Ada Pertanyaan? Hubungi Kami 
2026 Hak Cipta Milik Hukumonline.com
Produk Pilihan
Ada Pertanyaan? Hubungi Kami Robert Sidauruk
Leonardo Da Vinci is quoted as saying, “Water is the driving force of all nature”. Human’s high dependency on water also means that legal instruments that regulate this resource directly affect the livelihood of many people. The concept of transforming water from a mere a daily necessity to a commercialized commodity is another reason why the regulation of water is of the utmost important.
On 18 February 2015, the Constitutional Court altered the face of the regulatory framework governing Indonesia’s water resources when it handed down its Decision No. 85/PUU-XI/2013(“Decision”). The Constitutional Court, known as the “the Guardian of the Constitution”, declared Law No. 7 of 2004on Water Resources (“Water Resources Law”) null and void for being in contradiction with the 1945 Constitution. The decision came as a surprise to many as a previous judicial review of the Water Resources Law by the same court in 2005 had been rejected.
Prior to the Decision, the Water Resources Law formed the basis for the government to exercise its right to control water and regulate the utilization of water resources, both for daily consumption and for business purposes. In its Decision, the Constitutional Court ordered a reduction in private party involvement in utilizing water resources. The Decision placed both government-owned and private water companies in an uncertain position as to how they can carry out their businesses given existing water business licenses had been granted based on the revoked Water Resources Law.
To avoid a legal vacuum and disarray in the water resources industry, the Court reinstated the predecessor of the Water Resources Law, Law No. 11 of 1974on Irrigation (“1974 Law”). The 1974 Law is, for a number of reasons, insufficient to meet the current needs and circumstances of society. While waiting for discussions on a new water resources bill to be concluded, the government is currently preparing a government regulation and 21 ministerial regulations to fill gaps left by the now operational 1974 Law.
This week’s Indonesia Law Digest (ILD) will discuss the rationale behind the Decision and the different points of view given when the Constitutional Court reviewed the Water Resources Law in 2005. Furthermore, this week’s ILD will also highlight the substantial differences between the Water Resources Law and 1974 Law, as well as consequences of reinstating the 1974 Law.
This ILD will be available here
Leonardo Da Vinci is quoted as saying, “Water is the driving force of all nature”. Human’s high dependency on water also means that legal instruments that regulate this resource directly affect the livelihood of many people. The concept of transforming water from a mere a daily necessity to a commercialized commodity is another reason why the regulation of water is of the utmost important.On 18 February 2015, the Constitutional Court altered the face of the regulatory framework governing Indonesia’s water resources when it handed down its Decision No. 85/PUU-XI/2013(“Decision”). The Constitutional Court, known as the “the Guardian of the Constitution”, declared Law No. 7 of 2004on Water Resources (“Water Resources Law”) null and void for being in contradiction with the 1945 Constitution. The decision came as a surprise to many as a previous judicial review of the Water Resources Law by the same court in 2005 had been rejected.
Prior to the Decision, the Water Resources Law formed the basis for the government to exercise its right to control water and regulate the utilization of water resources, both for daily consumption and for business purposes. In its Decision, the Constitutional Court ordered a reduction in private party involvement in utilizing water resources. The Decision placed both government-owned and private water companies in an uncertain position as to how they can carry out their businesses given existing water business licenses had been granted based on the revoked Water Resources Law.
To avoid a legal vacuum and disarray in the water resources industry, the Court reinstated the predecessor of the Water Resources Law, Law No. 11 of 1974on Irrigation (“1974 Law”). The 1974 Law is, for a number of reasons, insufficient to meet the current needs and circumstances of society. While waiting for discussions on a new water resources bill to be concluded, the government is currently preparing a government regulation and 21 ministerial regulations to fill gaps left by the now operational 1974 Law.
This week’s Indonesia Law Digest (ILD) will discuss the rationale behind the Decision and the different points of view given when the Constitutional Court reviewed the Water Resources Law in 2005. Furthermore, this week’s ILD will also highlight the substantial differences between the Water Resources Law and 1974 Law, as well as consequences of reinstating the 1974 Law.
This ILD will be available here
Robert Sidauruk
Leonardo Da Vinci is quoted as saying, “Water is the driving force of all nature”. Human’s high dependency on water also means that legal instruments that regulate this resource directly affect the livelihood of many people. The concept of transforming water from a mere a daily necessity to a commercialized commodity is another reason why the regulation of water is of the utmost important.
On 18 February 2015, the Constitutional Court altered the face of the regulatory framework governing Indonesia’s water resources when it handed down its Decision No. 85/PUU-XI/2013(“Decision”). The Constitutional Court, known as the “the Guardian of the Constitution”, declared Law No. 7 of 2004on Water Resources (“Water Resources Law”) null and void for being in contradiction with the 1945 Constitution. The decision came as a surprise to many as a previous judicial review of the Water Resources Law by the same court in 2005 had been rejected.
Prior to the Decision, the Water Resources Law formed the basis for the government to exercise its right to control water and regulate the utilization of water resources, both for daily consumption and for business purposes. In its Decision, the Constitutional Court ordered a reduction in private party involvement in utilizing water resources. The Decision placed both government-owned and private water companies in an uncertain position as to how they can carry out their businesses given existing water business licenses had been granted based on the revoked Water Resources Law.
To avoid a legal vacuum and disarray in the water resources industry, the Court reinstated the predecessor of the Water Resources Law, Law No. 11 of 1974on Irrigation (“1974 Law”). The 1974 Law is, for a number of reasons, insufficient to meet the current needs and circumstances of society. While waiting for discussions on a new water resources bill to be concluded, the government is currently preparing a government regulation and 21 ministerial regulations to fill gaps left by the now operational 1974 Law.
This week’s Indonesia Law Digest (ILD) will discuss the rationale behind the Decision and the different points of view given when the Constitutional Court reviewed the Water Resources Law in 2005. Furthermore, this week’s ILD will also highlight the substantial differences between the Water Resources Law and 1974 Law, as well as consequences of reinstating the 1974 Law.
This ILD will be available here
Leonardo Da Vinci is quoted as saying, “Water is the driving force of all nature”. Human’s high dependency on water also means that legal instruments that regulate this resource directly affect the livelihood of many people. The concept of transforming water from a mere a daily necessity to a commercialized commodity is another reason why the regulation of water is of the utmost important.On 18 February 2015, the Constitutional Court altered the face of the regulatory framework governing Indonesia’s water resources when it handed down its Decision No. 85/PUU-XI/2013(“Decision”). The Constitutional Court, known as the “the Guardian of the Constitution”, declared Law No. 7 of 2004on Water Resources (“Water Resources Law”) null and void for being in contradiction with the 1945 Constitution. The decision came as a surprise to many as a previous judicial review of the Water Resources Law by the same court in 2005 had been rejected.
Prior to the Decision, the Water Resources Law formed the basis for the government to exercise its right to control water and regulate the utilization of water resources, both for daily consumption and for business purposes. In its Decision, the Constitutional Court ordered a reduction in private party involvement in utilizing water resources. The Decision placed both government-owned and private water companies in an uncertain position as to how they can carry out their businesses given existing water business licenses had been granted based on the revoked Water Resources Law.
To avoid a legal vacuum and disarray in the water resources industry, the Court reinstated the predecessor of the Water Resources Law, Law No. 11 of 1974on Irrigation (“1974 Law”). The 1974 Law is, for a number of reasons, insufficient to meet the current needs and circumstances of society. While waiting for discussions on a new water resources bill to be concluded, the government is currently preparing a government regulation and 21 ministerial regulations to fill gaps left by the now operational 1974 Law.
This week’s Indonesia Law Digest (ILD) will discuss the rationale behind the Decision and the different points of view given when the Constitutional Court reviewed the Water Resources Law in 2005. Furthermore, this week’s ILD will also highlight the substantial differences between the Water Resources Law and 1974 Law, as well as consequences of reinstating the 1974 Law.
This ILD will be available here