POLITIK HUKUM PENGELOLAAN HULU MIGAS PASCA PUTUSAN MAHKAMAH KONSTITUSI
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<p>Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 36/PUU-X/2012 dalam permohonan Pengujian Undang-Undang Nomor 22 Tahun 2001 tentang Minyak dan Gas Bumi terhadap Undang-Undang Dasar Negara Republik Indonesia Tahun 1945 telah membawa arah baru di dalam pengelolaan hulu migas di Indonesia. Mahkamah Konstitusi berpendapat model hubungan BPMigas dalam melakukan pengelolaan Migas telah mendegradasi makna penguasaan negara atas sumber daya alam Migas sebagaimana diamanatkan Pasal 33 UUD NRI Tahun 1945. Berangkat dari kondisi tersebut beberapa hal yang menarik untuk diteliti, yaitu bagaimana arah politik hukum pengelolaan hulu migas pasca putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi, kemudian dilanjutkan terhadap pembahasan alternatif model pengelolaan hulu migas yang sesuai dengan konstitusional. Guna menjawab permasalahan tersebut penelitian ini menggunakan metode penelitian yuridis Normatif, yang meneliti pengaturan hulu Migas dibandingkan dengan putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi, dan kemudian dijadikan dasar untuk menentukan alternatif arah politik hukum hulu migas yang baru. Dari hasil penelitian didapat sedikitnya empat alternatif model kelembagaan pengelolaan hulu Migas yaitu: model melembagakan SKK Migas secara permanen; model yang memberikan wewenang kembali kepada PERTAMINA; model pemerintah secara langsung melakukan penunjukan, dan mendirikan BUMN baru atau model dengan pembentukan lembaga baru. Dari penelitian ini disarankan Pemerintah dan DPR harus menjadikan putusan mahkamah konstitusi sebagai bahan acuan dalam mendesain model pengelolaan hulu Migas, dapat menghasilkan kelembagaan dan pengelolaan yang konstitusional dalam rangka membangun kepastian berinvestasi dalam bisnis Migas di Indonesia.</p><p>Constitutional Court Decision No. 36 / PUU-X / 2012 in a petition for judicial review of Law No. 22 of 2001 on Oil and Gas against the Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia Year 1945 has brought a new direction in the management of upstream oil and gas in Indonesia. The Constitutional Court argued that BPMigas business relationship model in managing oil and gas has been degrading the meaning of state control over natural resources of oil and gas as mandated by the Article 33 of the 1945 Constitution. Departing from these conditions some interesting things to be investigated, are how the politics of law direction of the upstream oil and gas management after the Constitutional Court decision, and then followed by the discussion of alternative models of upstream oil and gas management that is in accordance with constitutional. To answer these problems this research is using normative juridical method, which examined the setting of upstream oil and gas compared with the Constitutional Court decision, which is then being used as the basis for determining the alternative direction of politics of law of the new upstream oil and gas laws. The result is at least four alternative models of institutional management of upstream oil and gas obtained, namely: a model where it institutes SKK Migas permanently; a model that gives authority back to Pertamina; a model where the government make direct appointment, and established new state-owned enterprises or a model with the establishment of new institutions. What this research suggested is that the Government and Parliament must make Constitutional Court decision as a reference in designing the management model of the upstream oil and gas, where it can produce institutional and constitutional governance in order to establish certainty to invest in oil and gas business di Indonesia.</p>
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it