analisis kritik terhadap putusan mahkamah konstitusi nomor 36/puu-x/2012

Clicks: 142
ID: 156121
2013
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score — reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
Steady

Ranked #44 of 79 articles by views in Health Communication

Most read Least read

Bar heights use a square-root scale.

Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet minted

Create a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.

5 SUSD one-off · no wallet required
Abstract

This article discusses the Constitutional Court Judgment No. 36/PUU-X/2012. In this judgment, the majority of the Justices decided that the 1945 Constitution requires the State to exercise direct control over the upstream oil and gas activities. We will criticise the Justices’ deliberation that underlies the decision. The Court failed to shed light on questions pertaining to the legal rationale for ‘five activities’ doctrine that form the framework of ‘State control’ per Article 33 (3) of the Constitution and to the procedures in determining the priority ranking. In addition, the majority Justices are deemed to have left the question of whether the State is able to manage oil and gas industry unanswered. We will also describe how this judgment might result in the declining interest of foreign investors to invest in Indonesia, particularly inthe field of exploration and exploitation of natural resources.

 

Artikel ini membahas Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 36/PUU-X/2012. Dalam putusan tersebut, mayoritas Hakim Konstitusi memutus bahwa UUD NRI Tahun 1945 mensyaratkan Negara secara langsungmenguasai kegiatan hulu Migas. Diuraikan kritik terhadap pertimbangan hukum dari putusan, yakni kelalaian Mahkamah tidak menjelaskan dari mana asal ‘lima kegiatan’ sebagai komponen ‘penguasaan negara’ dalam Pasal 33(3) UUD NRI Tahun 1945, bagaimana menentukan prioritas rangkingnya, dan perihal mayoritas Hakim Konstitusi yang tidak menentukan apakah Negara mampu mengelola industri Migas. Selain itu, diuraikan pula bahwa putusan tersebut berpotensi mengurangi ketertarikan investor asing untuk menanam modalnya di Indonesia, khususnya di bidang eksplorasi dan eksploitasi sumberdaya alam.

Reference Key
butt2013mimbaranalisis Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
Authors ;Simon Butt;Fritz Edward Siregar
Journal Health Communication
Year 2013
DOI
DOI not found
URL
Keywords

Citations

No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org

No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.