time -given of the new mining Law -will be ended at 12 January 2010. Kata kunci/ key word: hukum pertambangan (mining law), Badan Usaha Milik Negara (state-Owned Enterprise), kuasa pertambangan (mining authorization)."

"Indonesia mempunyai potensi sumberdaya alam yang besar, salah satunya adalah batubara. Pengelolaan sumberdaya alam, antara lain batubara, yang ditujukan untuk memberikan keuntungan ekonomi semaksimal mungkin dijalankan dengan cara memberikan kewenangan kepada pemerintah untuk menetapkan hak penguasaan pada sumberdaya alam kepada pihak-pihak tertentu. Secara normatif landasan idiil sistem ekonomi Indonesia adalah Pancasila dan UUD NRI 1945. Keadilan menjadi sangat utama di dalam sistem ekonomi Indonesia. Keadilan merupakan titik-tolak, proses dan tujuan sekaligus. Prinsip yang terkandung dalam UUD NRI 1945 adalah pengusahaan potensi sumberdaya alam harus dilaksanakan secara berkelanjutan dan pemanfaatannya seoptimal mungkin bagi kepentingan rakyat. Dengan demikian, pemerintah memiliki peran utama dalam optimalisasi pengusahaan potensi sumberdaya alam. Pengaturan dan pelaksanaan pembayaran royalti batubara merupakan bagian integral dari Sistem Hukum Nasional Indonesia mengenai pemanfaatan sumber daya alam. Royalti batubara khususnya, dan mineral pada umumnya, memiliki segi-segi sosio ekonomi. Politik hukum pemanfaatan sumberdaya alarn di Indonesia, sementara itu, menggariskan bahwa sektor energi merupakan sektor yang "penting dan menguasai hajat hidup orang banyak." Oleh karena itu, sumberdaya alam harus dimiliki oleh seluruh bangsa, untuk kemudian dikuasai negara sebagai organisasi kekuasaan rakyat. Saat ini terdapat pula permasalahan royalti serta pungutan negara. Ketentuan hukum dalam Perjanjian Kerjasama Pengusahaan Pertambangan Batubara (PKP2B) dan Perjanjian Kerjasama Penjualan Batubara seharusnya diatur dalam peraturan Menteri ESDM yang lebih terinci lagi dalam hal teknis dilapangannya, guna mengikuti perkembangan pengusahaan pertambangan batubara pada saat ini maka diperlukan peraturan baru yang lebih terperinci. Perjanjian kerjasama penjualan batubara lebih khusus juga harus ada pengaturannya tersendiri, karena apabila dibiarkan saja seperti sekarang maka hak negara akan terus dikurangi oleh para pengusaha pertambangan batubara dan sangat merugikan negara, dimana tidak ada standar khusus jumlah presentase penjualan batubara yang sebelumnya dalam bentuk natura.

---

Indonesia has potential natural resources, among other things is coal. Natural resources management, among others to coal, devoted to provide optimal the economic incentives by means of giving authority to the government to establish the right to use natural resources to a certain parties. A normative ideal system the Indonesian economy is Pancasila and the Constitution of 1945. Justice is the very major economic system in Indonesia. Justice is the starting points, the processes and the final aim. A principle contained in the Constitution of 1945 is potential operation natural resources sustainably and its use must be implemented to the best possible for the public interests. Therefore, the government has a major role to maximize the natural resources operations. The arrangement and the royalty payments of coal is an integral part of the Indonesian national legal system on the utilization of the natural resources. Royalty on coal, and in general, the royalty of other minerals, having a socio-economic part. Legal politics on natural resources utilization in Indonesia dictates that energy sector is a sector which the "important and control life of the many people interest.'' Therefore, natural resources should be owned by all nations for later to be controlled by the state. Currently, there are also problems on the royalty and levies. Provision on the Coal Contract of Work (PKP2B) and the Cooperation on Coal Sales Agreement should be arranged in details in the Ministry of Energy and Mineral Resources in technical terms, to follow a development on the current coal mining operations to-date, and require more detailed new rules accordingly. The Cooperation on Coal Sales Agreement also must be arranged more detail as if it is left a one then the income of the state will be reduced by the coal mining bussinessmen, as there is no standard on coal sales percentage which formerly agreed in-kind."

"[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.]"