Ada Pertanyaan? Hubungi Kami 
2026 Hak Cipta Milik Hukumonline.com
Produk Pilihan
Ada Pertanyaan? Hubungi Kami Agus Sahbani, Yanuar Pribadhie
The Constitutional Court continued its judicial review of Law No. 7 of 2004 on Water Resources yesterday hearing testimony from two experts, Absori, a law professor from Universitas Muhammadiyah Surakarta, and Suteki, a law professor from Universitas Diponegoro.
In his testimony, Absori mentioned that Article 9 (1) of the Water Resources Law opens the opportunity for the privatization of water resource management. In such circumstances, the role of state-owned enterprise as mandated by Article 33 (2) of the Indonesian Constitution would be dispelled.
Absori added that even if the State has the authority to grant licenses for water resource management, such authority is merely procedural and formal in nature. As a consequence it follows that oversight would be weak and likely result in uncontrolled exploitation of water resources.
“It turns out that in this regional autonomy era, the Government is very profit-oriented when it comes to licensing. The Government tends to let control and supervision post licensing be weak, if not totally disregarded. We found that even some water resource managers did not pass the basic environmental quality threshold (AMDAL),” said Absori.
These circumstances, stated Absori, contradict Articles 33 (2) and (3) of the 1945 Constitution, which gives full power to the State to manage natural resources for the benefit of the people.
Privatization is proven
The Water Resources Law was already reviewed in 2005. At that time, the Government was successful in convincing the Constitutional Court that the Water Resources Law does not allow privatization and commercialization of water resources.
Despite the Government’s argument, the Constitutional Court was not unanimous in its decision.
The dissenting opinion of the Constitutional Court’s decision states, “Up to this time, the concern of the applicant of the possibility of a veiled agenda of privatization of water resources is not proven.”
Suteki asserts that the hidden agenda for water resources privatization in Indonesia has been proven through the enactment of two regulations.
The first one is Government Regulation No. 16 of 2005 on Drinking Water Management Systems (2005 Regulation).
The second one is Presidential Regulation No. 77 of 2007, most recently amended by Presidential Regulation No. 36 of 2010.
These regulations allow private parties to own 100 percent of a company that manages water resources, and foreign parties to hold 95 percent.
“In its last decision, the Constitutional Court stated that the State is responsible to provide the basic water needs of society. However, the 2005 Regulation gives private parties the unfettered opportunity to perform drinking water management,” said Suteki.
Further, the Constitutional Court took the position that the supply of drinking water is performed by the Government through its enterprises, not the private sector. The role of cooperatives, private companies, and society are temporal until the Government is able to undertaken management.
“It is rather clear that the 2005 Regulation contradicts the previous Constitutional Court decision. Furthermore, that regulation imposes no limitation on capital ownership by private parties or even foreign parties,” emphasizes Suteki.
(hot/kc)
The Constitutional Court continued its judicial review of Law No. 7 of 2004 on Water Resources yesterday hearing testimony from two experts, Absori, a law professor from Universitas Muhammadiyah Surakarta, and Suteki, a law professor from Universitas Diponegoro.
In his testimony, Absori mentioned that Article 9 (1) of the Water Resources Law opens the opportunity for the privatization of water resource management. In such circumstances, the role of state-owned enterprise as mandated by Article 33 (2) of the Indonesian Constitution would be dispelled.
Absori added that even if the State has the authority to grant licenses for water resource management, such authority is merely procedural and formal in nature. As a consequence it follows that oversight would be weak and likely result in uncontrolled exploitation of water resources.
“It turns out that in this regional autonomy era, the Government is very profit-oriented when it comes to licensing. The Government tends to let control and supervision post licensing be weak, if not totally disregarded. We found that even some water resource managers did not pass the basic environmental quality threshold (AMDAL),” said Absori.
These circumstances, stated Absori, contradict Articles 33 (2) and (3) of the 1945 Constitution, which gives full power to the State to manage natural resources for the benefit of the people.
Privatization is proven
The Water Resources Law was already reviewed in 2005. At that time, the Government was successful in convincing the Constitutional Court that the Water Resources Law does not allow privatization and commercialization of water resources.
Despite the Government’s argument, the Constitutional Court was not unanimous in its decision.
The dissenting opinion of the Constitutional Court’s decision states, “Up to this time, the concern of the applicant of the possibility of a veiled agenda of privatization of water resources is not proven.”
Suteki asserts that the hidden agenda for water resources privatization in Indonesia has been proven through the enactment of two regulations.
The first one is Government Regulation No. 16 of 2005 on Drinking Water Management Systems (2005 Regulation).
The second one is Presidential Regulation No. 77 of 2007, most recently amended by Presidential Regulation No. 36 of 2010.
These regulations allow private parties to own 100 percent of a company that manages water resources, and foreign parties to hold 95 percent.
“In its last decision, the Constitutional Court stated that the State is responsible to provide the basic water needs of society. However, the 2005 Regulation gives private parties the unfettered opportunity to perform drinking water management,” said Suteki.
Further, the Constitutional Court took the position that the supply of drinking water is performed by the Government through its enterprises, not the private sector. The role of cooperatives, private companies, and society are temporal until the Government is able to undertaken management.
“It is rather clear that the 2005 Regulation contradicts the previous Constitutional Court decision. Furthermore, that regulation imposes no limitation on capital ownership by private parties or even foreign parties,” emphasizes Suteki.
(hot/kc)
Agus Sahbani, Yanuar Pribadhie
The Constitutional Court continued its judicial review of Law No. 7 of 2004 on Water Resources yesterday hearing testimony from two experts, Absori, a law professor from Universitas Muhammadiyah Surakarta, and Suteki, a law professor from Universitas Diponegoro.
In his testimony, Absori mentioned that Article 9 (1) of the Water Resources Law opens the opportunity for the privatization of water resource management. In such circumstances, the role of state-owned enterprise as mandated by Article 33 (2) of the Indonesian Constitution would be dispelled.
Absori added that even if the State has the authority to grant licenses for water resource management, such authority is merely procedural and formal in nature. As a consequence it follows that oversight would be weak and likely result in uncontrolled exploitation of water resources.
“It turns out that in this regional autonomy era, the Government is very profit-oriented when it comes to licensing. The Government tends to let control and supervision post licensing be weak, if not totally disregarded. We found that even some water resource managers did not pass the basic environmental quality threshold (AMDAL),” said Absori.
These circumstances, stated Absori, contradict Articles 33 (2) and (3) of the 1945 Constitution, which gives full power to the State to manage natural resources for the benefit of the people.
Privatization is proven
The Water Resources Law was already reviewed in 2005. At that time, the Government was successful in convincing the Constitutional Court that the Water Resources Law does not allow privatization and commercialization of water resources.
Despite the Government’s argument, the Constitutional Court was not unanimous in its decision.
The dissenting opinion of the Constitutional Court’s decision states, “Up to this time, the concern of the applicant of the possibility of a veiled agenda of privatization of water resources is not proven.”
Suteki asserts that the hidden agenda for water resources privatization in Indonesia has been proven through the enactment of two regulations.
The first one is Government Regulation No. 16 of 2005 on Drinking Water Management Systems (2005 Regulation).
The second one is Presidential Regulation No. 77 of 2007, most recently amended by Presidential Regulation No. 36 of 2010.
These regulations allow private parties to own 100 percent of a company that manages water resources, and foreign parties to hold 95 percent.
“In its last decision, the Constitutional Court stated that the State is responsible to provide the basic water needs of society. However, the 2005 Regulation gives private parties the unfettered opportunity to perform drinking water management,” said Suteki.
Further, the Constitutional Court took the position that the supply of drinking water is performed by the Government through its enterprises, not the private sector. The role of cooperatives, private companies, and society are temporal until the Government is able to undertaken management.
“It is rather clear that the 2005 Regulation contradicts the previous Constitutional Court decision. Furthermore, that regulation imposes no limitation on capital ownership by private parties or even foreign parties,” emphasizes Suteki.
(hot/kc)
The Constitutional Court continued its judicial review of Law No. 7 of 2004 on Water Resources yesterday hearing testimony from two experts, Absori, a law professor from Universitas Muhammadiyah Surakarta, and Suteki, a law professor from Universitas Diponegoro.
In his testimony, Absori mentioned that Article 9 (1) of the Water Resources Law opens the opportunity for the privatization of water resource management. In such circumstances, the role of state-owned enterprise as mandated by Article 33 (2) of the Indonesian Constitution would be dispelled.
Absori added that even if the State has the authority to grant licenses for water resource management, such authority is merely procedural and formal in nature. As a consequence it follows that oversight would be weak and likely result in uncontrolled exploitation of water resources.
“It turns out that in this regional autonomy era, the Government is very profit-oriented when it comes to licensing. The Government tends to let control and supervision post licensing be weak, if not totally disregarded. We found that even some water resource managers did not pass the basic environmental quality threshold (AMDAL),” said Absori.
These circumstances, stated Absori, contradict Articles 33 (2) and (3) of the 1945 Constitution, which gives full power to the State to manage natural resources for the benefit of the people.
Privatization is proven
The Water Resources Law was already reviewed in 2005. At that time, the Government was successful in convincing the Constitutional Court that the Water Resources Law does not allow privatization and commercialization of water resources.
Despite the Government’s argument, the Constitutional Court was not unanimous in its decision.
The dissenting opinion of the Constitutional Court’s decision states, “Up to this time, the concern of the applicant of the possibility of a veiled agenda of privatization of water resources is not proven.”
Suteki asserts that the hidden agenda for water resources privatization in Indonesia has been proven through the enactment of two regulations.
The first one is Government Regulation No. 16 of 2005 on Drinking Water Management Systems (2005 Regulation).
The second one is Presidential Regulation No. 77 of 2007, most recently amended by Presidential Regulation No. 36 of 2010.
These regulations allow private parties to own 100 percent of a company that manages water resources, and foreign parties to hold 95 percent.
“In its last decision, the Constitutional Court stated that the State is responsible to provide the basic water needs of society. However, the 2005 Regulation gives private parties the unfettered opportunity to perform drinking water management,” said Suteki.
Further, the Constitutional Court took the position that the supply of drinking water is performed by the Government through its enterprises, not the private sector. The role of cooperatives, private companies, and society are temporal until the Government is able to undertaken management.
“It is rather clear that the 2005 Regulation contradicts the previous Constitutional Court decision. Furthermore, that regulation imposes no limitation on capital ownership by private parties or even foreign parties,” emphasizes Suteki.
(hot/kc)