Hasil Pencarian  ::  Simpan CSV :: Kembali

"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."

"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."

"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 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."

"Sebelum Undang-Undang Nomor 4 Tahun 2009 tentang Pertambangan Mineral dan Batubara berlaku, penyelesaian sengketa antara Pemerintah dengan penanam modal (investor) diselesaikan berdasarkan kesepakatan Kontrak Karya (KK) atau Perjanjian Karya Pengusahaan Pertambangan Batu Bara (PKP2B), dimana para pihak dapat menentukan forum penyelesaian sengketa baik melalui arbitrase nasional maupun internasional atas dasar kesepakatan yang tertuang dalam perjanjian. Namun saat ini dengan berubahnya rezim kontrak menjadi rezim perizinan ketentuan penyelesaian sengketa berdasarkan ketentuan Undang-Undang Nomor 4 Tahun 2009 tentang Pertambangan Mineral dan Batubara, menentukan bahwa setiap sengketa yang muncul dalam pelaksanaan Izin Usaha Pertambangan (IUP), Izin Pertambangan Rakyat (IPR), atau Izin Usaha Pertambangan Khusus (IUPK) diselesaikan melalui pengadilan dan arbitrase dalam negeri sesuai dengan ketentuan peraturan perundang-undangan. Berubahnya rezim ini telah merubah posisi negara yang sebelumnya sejajar dalam sebuah kontrak karena bertindak sebagai subyek hukum perdata menjadi lebih tinggi sebagai regulator berada diatas perusahaan pertambangan. Hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwa ketentuan penyelesaian sengketa pada UU Minerba yang diatur pada pasal 154 menimbulkan multi tafsir dan ada kalanya justru tidak dapat dilaksanakan, karena dapat diartikan secara berbeda oleh pihak-pihak yang berkepentingan, yang berakibat kepada ketidak-pastian hukum. Sehingga untuk membangun kepastian hukum sesuai dengan kehendak dan kesepakatan subyek hukum (yang bersengketa), maka ketentuan penyelesaian sengketa pada UU Minerba perlu diperjelas dan dilakukan sinkronisasi dengan ketentuan perundang-undangan penanaman modal dan arbitrase Indonesia, baik mengenai substansi maupun rumusannya.

---

AbstractPrior to the enactment of Law Number 4 of 2009 concerning Mining and Coal, the settlement of disputes between the Government and investors resolved in the agreement of Contract of Work (CoW) and Coal Mining Exploitation Working Arrangements (CMEWA), where the parties can determine the dispute of settlement forum either through national or international arbitration. However, the current Mining dispute settlement provisions for investment pursuant to the provisions of Law Number 4 of 2009 concerning Mining and Coal, determines that any disputes that arise in the implementation of IUP, IPR, or IUPK resolved through domestic courts and arbitration in accordance with the provisions of the Law. Changes in contract regime into permitting regimes has impact on changing the position of state that were previously equal in a contract to be higher in the licensing system. Thus the government's position as regulators are above the mining company. The results showed that the provision regarding dispute resolution on Mining Law, provoke to multi-interpretations that lead to legal uncertainty. Thus to build a law certainty in accordance with the will and the subject of legal agreement (the dispute), the dispute settlement provisions of the Mining Law needs to be clarified and synchronized with Indonesian Investment Law (Law Number 25 of 2007) and Arbitration Law (Law Number 30 of 1999), either on substance or formulation."

"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 aksi korporasi akuisisi yang banyak dilakukan oleh perusahaan khususnya di sektor pertambangan belakangan ini, dimana diketahui alasan adalah sebagai cara untuk menguasai izin usaha atau mendapatkan/mengalihkan Izin Usaha Pertambangan (IUP) demi mengembangkan kegiatan usahanya. Untuk mendukung penelitian ini penulis mengambil contoh akuisisi yang dilakukan oleh PT Indonesia Coal Resources anak perusahaan PT Antam Tbk) terhadap PT Citra Tobindo Sukses Perkasa, yang mana PT ICR melakukan pengambilalihan saham perusahaan-perusahaan yang memiliki izin pertambangan. PT. CTSP pemilik IUP Eksplorasi dan IUP Operasi Produksi di wilayah Sarolangun, Jambi namun karena tidak mempunyai kemampuan untuk melaksanakan pengangkutan dan penjualan, sehingga saham yang ditempatkan PT. CTSP dijual sebanyak 100% kepada PT ICR. Berdasarkan studi contoh akuisisi tersebut penulis ingin mengetahui pengaturan mengenai pengalihan IUP serta menganalisa dalam kaitannya dengan pengambilalihan saham yang menyebabkan berubahnya pengendalian perusahaan.

---

This thesis discusses about acquisition as a corporate action, which is mostly conducted by the companies’ especially in mining sector in recent years, which is discovered the reason is as the procedure to take control of business license or acquire/transfer Business Mining License (IUP) in order to develop their business activities. Supporting this research the author take an example of acquisition that is conducted by PT. Indonesia Coal Resources (subsidiary of PT Antam Tbk) with PT Citra Tobindo Sukses Perkasa, PT ICR acquiring shares of companies that have mining license. PT CTSP as owner of IUP Exploration and Production Operation (IUP) in Sarolangun region, Jambi but, it has not got the ability to conduct the transport and sale thus, 100% shares of PT CTSP is sold to PT ICR. Based on the example of acquisition author wants to know regarding the provisions of transfer of IUP and analyzed in relation to the acquisition of shares which cause the changes of control in company."

"[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]"

"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"

"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."