Hasil Pencarian  ::  Simpan CSV :: Kembali

"Penelitian ini membahas mengenai beberapa permasalahan, seperti pembahasan tentang implikasi dari konsistensi pelaksanaan peraturan serta ketentuan yang berlaku disktor pertambangan terhadap perlindungan investor dalam hal pemberian izin. Kemudian persoalan tentang efisiensi dalam proses penyelesaian sengketa izin usaha wilayah pertambangan. Serta pihak yang berhak atas kuasa pertambangan di konawe Utara berdasarkan fakta hukum dan rasionlitas para majelis Hakim. Penelitian ini adalah penelitian yuridis normatif. Hasil penelitian ini adalah bahwa masalah konsistensi peraturan terhadap pemberian izin pertambangan belum tercapai, sehingga harus ada sosialisasi peraturan di tingkat pemerintah daerah dan koordinasi yang kuat antara pihak yang terkait, baik pada tingkat pusat maupun daerah. Kemudian, proses penyelesaian sengketa yang ditempuh tidak efisien bagi investor, sehingga dianjurkan adanya lembaga khusus untuk menyelesaikan permasalahan pertambangan agar lebih efektif dari segi waktu dan biayas. Berdasarkan fakta hukum dan rasionalitas para hakim, maka jelas pihak yang berhak atas kuasa pertambangan tersebut adalah PT. DIPM karena telah sesuai dengan prosedur yang ada.

---

This research discusses about several issues, such as a discussion of the implications of the consistent implementation of the rules and regulations of the mining sector in terms of investor protection licensing. Then the question of the efficiency of the dispute resolution process mining license area. As well as the party entitled to Mining in Northern Konawe based on legal facts and rationality of the Panel of Judges. This research is normative.

The results of this study is that the problem of consistency rules for granting mining licenses have not been achieved, so there should be laws and regulations at the local level and strong coordination between the parties involved, both at central and regional levels. Then, the dispute resolution process adopted inefficient for investors, so it is recommended a special agency to resolve the problem of mining to be more effective in terms of time and cost. Based on the legal facts and rationality of the judges, it is clear that the parties are entitled to power mining is PT.DIPM due in accordance with established procedures."

"Tesis ini membahas mengenai perlindungan hukum PT MMP atas Izin Usaha Pertambangan Operasi Produksi yang sudah didapatkan melalui SK Menteri ESDM No. 3109 Tahun 2014 yang kemudian dibatalkan oleh Putusan Pengadilan Tata Usaha Negara Jakarta No. 211/G/2014/P.TUN.JKT tanggal 14 Juli 2014, jo. Pengadilan Tinggi Tata Usaha Negara Jakarta No. 271/B/2015/PT.TUN.JKT tanggal 14 Desember 2015, Jo. Putusan Kasasi Mahkamah Agung No. 255 K/TUN/2016 tanggal 11 Agustus 2016. Pembatalan tersebut disebabkan oleh tidak dipenuhi-nya Izin Pemanfaatan Pulau Kecil dari Kementerian Kelautan dan Perikanan oleh PT MMP dan juga terdapat kesalahan dari instansi yang berwenang yakni Kementerian ESDM dan Kementerian kelautan dan Perikanan yang tidak dapat memberikan Izin Pemanfaatan Pulau Kecil kepada PT MMP. Penelitian ini merupakan penelitian hukum yang menggunakan pendekatan yuridis normatif. Hasil penelitian ini adalah sebagai berikut: Pertama, pemberian Izin Usaha Pertambangan PT MMP sejati-nya telah sesuai dengan Pasal 65 UU No. 4 Tahun 2009. Kedua, Putusan Pengadilan sebagaimana tertuang dalam Putusan Pengadilan Tata Usaha Negara Jakarta No. 211/G/2014/P.TUN.JKT tanggal 14 Juli 2014, jo. Pengadilan Tinggi Tata Usaha Negara Jakarta No. 271/B/2015/PT.TUN.JKT tanggal 14 Desember 2015, Jo. Putusan Kasasi Mahkamah Agung No. 255 K/TUN/2016 tanggal 11 Agustus 2016 yang mencabut Izin Usaha Pertambangan PT MMP telah sesuai dalam menerapkan hukum, akan tetapi Kementerian ESDM dan Kementerian Kelautan dan Perikanan seharusnya bertanggung jawab atas pembatalan tersebut. Ketiga, Perlindungan terhadap PT MMP selaku pelaku usaha yang Izin Usaha Pertambangan-nya dicabut adalah perlindungan secara hukum pidana sebagaimana diatur dalam Pasal 165 UU No. 4 Tahun 2009.

---

The focus of this thesis regarding the protection of PT MMP over its Mining Business Licenses which get through from Ministry of Energy and Mineral Resources Decree No. 3109 of 2014 but then got annulled by the Administrative Court Jakarta Verdict No. 211/G/2014/P.TUN.JKT dated July 14, 2014, jo. High Administrative Court Jakarta Verdict No. 271/B/2015/PT.TUN.JKT dated December 14, 2015, Jo. Cassation Verdict by the Supreme Court No. 255 K/TUN/2016 dated August 11, 2016. The annulment is caused by the Permission of Isle Utilization from Ministry of Marine Affairs and Fisheries is not fulfilled by PT MMP and also there is a mistake from the authorized institution such as Ministry of Energy and Mineral Resources and Ministry of Marine Affairs and Fisheries which cannot provide the Permission of Isle Utilization to PT MMP. This research is a legal research adopting normative juridical approach. The result of the research showed that: First, Mining Business Licenses of PT MMP is in accordance with the Article 65 to Law No. 4 of 2009. Second, the Verdict of The Court that has annulled the Mining Business Licenses of PT MMP is appropriate regarding to its implementation of law, but Ministry of Energy and Mineral Resources and Ministry of Marine Affairs and Fisheries should be responsible for the annulment. Third, the legal protection of PT MMP regarding to the revocation of its Mining Business Licenses is only criminal protection which has been regulated in Article 165 to Law No. 4 of 2009."

"Skripsi ini membahas mengenai pemenuhan ketentuan-ketentuan yang telah diatur dalam pasal 39 Undang-Undang Nomor 4 Tahun 2009 tentang Pertambangan Mineral dan Batubara. Metode penelitian yang digunakan adalah metode yuridis normatif.Dari hasil penelitian ditemukan bahwa IUP Eksplorasi Timah milik PT. Bumi Palong dan IUP Operasi Produksi Batubara milik PT. Mitra Tambang Barito tidak memenuhi ketentuan pasal 39 Undang-Undang Mineral dan Batubara. Kondisi tersebut dapat mengakibatkan izin tersebut menjadi tidak sah atau dibatalkan oleh pengadilan tata usaha negara. Penelitian ini menyarankan agar pemerintah segera membuat peraturan pelaksana dalam penyusunan Izin Usaha Pertambangan.

---

The following thesis is discussing about compliance with the terms and conditions regulated in the article 39 Law No. 4 of 2009 regarding Mineral and Coal Mining against Mining Exploration License and Production Operation. The thesis used juridical norms method as research implementation method.

The result of this thesis found that tin mining exploration license owned by PT. Bumi Palong and coal mining production operation owned by PT. Mitra Tambang Tambang Barito is not comply the article 39 law regarding mineral and coal mining. The consequence of that condition is the licenses would be void by administration court. This thesis recommends the Government too soon issuing the Government Regulation as the reference in formulating Mining Business License."

"Skripsi ini membahas mengenai ketentuan kewajiban divestasi saham bagi perusahaan asing di bidang pertambangan mineral menurut UU No. 4 Tahun 2009 dan peraturan pelaksananya serta sinkronisasinya dengan hasil renegosiasi kontrak karya PT. Freeport Indonesia. Setelah melewati proses renegosiasi, pada akhirnya tercapai kesepakatan antara Pemerintah Republik Indonesia dan PT. Freeport Indonesia yang menentukan bahwa kewajiban divestasi saham PT. Freeport Indonesia adalah sebesar 30%. Dengan menggunakan jenis penelitian yuridis normatif, hasil penelitian ini menunjukkan bahwa hasil renegosiasi kontrak karya PT. Freeport tidak sinkron dengan peraturan yang berlaku pada saat itu yaitu PP No. 24 Tahun 2012, yang mengatur perusahaan asing di bidang pertambangan mineral untuk mendivestasikan sahamnya paling sedikit sebesar 51%. Setelah PP No. 24 Tahun 2012 diubah dengan PP No. 77 Tahun 2014, maka ketentuan kewajiban divestasi saham hasil renegosiasi kontrak karya PT. Freeport Indonesia dengan peraturan perundang-undangan telah sinkron.

---

This thesis examines the provisions regarding share divestment obligation for foreign mineral mining company according to Law No. 4 of 2009 and its implementing regulations, and the synchronisation with the result of contract of work renegotiation of PT. Freeport Indonesia. After going through the process of renegotiation, the Government of Republic of Indonesia and PT. Freeport Indonesia eventually reached an understanding that PT. Freeport Indonesia is obliged to divest 30% of its share.

By using normative juridical research, this study shows that the result of contract of work renegotiation of PT. Freeport Indonesia is not in sync with the applicabe regulation i.e. Government Regulation No. 24 of 2012 which requires foreign mineral mining company to divest at least 51% of its share. After Government Regulation No. 24 of 2012 is amended by Governement Regulation No. 77 of 2014, the provisions regarding share divestment obligation between the result of contract of work renegotiation of PT. Freeport Indonesia and Law No. 4 of 2009 and its implementing regulations has synchronised."

"Undang-Undang Nomor 4 Tahun 2009 tentang Pertambangan Mineral dan Batubara ("UU Pertambangan 2009") membawa perubahan bagi kegiatan pertambangan Indonesia dimana sebelumnya pelaku usaha tambang menggunakan Kontrak Karya untuk melaksanakan usahanya, maka saat ini telah berubah menjadi konsepsi izin berupa Izin Usaha Pertambangan (IUP). Dalam keberlakuannya, UU Pertambangan 2009 tetap memberikan penghormatan terhadap Kontrak Karya yang masih berlaku pada saat UU Pertambangan 2009 disahkan, walaupun penghormatan tersebut diiringi pula dengan adanya "paksaan" agar dilakukan penyesuaian ketentuan dalam Kontrak Karya dengan ketentuan dalam UU Pertambangan 2009. Skripsi ini dibuat dengan menggunakan metode yuridis normatif melalui studi dokumen serta tinjauan terhadap norma hukum tertulis yang mencakup penelitian mengenai apakah renegosiasi Kontrak Karya telah memberikan kepastian hukum bagi para pelaku usaha tambang. Hasil dari penelitian ini adalah renegosiasi Kontrak Karya ternyata membawa ketidakpastian hukum bagi para pelaku usaha tambang dikarenakan proses renegosiasi yang berlarut-larut serta adanya berbagai kepentingan di dalamnya.

---

Law No. 4 of 2009 concerning Mineral and Coal Mining ("Mining Law 2009") made changes to the Indonesian mining activities where previously mining businessmen using Contract of Work ("CoW") for doing their business then it has now been turned into a permit concept in form of Mining Permit (IUP). In its enforcement, Mining Law 2009 still respects the enforceability of the CoW that is still effective upon the Mining Law 2009 was passed, despite of the fact that such respect is also accompanied by the "coercion" in order to adjust the provisions of Contract of Work in line with the provisions in Mining Law 2009.

This thesis is made by using the normative juridical method through study of documents and review of the written legal norms which included research on whether the renegotiation of CoW has provided legal certainty for mining businessmen. Result of this research is that the CoW renegotiation evidently brings legal uncertainty for mining businessmen due to protracted renegotiation process and there are various interests in it."

"Skripsi ini membahas mengenai penerbitan dan pencabutan Izin Usaha Pertambangan (IUP), khususnya terkait dengan tumpang tindih IUP yang dapat terjadi baik antar IUP maupun dengan sektor lain seperti sektor kehutanan. Hal tersebut perlu segera diselesaikan karena dapat menimbulkan ketidakpastian dalam penanaman modal dibidang pertambangan di Indonesia. Hasil penelitian yuridis normatif menunjukkan bahwa penerbitan IUP dilakukan setelah pemohon atau peserta lelang mendapatkan Wilayah Izin Usaha Pertambangan dan memenuhi syarat untuk mendapatkan IUP. Sedangkan pencabutan IUP dapat dilakukan jika pemegang IUP tidak memenuhi kewajiban dalam peraturan perundang-undangan. Terkait dengan pencabutan IUP PT Ridlatama Tambang Mineral (PT RTM) hal tersebut telah tepat, karena PT RTM tidak memenuhi kewajibannya untuk memiliki Izin Pinjam Pakai Kawasan Hutan untuk melakukan kegiatan pertambangan di kawasan hutan. Untuk mencegah timbulnya tumpang tindih IUP, dibutuhkan peningkatan koordinasi antara Pemerintah dan Pemerintah Daerah, baik yang sifatnya sektoral maupun yang sifatnya lintas sektoral. Selain itu peningkatan pengawasan oleh Pemerintah terhadap penerbitan dan pencabutan IUP yang dilakukan oleh Kepala Daerah di Indonesia juga diperlukan.

---

This essay examines the issuance and revocation of Mining Business License (IUP), specifically related to the overlapping IUP which can occur either between IUP or with other sectors like forestry. The overlapping of IUP need to be resolved immediately seeing that it may cause uncertainty for investments in Indonesia’s mining industry. Normative juridical research results show that the issuance of IUP can be conducted after the applicant or bidders get Mining Business License Area and eligible as IUP holder. While the revocation of IUP can be done if the IUP holder does not fulfill the obligations under the laws and regulations. Related to the revocation of IUP PT Ridlatama Tambang Mineral (PT RTM), such decision was right, because PT RTM does not fulfill its obligation to have Izin Pinjam Pakai Kawasan Hutan to conduct mining activities in forest areas. To prevent the overlapping Mining Business License, an increased coordination between Government and Local Government is needed, be it sectorial or cross-sectorial in nature. Furthermore, the government must establish oversight towards the issuance and revocation of mining licenses by Regent and Governor in Indonesia."

"[Pertambangan merupakan bidang usaha yang sedang diminati oleh para investor saat ini. Akan tetapi usaha pertambangan memiliki tingkat resiko tinggi (high risk), memerlukan modal besar (high cost) dan menggunakan teknologi modern (modern technology) selain itu kegiatan pertambangan juga memiliki kewajiban-kewajiban berupa Penerimaan Negara Bukan Pajak yang harus dipenuhi kepada Negara. Dan setelah kewajiban kepada Negara dipenuhi, masih ada satu kewajiban yang tidak kalah pentingnya yaitu menyelesaikan sebagian atau seluruh hak atas tanah dalam Wilayah Izin Usaha Pertambangan (WIUP) untuk kegiatan usahanya dengan pemegang hak tanah sebagaimana ditetapkan dalam Pasal 135 Undang-Undang Nomor 4 Tahun 2009 tentang Mineral dan Batubara. Kewajiban inilah yang menjadi puncak permasalahannya, karena pengusaha tambang yang telah selesai melakukan seluruh kewajibannya dan kemudian hendak mengajukan hak atas tanah menurut ketentuan Pasal 137 Undang-Undang Nomor 4 Tahun 2009 tentang Mineral dan Batubara tertunda oleh karena penunjukan kawasan hutan yang tidak berujung pada suatu kepastian antara Pemerintah Pusat dan Pemerintah Daerah sehingga mengakibatkan seluruh aktivitas di kantor pertanahan tidak berjalan semestinya karena tidak diketahuinya kawasan mana yang diperbolehkan untuk diberikan Hak atas Tanah dan kawasan mana yang tidak diperbolehkan. Oleh karena proses pendaftaran tanah untuk mendapatkan Sertipikat tidak dapat dipenuhi, maka Pemegang Izin Usaha Pertambangan Operasi Produksi (IUP-OP) hanya berbekal dengan Surat Pernyataan Pelepasan Hak dari Penguasa Tanah sebagai tanda bukti penguasaannya. Surat tersebut dapat digunakan sebagai alat pembuktian walaupun tidak kuat seperti halnya Sertipikat. Selain itu juga perlindungan hukum diberikan kepada pemegang IUP-OP oleh karena izin-izin terkait lainnya untuk mendukung kegiatan operasional tambangnya sudah diterbitkan oleh instansi pemerintah yang sebelumnya telah diperoleh melalui prosedur yang benar yang telah ditetapkan dalam peraturan perundang-undangan. Hasil penelitan ini bersifat preskriptif analitis karena penulis ingin menjelaskan dan memberikan solusi atau jalan keluar bagi pemegang IUP-OP menghadapi gugatan dari pihak lain. Dan diharapkan kedepannya adanya suatu hubungan kerja yang baik antara Pemerintah Pusat dan Pemerintah Daerah dalam menetapkan suatu aturan sebelum diberlakukan demi menghindari timbulnya permasalahan-permasalahan yang dapat merugikan pihak pengusaha tambang dan Negara.

---

Mining is the business fields that are in demand by investors today. However, mining has a high risk level, require large capital and using modern technology, and there is still have obligations in the form of tax state revenue that must be met to the State. And having fulfilled the obligation to the State, there is another obligation that still need to be fulfilled by completing some or all of the rights in land acquisition in the Wilayah Izin Usaha Pertambangan (WIUP) for its business activities with the holders of land rights as defined in Article 135 of Law No. 4 of 2009 on Mineral and Coal. That Obligation becomes the peak of mining problem, because mining entrepreneurs who have completed all of its obligations and then want to apply for the right to land pursuant to Article 137 of Law No. 4 of 2009 on Mineral and Coal was delayed because of the designation of forest areas do not lead to a certainty between the Central Government and Local Government, which had caused resulting in the entire activity in the land office does not run properly because of the uncertainty where the area is allowed to be given Right for the Land and which one is not allowed. Therefore, land registration processing to obtain Certificates can not be met, then holders of Izin Usaha Pertambangan Operasi Produksi (IUP-OP) with only a Statement of Waiver of Sovereign Land as proof of mastery. The letter still can be used as verification tool, although not as strong as Certificate. In addition, the legal protection given to holders of IUP-OP therefore permits related to support its mining operations has been issued by the government that previously had been obtained through the correct procedures stipulated in the legislation. The Results of this research was prescriptive analytical because the authors wanted to explain and provide a solution or a way out for the holder of IUP-OP facing a lawsuit from the other party. Future existence of a good working relationship between the Central Government and Local Government was expected in establishing a new rule before coming into effect in order to avoid the problems that could be rised and harm the mining operation and the State;Mining is the business fields that are in demand by investors today. However, mining has a high risk level, require large capital and using modern technology, and there is still have obligations in the form of tax state revenue that must be met to the State. And having fulfilled the obligation to the State, there is another obligation that still need to be fulfilled by completing some or all of the rights in land acquisition in the Wilayah Izin Usaha Pertambangan (WIUP) for its business activities with the holders of land rights as defined in Article 135 of Law No. 4 of 2009 on Mineral and Coal. That Obligation becomes the peak of mining problem, because mining entrepreneurs who have completed all of its obligations and then want to apply for the right to land pursuant to Article 137 of Law No. 4 of 2009 on Mineral and Coal was delayed because of the designation of forest areas do not lead to a certainty between the Central Government and Local Government, which had caused resulting in the entire activity in the land office does not run properly because of the uncertainty where the area is allowed to be given Right for the Land and which one is not allowed. Therefore, land registration processing to obtain Certificates can not be met, then holders of Izin Usaha Pertambangan Operasi Produksi (IUP-OP) with only a Statement of Waiver of Sovereign Land as proof of mastery. The letter still can be used as verification tool, although not as strong as Certificate. In addition, the legal protection given to holders of IUP-OP therefore permits related to support its mining operations has been issued by the government that previously had been obtained through the correct procedures stipulated in the legislation. The Results of this research was prescriptive analytical because the authors wanted to explain and provide a solution or a way out for the holder of IUP-OP facing a lawsuit from the other party. Future existence of a good working relationship between the Central Government and Local Government was expected in establishing a new rule before coming into effect in order to avoid the problems that could be rised and harm the mining operation and the State., Mining is the business fields that are in demand by investors today. However, mining has a

high risk level, require large capital and using modern technology, and there is still have

obligations in the form of tax state revenue that must be met to the State. And having fulfilled

the obligation to the State, there is another obligation that still need to be fulfilled by

completing some or all of the rights in land acquisition in the Wilayah Izin Usaha

Pertambangan (WIUP) for its business activities with the holders of land rights as defined in

Article 135 of Law No. 4 of 2009 on Mineral and Coal. That Obligation becomes the peak of

mining problem, because mining entrepreneurs who have completed all of its obligations and

then want to apply for the right to land pursuant to Article 137 of Law No. 4 of 2009 on

Mineral and Coal was delayed because of the designation of forest areas do not lead to a

certainty between the Central Government and Local Government, which had caused

resulting in the entire activity in the land office does not run properly because of the

uncertainty where the area is allowed to be given Right for the Land and which one is not

allowed. Therefore, land registration processing to obtain Certificates can not be met, then

holders of Izin Usaha Pertambangan Operasi Produksi (IUP-OP) with only a Statement of

Waiver of Sovereign Land as proof of mastery. The letter still can be used as verification

tool, although not as strong as Certificate. In addition, the legal protection given to holders of

IUP-OP therefore permits related to support its mining operations has been issued by the

government that previously had been obtained through the correct procedures stipulated in

the legislation. The Results of this research was prescriptive analytical because the authors

wanted to explain and provide a solution or a way out for the holder of IUP-OP facing a

lawsuit from the other party. Future existence of a good working relationship between the

Central Government and Local Government was expected in establishing a new rule before

coming into effect in order to avoid the problems that could be rised and harm the mining

operation and the State]"

"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)."

"ABSTRAKPerjanjian Karya Pengusahaan Pertambangan Batubara (PKP2B) generasi ketiga merupakan bentuk peg'anjian yang memberikan kewenangan kepada pengusaha atau kontraktor untuk melakukan usaha pertambangan dengan mengacu kepada Undang-Undang Nomor 11 Tahun 1967 tentang Ketentuan Pokok Pertambangan. Dalam perkembangan lebih lanjut, Undang-Undang Nomor I I Tahun 1967 diganti dengan Undang-Undang Nomor 4 Tahun 2009 tentang Pertambangan Mineral dan Batubara. Dalam ketentuan peralihannya, pemegang PKP2B harus menyesuaikan Pe{anjian dalam waktu 1 (satu) tahun. Salah satu penyesuaian yang dilakukan adalah penambahan klausula bea keluar dalam amandemen.Permasahan yang timbul dalam penulisan ini adalah posisi PT XXX dengan Pemerintah dalam renegosiasi terkait penambahan klausula bea keluar dan bagaimana agar renegosiasi dapat dicapai dengan musyawarah mufakat.Metode dalam penulisan ini adalah metode kepustakaan yang bersifat yuridis normatif. Tipe penelitian dalam penelitian ini bersifat preskriptif dan alat pengumpulan data yang dipakai dalam penelitian ini adalah dengan studi dokumen atau studi kepustakaan. Pendekatan yang ditempuh dalam penulisan ini adalah pendekatan kualitatif.Dalam kajian ini, Penulis mengambil kesimpulan bahwa bea keluar dapat dimasukkan dalam amandemen apabila ada kesepakatan dan para pihak menghargai dan menghormati isi PKP2B yang telah ditandatangani. Kajian ini diharapkan dapat memberikan masukan bagi pemerintah dan pemegang PKP2B generasi ketiga untuk menemukan solusi sehingga amandemen yang telah tertunda enam (tahun) dapat segera ditandatansani.

---

ABSTRACT

The 3rd generation of Work Agreement on Coal Mining Exploitation (PIG2B) is a form of agreement which granting authorization to the employer or contractor to engage in mining exploitation work in accordance with Law Number 11 of 1967 on Basic Mining Regulation. Law Number I I of 1967 was later amended by Law Number 4 of 2009 on Mineral and Coal Mining. Under the transitory provisions, the holder of PKP2B is required to amend the Agreement within a period of I (one) year. One of such amendments is to supplement the clause of export duty set forth in an amendment.

The subject matter which arises in this paper is the position of PT XXX with the Government in the renegotiation on the addition of clause of export duty and how such renegotiation can be concluded deliberately.

The method applied in the process of completing this paper is juridical normative literature study. The type of research is prescriptive and data collection instrument used in this research is documentary study or literary study. The approach taken in this paper is qualitative approach.

In this study, the writer has drawn conclusion that the clause of export duty can be incorporated into the amendment upon mutual agreement and honor of the parties of the substance of upon which PKP2B is signed. This study is expected to provide input for the govemment and holders PKP2B third generation to find a solution so that the amendments that had been delayed six (years) could be signed soon."

"Penelitian ini membahas tentang Tinjauan Yuridis Mengenai Pengaturan Divestasi dalam Penerapan Undang-Undang Nomor 4 Tahun 2009 tentang Pertambangan Mineral dan Batubara, dengan Studi Kasus Kegiatan Pertambangan Mangan di Provinsi Nusa Tenggara Timur. Penelitian ini dilakukan karena adanya penerapan kewajiban divestasi di sektor pertambangan minerba, yang menimbulkan kekhawatiran bagi para penanam modal asing dalam melakukan kegiatan di sektor pertambangan. Daerah Nusa Tenggara Timur (NTT) diambil, karena daerah tersebut saat ini tumbuh dengan pesat sebagai salah satu daerah baru tujuan penanaman modal, dengan memiliki potensi pertambangan khususnya dalam sektor pertambangan minerba, dengan potensi mangan khususnya. Penelitian ini secara umum bertujuan untuk mendapatkan gambaran terkait regulasi pertambangan minerba dan penanaman modal dalam pelaksanaan divestasi disektor pertambangan yang ada saat ini, utamanya terkait dalam upaya memberikan kepastian hukum bagi para penanam modal asing, (utamanya dalam kegiatan pertambangan mangan yang ada di NTT). Penelitian ini jenis penelitian yuridis normatif, karena penelitian ini mengkaji norma hukum yang tertulis terkait pertambangan minerba, yang dilakukan dengan penelitian sistematik hukum, sehingga penelitian dilakukan terhadap hal-hal meliputi subjek hukum, hak dan kewajiban, peristiwa hukum, hubungan hukum, dan objek hukum yang terkait. Adapun temuan utama dari penelitian ini adalah bahwa, divestasi bukan merupakan hal yang menimbulkan adanya ketidakpastian hukum. Divestasi yang ada hanya merupakan upaya pengaturan negara dalam mengelola SDA minerba yang ada, namun dalam upaya tetap memperhatikan peluang-peluang ekonomi yang tidak hanya berpotensi memberi keuntungan bagi negara, tapi juga pelaku usaha. Dalam hal ini pemerintah juga menjalankan fungsinya sebagai pelaku usaha (entrepreneur) dalam mengelola sektor pertambangan yang ada. Permasalahan-permasalahan pada tahapan perencanaan, perizinan, dan adanya benturan antara UU Minerba dengan aturan sektoral lainlah yang menjadi masalah utama.

---

This research discusses the legal analysis of divestment arrangements within the application of Act No. 4 Year 2009 on Mineral and Coal Mining (Mineral and Coal Act) with a case study on manganese mining activities in East Nusa Tenggara Province. This research is performed on the grounds of divestment requirements in mineral and coal mining sector, which raises concern for foreign investors in mining activities. East Nusa Tenggara is the region of focus in this research because that region grows rapidly as one of the new investment destinations, with a mining potential especially in mineral and coal mining sector and with manganese potential in particular.

This research generally aims to draw the picture of the implementation of divestment in relation to the existing regulations on the mineral and coal mining and on investment, mainly with regards to the provision of legal certainty for foreign investors looking to invest in the manganese mining activities in East Nusa Tenggara. This research is legal-normative in nature, because this research studies the written legal norms relating to the mineral and coal mining, which is performed as a systematic legal research such that it is performed on the matters covering the legal subjects, rights and duties, legal events, legal connection, and the related legal objects.

The main finding of this research is that divestment is not the source of legal uncertainty. The divestment serves only as State's efforts to manage existing mineral and coal natural resources, and whose efforts still keep in mind the economic opportunities that potentially benefit both the State as well as the businesses. With this regard, the government also functions as entrepreneur in management the mining sector. The issues in the planning and licensing stages and the conflicts between Mineral and Coal Act with the other sectoral regulations are the actual culprit of legal uncertainty. "