Ada Pertanyaan? Hubungi Kami 
2026 Hak Cipta Milik Hukumonline.com
Produk Pilihan
Ada Pertanyaan? Hubungi Kami Agus Sahbani, Yanuar Pribadhie
The Constitutional Court (MK) has commenced its judicial review of Article 10 (2), (3), (4); Article 20; Article 33 (1), (2); and Article 56 (1), (2), (4) of Law No. 30 of 2009 on Electricity.
The judicial review petition was filed by the National Confederation of Unions (Konfederasi Serikat Nasional – KSN), who is arguing that these articles legalize the unbundling of the current electricity system, or in other words, the privatization of electricity.
“Foreign parties are now allowed to own up to 100 percent of shares in transmission, generation and electricity distribution businesses. This will result in vertical unbundling. Consequently, generation, transmission, and distribution will all be managed by foreign parties,” said Ahmad Daryoko, President of KSN, during the hearing in Jakarta on Wednesday.
While this is not the first time that these articles have been reviewed, Daryoko asserts that the current petition differs to those in the past.
Daryoko bases this assertion on the fact that KSN’s petition includes copies of email from ADB consultants, mentioning electricity liberalization, end of monopoly, and free trade mechanism implementation.
Based on this fact, Daryoko emphasizes that it has now become clear that the Government’s argument denying electricity liberalization during the previous judicial review is false.
Therefore, KSN is asking the Constitutional Court to revoke the Articles in question and to declare that these articles contradict Article 33 (2) of the 1945 Constitution.
In response, Presiding Judge Arief Hidayat reminded the petitioner that the Constitutional Court dismissed the petition because “production” under Article 33 (2) of the 1945 Constitution must be integrally interpreted encompassing generation, transmission, and distribution.
“This reflects the whole business is to be prioritized to be undertaken by state-owned enterprises,” said Arief.
The Constitutional Court was previously of the opinion that the Law may open the chance of unbundling, but not in an unconstitutional way . A distinction exists because electricity tariffs are still to be determined by the Sate.
“If in practice what is feared happens, that is not a matter of the Law. It is a matter of the implementation of norms,” said Arief.
Patrialis Akbar, another of the judges on the panel hearing the case, added that the applicant must explain each article in a very clear and detailed manner in order to convince the Constitutional Court of their argument.
(hot/kc)
The Constitutional Court (MK) has commenced its judicial review of Article 10 (2), (3), (4); Article 20; Article 33 (1), (2); and Article 56 (1), (2), (4) of Law No. 30 of 2009 on Electricity.
The judicial review petition was filed by the National Confederation of Unions (Konfederasi Serikat Nasional – KSN), who is arguing that these articles legalize the unbundling of the current electricity system, or in other words, the privatization of electricity.
“Foreign parties are now allowed to own up to 100 percent of shares in transmission, generation and electricity distribution businesses. This will result in vertical unbundling. Consequently, generation, transmission, and distribution will all be managed by foreign parties,” said Ahmad Daryoko, President of KSN, during the hearing in Jakarta on Wednesday.
While this is not the first time that these articles have been reviewed, Daryoko asserts that the current petition differs to those in the past.
Daryoko bases this assertion on the fact that KSN’s petition includes copies of email from ADB consultants, mentioning electricity liberalization, end of monopoly, and free trade mechanism implementation.
Based on this fact, Daryoko emphasizes that it has now become clear that the Government’s argument denying electricity liberalization during the previous judicial review is false.
Therefore, KSN is asking the Constitutional Court to revoke the Articles in question and to declare that these articles contradict Article 33 (2) of the 1945 Constitution.
In response, Presiding Judge Arief Hidayat reminded the petitioner that the Constitutional Court dismissed the petition because “production” under Article 33 (2) of the 1945 Constitution must be integrally interpreted encompassing generation, transmission, and distribution.
“This reflects the whole business is to be prioritized to be undertaken by state-owned enterprises,” said Arief.
The Constitutional Court was previously of the opinion that the Law may open the chance of unbundling, but not in an unconstitutional way . A distinction exists because electricity tariffs are still to be determined by the Sate.
“If in practice what is feared happens, that is not a matter of the Law. It is a matter of the implementation of norms,” said Arief.
Patrialis Akbar, another of the judges on the panel hearing the case, added that the applicant must explain each article in a very clear and detailed manner in order to convince the Constitutional Court of their argument.
(hot/kc)
Agus Sahbani, Yanuar Pribadhie
The Constitutional Court (MK) has commenced its judicial review of Article 10 (2), (3), (4); Article 20; Article 33 (1), (2); and Article 56 (1), (2), (4) of Law No. 30 of 2009 on Electricity.
The judicial review petition was filed by the National Confederation of Unions (Konfederasi Serikat Nasional – KSN), who is arguing that these articles legalize the unbundling of the current electricity system, or in other words, the privatization of electricity.
“Foreign parties are now allowed to own up to 100 percent of shares in transmission, generation and electricity distribution businesses. This will result in vertical unbundling. Consequently, generation, transmission, and distribution will all be managed by foreign parties,” said Ahmad Daryoko, President of KSN, during the hearing in Jakarta on Wednesday.
While this is not the first time that these articles have been reviewed, Daryoko asserts that the current petition differs to those in the past.
Daryoko bases this assertion on the fact that KSN’s petition includes copies of email from ADB consultants, mentioning electricity liberalization, end of monopoly, and free trade mechanism implementation.
Based on this fact, Daryoko emphasizes that it has now become clear that the Government’s argument denying electricity liberalization during the previous judicial review is false.
Therefore, KSN is asking the Constitutional Court to revoke the Articles in question and to declare that these articles contradict Article 33 (2) of the 1945 Constitution.
In response, Presiding Judge Arief Hidayat reminded the petitioner that the Constitutional Court dismissed the petition because “production” under Article 33 (2) of the 1945 Constitution must be integrally interpreted encompassing generation, transmission, and distribution.
“This reflects the whole business is to be prioritized to be undertaken by state-owned enterprises,” said Arief.
The Constitutional Court was previously of the opinion that the Law may open the chance of unbundling, but not in an unconstitutional way . A distinction exists because electricity tariffs are still to be determined by the Sate.
“If in practice what is feared happens, that is not a matter of the Law. It is a matter of the implementation of norms,” said Arief.
Patrialis Akbar, another of the judges on the panel hearing the case, added that the applicant must explain each article in a very clear and detailed manner in order to convince the Constitutional Court of their argument.
(hot/kc)
The Constitutional Court (MK) has commenced its judicial review of Article 10 (2), (3), (4); Article 20; Article 33 (1), (2); and Article 56 (1), (2), (4) of Law No. 30 of 2009 on Electricity.
The judicial review petition was filed by the National Confederation of Unions (Konfederasi Serikat Nasional – KSN), who is arguing that these articles legalize the unbundling of the current electricity system, or in other words, the privatization of electricity.
“Foreign parties are now allowed to own up to 100 percent of shares in transmission, generation and electricity distribution businesses. This will result in vertical unbundling. Consequently, generation, transmission, and distribution will all be managed by foreign parties,” said Ahmad Daryoko, President of KSN, during the hearing in Jakarta on Wednesday.
While this is not the first time that these articles have been reviewed, Daryoko asserts that the current petition differs to those in the past.
Daryoko bases this assertion on the fact that KSN’s petition includes copies of email from ADB consultants, mentioning electricity liberalization, end of monopoly, and free trade mechanism implementation.
Based on this fact, Daryoko emphasizes that it has now become clear that the Government’s argument denying electricity liberalization during the previous judicial review is false.
Therefore, KSN is asking the Constitutional Court to revoke the Articles in question and to declare that these articles contradict Article 33 (2) of the 1945 Constitution.
In response, Presiding Judge Arief Hidayat reminded the petitioner that the Constitutional Court dismissed the petition because “production” under Article 33 (2) of the 1945 Constitution must be integrally interpreted encompassing generation, transmission, and distribution.
“This reflects the whole business is to be prioritized to be undertaken by state-owned enterprises,” said Arief.
The Constitutional Court was previously of the opinion that the Law may open the chance of unbundling, but not in an unconstitutional way . A distinction exists because electricity tariffs are still to be determined by the Sate.
“If in practice what is feared happens, that is not a matter of the Law. It is a matter of the implementation of norms,” said Arief.
Patrialis Akbar, another of the judges on the panel hearing the case, added that the applicant must explain each article in a very clear and detailed manner in order to convince the Constitutional Court of their argument.
(hot/kc)