OMNIBUS LAW DAN KRISIS LEGAL DRAFTING: EVALUASI KEGAGALAN UU CIPTA KERJA DAN REKOMENDASI REFORMASI LEGISLASI
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
The omnibus law approach in Indonesia was introduced as a solution to overlapping and conflicting regulations. However, its application in the Job Creation Law has generated significant issues, particularly in the area of legal drafting. This article critically examines the drafting failures of the law based on the principles of proper regulatory formation as outlined in Law No. 12 of 2011 in conjunction with Law No. 13 of 2022. Through case analysis, theoretical perspectives, and comparative reviews of international practices in the United States, Canada, and the Philippines, the article argues that the core problem of the omnibus law lies not in its concept, but in its poor drafting structure, legal ambiguity, excessive delegation of authority, and lack of public participation. The article concludes by offering five key recommendations to reform Indonesia’s legal drafting process so that the omnibus law can serve as a legitimate, effective, and democratic instrument of regulatory harmonization
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 | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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