Hasil Pencarian  ::  Simpan CSV :: Kembali

"Skripsi ini membahas kewenangan Pemerintah dalam mengelola pertambangan mineral dan batubara setelah ditetapkannya UU No. 3 Tahun 2020 beserta peraturan pelaksananya. Penelitian ini dilakukan secara yuridis-normatif dengan mengkaji dan membandingkan perkembangan peraturan perundang-undangan terkhususnya pada sektor pertambangan mineral dan batubara. Pengelolaan pertambangan mineral dan batubara berdasarkan pada “Hak Menguasai Negara” dan bertujuan untuk mewujudkan manfaat “sebesar-besarnya kemakmuran rakyat” sebagai amanat Pasal 33 ayat (3) UUD 1945. Melalui hasil penelitian ini dapat disimpulkan bahwa disharmonisasi antara UU No. 4 Tahun 2009 dengan UU No. 23 Tahun 2014 telah diselaraskan oleh UU No. 3 Tahun 2020 melalui perubahan konsep kewenangan pengelolaan pertambangan mineral dan batubara menjadi Sentralisasi dengan mengakomodir Dekonsentrasi berdasarkan diskresi Pemerintah Pusat. Meskipun demikian Pemerintah tetap disarankan untuk mempercepat tindak lanjut pembentukan Perangkat Daerah yang mengurus pertambangan mineral dan batubara serta mengawal secara penuh proses pengalihan Izin Usaha Pertambangan.

---

The following thesis discusses the Government's authority in managing the mining of mineral and coal after the enactment of Law No. 3 of 2020 and its implementing regulations. The research was conducted in a juridical-normative manner by reviewing and comparing the development of laws and regulations, especially in the mineral and coal mining sector. The management of mineral and coal mining is based on the "State Controlling Right" and aims to realize the benefits of "the greatest prosperity of the people" as mandated by Article 33 paragraph (3) of the 1945 Constitution. Through this research, the disharmonization issue between Law No. 4 of 2009 with Law No. 23 of 2014 has been resolved by Law No. 3 of 2020 by implementing changes in the concept of authority for managing mineral and coal mining to become Centralized by accommodating Deconcentration based on the discretion of the Central Government. However, it is strongly advised that the Government needs to accelerate the formation of Regional Apparatus that manages mineral and coal mining and fully oversees the process of transferring Mining Business Permits."

"Pada bidang energi dan sumberdaya alam terdapat sektor pertambangan Mineral dan Batubara merupakan energi yang tak dapat diperbaharui serta berasal dari bawah tanah, sehingga memerlukan perhatian dalam melakukan pengelelolaan. Dalam hal pengelolaan tersebut pemerintah pusat medistribusikan kewenangannya untuk melakukan pengelolaan pertambangan mineral dan batubara berdasarkan pada asas-asas otonomi daerah. Dengan didasari atas asas-asas otonomi daerah tersebut maka adanya pembagian atas urusan pemerintahan yang menjadi kewenangan antara Pemerintah Pusat, Pemerintah Provinsi dan Pemerintah Kabupaten/Kota. Kewenangan Pemerintah Daerah Kabupaten/Kota dalam pengelolaan sumberdaya alam mineral dan batubara berdasarkan pada UU No. 4 Tahun 2009 Tentang Mineral dan Batubara diberikan secara setelah berlakunya UU No. 23 Tahun 2014 Tentang Pemerintah Daerah.

---

In the field of energy and natural resources containing mineral and coal mining sector are the non-renewable energy and derived from underground, requiring attention in managing. In terms of the management of the central government authority distributed the management of mineral and coal based on the principles of local autonomy. Based on the principles of local autonomy discords by the top division of government affairs under the authority of the central government, provincial government and regency/district governments. The authority of regency/district government in natural resource management of mineral and coal base Law Number 4 Year 2009 in concern Mineral and Coal granted after the enactment of Law Number 23 Year 2014 on Regional Government."

"ABSTRAKSkripsi ini membahas mengenai perubahan pengaturan mengenai sistem pertambangan yang kemudian menimbulkan berbagai kerancuan penafsiran. Pengusahaan Pertambangan khususnya dalam bidang pertambangan batubara di Indonesia dilakukan oleh kontraktor swasta dan Pemerintah Indonesia dengan sistem konsesi berdasarkan suatu Perjanjian Karya Pengusahaan Pertambangan Batubara (PKP2B). Untuk menjalankan amanat pasal 33 Undang-Undang Dasar Tahun 1945 badan legislatif mengundangkan UU No. 4 Tahun 2009 tentang Pertambangan Mineral dan Batubara. Dalam undang-undang tersebut diperkenalkan sistem pengusahaan pertambangan batubara dengan menggunakan Izin Usaha Pertambangan sebagai instrumennya. Fokus permasalahan dalam skripsi ini ialah kedudukan dari Perjanjian Karya Pengusahaan Pertambangan Batubara yang wajib untuk disesuaikan dengan sistem pertambangan sebagaimana diatur dalam UU No. 4 Tahun 2009. Penelitian ini bersifat yuridis normatif, menggunakan alat pengumpulan data studi dokumen. Dalam pengolahan data digunakan metode kualitatif yang menghasilkan penelitian yang bersifat deskriptif analitis. Hasil penelitian menunjukan bahwa berdasarkan syarat sah suatu perjanjian pasal 1320 KUHPerdata dan asas-asas umum perjanjian, PKP2B merupakan suatu perjanjian yang dapat dinyatakan batal demi hukum, karena telah melanggar ketentuan pasal peraturan peralihan UU No. 4 Tahun 2009.

---

ABSTRACT

This thesis discusses the changes in regulation of the mining system which then give rise to biased interpretations. Mining exploitation, especially in the field of coal mining in Indonesia is done by a private contractor and the Government of Indonesia with the concession system based on an Coal Mining agreement (PKP2B). To carry out the mandate of Article 33 of the Constitution of 1945 the legislature enacted the Law Number 4 of 2009 regarding Mineral and Coal Mining. In the legislation introduced coal mining system by using the Mining Permit as an instrument. The problem of this thesis is the position of Coal Mining Agreement which is obligated to conform with the mining system as stipulated in Law Number 4 of 2009. This research is normative, use the data collection tool document study. In the data processing used qualitative methods which produce descriptive analytical study. The research results indicate that based on the terms of a valid treaty article 1320 of the Civil Code and the general principles of the agreement, PKP2B as an agreement can be declared null and void, because it has violated the provisions of transition on the Law Number 4 of 2009."

"[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.]"

"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"

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

---

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

"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."

"Revisi Undang-Undang Nomor 4 Tahun 2009 menjadi Undang-Undang Nomor 3 Tahun 2020 seolah mereduksi kewenangan pemerintah daerah. Sebanyak 19 pasal yang telah direvisi yang bertalian dengan kewenangan pemerintah daerah hampir seluruh kewenangan pemerintah daerah ditarik menjadi kewenangan pusat, di dalam penelitian ini akan menyajikan persoalan mengenai ketengan pemerintah daerah pada urusan mineral batubara kepada pemerintah pusat. kewenangan pemerintah daerah provinsi maupun kabupaten/kota pada urusan pertambangan, merupakan urusan yang bersifat concurrent yang dalam penanganannya melibatkan antara pemerintah pusat dan pemerintah daerah, menarik sebagian besar kewenangan dan tidak melibatkan pemerintah daerah tentu berpotensi berimplikasi negatif dalam hal penyelenggaraan urusan pertambangan mineral dan batubara, misalnya, mencakup dana bagi hasil, tanggung jawab sosial perusahaan, resistensi masyarakat setempat akibat kurang jelasnya mekanisme keberatan atau penolakan mereka terhadap kehadiran penambangan di daerahnya, lemahnya isu pengawasan dan pembinaan dalam mengurangi tingkat risiko sosial dan lingkungan, dan lebih penting memangkas jarak antara pemerintah dan masyarakat. .....The revision of Law Number 4 of 2009 to Law Number 3 of 2020 revised 135 articles from the 217 articles contained in Law Number. 4 of 2009, in detail there are 73 articles that have been added, 51 articles have been amended, and 11 articles have been deleted. As many as 19 revised articles relating to the authority of local governments, almost all local government authorities have been withdrawn to the central authority, leaving room for delegation of part of the authority of the Central Government to provincial local governments for the issuance of IPR and SIPB, in this study will present the implications of regional city district governments. no longer have space of authority in coal mineral mining affairs. the authority of the provincial and district / city governments in mining affairs, is a concurrent affair which in its handling involves the central government and regional governments, withdrawing most of the authority and does not involve local governments, of course, has the potential to have negative implications in terms of carrying out mineral and coal mining affairs. for example, it includes profit-sharing funds, corporate social responsibility, local community resistance due to unclear mechanisms for their objection or resistance to the presence of mining in their area, weak issues of supervision and guidance in reducing the level of social and environmental risk, and more importantly reducing the distance between the government and Public. 

"

"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)."

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

---

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