PERUBAHAN POSISI PIHAK INDONESIA DALAM REZIM KEGIATAN USAHA HULU LNG PASCA UU MIGAS BARU

Tulisan ini di muat dalam buku Peringatan Satu Tahun Ikatan Kekeluargaan Advokat Universitas Indonesia (IKA ADVOKAT UI), 2010: Silih Asih, Asuh, dan Asah

Oleh : Sulistiono Kertawacana
Praktisi Hukum

Keterangan tertulis Pemerintah dalam sidang di Mahkamah Konstitusi dalam Perkara No.002/PUU-I/2003 atas permohonan pengujian (Judicial Review) UU No. 22/2001 Tentang Minyak Dan Gas Bumi (“UU MIGAS BARU”) terhadap UUD 1945 yang terkait dengan kegiatan usaha Gas Alam Cair (Liquefied Natural Gas – “LNG”) menarik untuk ditelaah.
Menurut pemerintah bahwa dalam UU MIGAS BARU pemrosesan gas bumi menjadi LNG dimungkinkan pada kegiatan usaha hulu atau kegiatan usaha hilir. LNG pada kegiatan usaha hulu mengikuti aturan-aturan kontrak pada kegiatan hulu yang masih menganut pada pola cost center melalui cost recovery (merupakan bagian yang tidak terpisahkan dari kegiatan usaha hulu). Sedangkan LNG pada kegiatan usaha hilir mengikuti aturan kegiatan usaha hilir melalui izin usaha dan dapat memberikan laba pada Badan Usaha serta pendapatan negara berupa pajak, yang merupakan pola profit center dengan semua pembiayaannya ditanggung oleh Badan Usaha. Baik pada kegiatan usaha hulu maupun kegiatan usaha hilir LNG.
UU MIGAS BARU mengubah posisi pihak Indonesia dalam skema kegiatan usaha hulu LNG, yang sebelumnya diwakili oleh Perusahaan Pertambangan Minyak dan Gas Bumi Negara (“Pertamina”), kini diwakili oleh Pelaksana Kegiatan Usaha Hulu Minyak dan Gas Bumi (“BPMIGAS“). Sebab, BPMIGAS sebagai Badan Hukum Milik Negara (“BHMN”) memiliki tugas dan wewenang yang tidak mencakup peran yang dulu dapat dilakukan Pertamina.
Huruf a dan b Pasal 63 UU MIGAS BARU menyebutkan bahwa pada saat Undang-undang ini berlaku (23 November 2001-pen) :(a) dengan terbentuknya BPMIGAS, semua hak, kewajiban, dan akibat yang timbul dari Kontrak Bagi Hasil (Production Sharing Contract-“PSC”) antara Pertamina dan pihak lain beralih kepada BPMIGAS, (b) dengan terbentuknya BPMIGAS, kontrak lain yang berkaitan dengan kontrak sebagaimana tersebut pada huruf a antara Pertamina dan pihak lain beralih kepada BPMIGAS.
Pasal 63 UU MIGAS BARU tidak memberikan penjelasan apa yang dimaksud dengan kontrak lain yang berkaitan dengan kontrak sebagaimana tersebut pada huruf a antara Pertamina dan pihak lain. Penjelasan tersebut kita dapatkan dalam penjelasan Pasal 104 huruf a Peraturan Pemerintah No.35/2004 tentang Kegiatan Usaha Hulu Minyak dan Gas Bumi (“PP No.35/2004“) bahwa yang dimaksud dengan kontrak lain dalam ketentuan ini adalah kontrak-kontrak yang berkaitan dengan kegiatan kontraktor dalam rangka Kontrak Kerja Sama, antara lain: perjanjian yang terkait dengan pendanaan oleh pihak ketiga, Offtake Agreement, Exchange Agreement, Supply Agreement, Producers Agreement, Transportation Agreement, Plant Processing Agreement, Plant Use Agreement yang kesemuanya merupakan kesatuan dari kontrak-kontrak yang mendukung penjualan Minyak dan Gas Bumi.
Dalam prakteknya, rangkaian kontrak lain selain Production Sharing Contract (Kontrak Bagi Hasil) yang terkait dengan skema kegiatan usaha hulu dalam rezim hukum UU MIGAS LAMA (UU No. 44 Prp./1960 tentang Pertambangan Minyak dan Gas Bumi dan UU No. 8/ 1971 tentang Perusahaan Pertambangan Minyak dan Gas Bumi Negara berikut segala perubahannya, terakhir diubah dengan Undang-Undang Nomor 10 Tahun 1974 tentang Perubahan Pasal 19 Ayat (1) Undang-Undang Nomor 8 Tahun 1971) yang telah dicabut oleh UU MIGAS BARU, setidaknya terdiri atas (i) Principles of Agreement (ii) Sales and Purchase Agreement, (iii) Loan Agreement, (iv) Engineering Procurement Construction Contract (EPC Contract), (v) Trustee and Paying Agent Agreement, (vi) Use and Operation of Plant Agreement, (vii) Processing Agreement, (viii) Supply Agreement, dan (ix) Transportation Agreement (secara bersama-sama disebut “RANGKAIAN PERJANJIAN-PERJANJIAN LNG”).
Principles of Agreement dibuat untuk melengkapi PSC yang tidak mengatur mengenai siapa yang membangun Kilang LNG untuk memproses gas bumi menjadi LNG, siapa yang membiayai pembangunan kilang LNG atau mengusahakan untuk mencari pinjaman guna pembangunan kilang LNG, siapa yang akan mengoperasikan kilang LNG dan lain-lain. Sebab, PSC tidak mengatur mengenai hal tersebut.
Untuk membiayai pembangunan kilang LNG, dibutuhkan biaya yang sangat besar dan kreditor yang mau membiayainya. Sebagai tindak lanjutnya, dibuatlah Loan Agreement. Dana yang diperolehnya akan digunakan untuk membangun kilang LNG dan akan dibayar dari hasil penjualan LNG secara proporsional (sesuai bagian LNG para pihak dalam PSC) (cost of sale).
Mengingat pembiayaannya cukup besar, maka biasanya kreditor hanya setuju memberikan pinjamannya jika LNG yang akan diproses oleh kilang LNG sudah ada pembelinya. Untuk itu diperlukan Sales and Purchase Agreement sebagai rangkaian dari Loan Agreement. Mengingat LNG yang akan dijual adalah milik negara RI sampai dengan titik penyerahan, maka LNG tidak dijadikan jaminan pembayaran Loan Agreement. Oleh karenanya, untuk memastikan bahwa debitor melunasi pembayaran Loan Agreement, maka rekening yang digunakan untuk menampung pembayaran penjualan LNG berdasarkan Sales and Purchase Agreement dan pembayaran hutang berdasarkan Loan Agreement, dibuka rekening khusus dan dikelola untuk pembagian dan penyaluran pembayaran hasil penjualan LNG. Untuk itu diperlukan Trustee and Paying Agent Agreement.
Sedangkan untuk membangun kilang LNG yang akan memproses gas bumi menjadi LNG yang spesifikasinya ditentukan berdasarkan Sales and Purchase Agreement, maka diperlukan EPC Contract dengan standar dan kualifikasi tertentu.
Untuk penggunaan dan pengoperasian kilang LNG, dibutuhkan badan hukum yang didirikan oleh pihak Indonesia dengan Kontraktor PSC yang khusus didirikan untuk menggunakan dan mengoperasikan kilang LNG (Operator). Untuk tujuan itu, dibuat Use and Operation of Plant Agreement.
Use and Operation of Plant Agreement mengatur kewajiban pihak Indonesia diantaranya menunjuk Operator untuk menggunakan dan mengoperasikan kilang LNG, melakukan tindakan yang diperlukan untuk menjamin Operator dapat menggunakan dan mengoperasikan kilang, membayar capital budget yang menetapkan biaya penggantian dari barang modal, asuransi kilang LNG selama pembangunan dan pengoperasian kilang LNG, public liability insurance,. pembayaran premi asuransi selama masa pembangunan kilang LNG, membangun kembali dan memperbaiki kilang LNG jika hancur atau rusak, membayar biaya yang timbul sehubungan dengan kegiatan pra operasi yang dilaksanakan oleh Operator, seperti pelatihan staf operasional, membuat panduan operasional, dan kegiatan lainnya.
Untuk memproses gas bumi menjadi LNG (liquefaction) diatur dalam Processing Agreement yang antara lain berisi mengatur spesifikasi (kualitas & komposisi) LNG agar sesuai dengan LNG Sales Agreement, menetapkan program operasi, biaya pemrosesan gas bumi menajdi LNG.
Pembeli LNG tentu membutuhkan kepastian bahwa LNG yang akan dibeli tersedia sesuai dengan jadwal yang ditentukan. Untuk itu diperlukan perjanjian yang mendukungnya yaitu Supply Agreement. Perjanjian ini antara lain mengatur pihak Indonesia dan Kontraktor PSC yang terkait menyanggupi kepada pembeli bahwa mereka sanggup untuk memasok LNG dengan jumlah dan spesifikasi LNG sesuai dengan Sales and Purchase Agreement.
Jika titik serah LNG berdasarkan Sales and Purchase Agreement di pelabuhan tujuan negara pembeli, maka penjual (yang diwakili oleh Pertamina) yang memiliki LNG sampai dengan titik serah, harus menyediakan sarana transportasi untuk mengirim LNG menuju pelabuhan yang telah ditetapkan. Untuk itu diperlukan Time Charter Party Agreements guna menyewa kapal tanker yang mampu mengangkut LNG dari Indonesia ke tempat pembeli .
Persoalannya, apakah tugas dan/atau kewenangan BPMIGAS berdasarkan rezim UU MIGAS BARU melingkupi juga hak dan kewajiban berdasarkan pengalihan dari kontrak lain yang dialihkan dari Pertamina kepada BPMIGAS, sebagaimana dimaksud Pasal 63 huruf b UU MIGAS BARU dan Pasal 104 PP No.35/2004 huruf a juncto penjelasan huruf a Pasal 104 PP No.35/2004?
Padahal, berdasarkan Pasal 44 ayat (3) UU MIGAS BARU, diatur bahwa tugas BPMIGAS adalah (a) memberikan pertimbangan kepada Menteri (Energy dan SUmber daya Mineral-pen) atas kebijaksanaannya dalam hal penyiapan dan penawaran Wilayah Kerja serta Kontrak Kerja Sama, (b) melaksanakan penandatanganan Kontrak Kerja Sama, (c) mengkaji dan menyampaikan rencana pengembangan lapangan yang pertama kali akan diproduksikan dalam suatu Wilayah Kerja kepada Menteri untuk mendapatkan persetujuan, (d) memberikan persetujuan rencana pengembangan lapangan selain sebagaimana dimaksud dalam huruf c, (e) memberikan persetujuan rencana kerja dan anggaran, (f) melaksanakan monitoring dan melaporkan kepada Menteri mengenai pelaksanaan Kontrak Kerja Sama, (g) menunjuk penjual Minyak Bumi dan/atau Gas Bumi bagian negara yang dapat memberikan keuntungan sebesar-besarnya bagi negara.
Selanjutnya, berdasarkan Pasal 12 PP No.42/2002 tentang BPMIGAS (“PP No.42/2002”) diatur bahwa dalam menjalankan tugas, BPMIGAS berwenang (a) membina kerja sama dalam rangka terwujudnya integrasi dan sinkronisasi kegiatan operasional kontraktor Kontrak Kerja Sama, (b) merumuskan kebijakan atas anggaran dan program kerja kontraktor Kontrak Kerja Sama, (c) mengawasi kegiatan utama operasional kontraktor Kontrak Kerja Sama, (d) membina seluruh aset kontraktor Kontrak Kerja Sama yang menjadi milik negara, (e) melakukan koordinasi dengan pihak dan/atau instansi terkait yang diperlukan dalam pelaksanaan Kegiatan Usaha Hulu. Penjelasannya (hanya huruf c-pen) menguraikan bahwa pengawasan oleh BPMIGAS meliputi kegiatan Eksplorasi dan Eksploitasi termasuk kegiatan pengolahan lapangan, pengangkutan, penyimpanan, dan penjualan hasil produksi sendiri sebagai kelanjutan dari kegiatan Eksplorasi dan Eksploitasi yang dilakukan Badan Usaha atau Bentuk Usaha Tetap.
Dari uraian tersebut di atas, mengingat kedudukan BPMIGAS yang berdasarkan Pasal 45 UU MIGAS BARU selaku BHMN dan cakupan tugas BPMIGAS yang diatur dalam Pasal 44 ayat (3) UU MIGAS BARU serta wewenang BPMIGAS yang diatur Pasal 12 PP No.42/2002, maka BPMIGAS tidak diberikan tugas/mandat dan kewenangan untuk terlibat dalam tindakan-tindakan hukum yang terkait dengan tindakan hukum yang bersifat komersial/menjalankan kegiatan usaha.
Dengan demikian, pengalihan kontrak lain (termasuk baik secara langsung maupun tidak langsung RANGKAIAN PERJANJIAN-PERJANJIAN LNG) yang dialihkan dari Pertamina kepada BPMIGAS, sebagaimana dimaksud Pasal 63 huruf b UU MIGAS BARU dan Pasal 104 PP No.35/2004 huruf a juncto penjelasan huruf a Pasal 104 PP No.35/2004 adalah tidak termasuk dalam lingkup tugas dan kewenangan BPMIGAS sebagaimana diatur UU MIGAS dan PP No.42/2002.
Artinya, rezim kegiatan usaha hulu LNG yang dianut oleh UU MIGAS BARU telah mengubah posisi Indonesia karena pihak Indonesia yang terlibat dalam skema rangkaian perjanjian-perjanjian LNG tidak tercakup dalam tugas dan wewenang BPMIGAS selaku BHMN.
__________________________
(1) Lihat Putusan Perkara No.002/PUU-I/2003 yang dimuat dalam Berita Negara Republik Indonesia Nomor 01 Tahun 2005, terbit Selasa tanggal 4 Januari 2005, hal.119-120..
(2)Pasal 63 UU No.22/2001 huruf a dan b mengatur bahwa pada saat Undang-undang ini berlaku (23 November 2001-pen) :(a) dengan terbentuknya BPMIGAS, semua hak, kewajiban, dan akibat yang timbul dari Kontrak Bagi Hasil (Production Sharing Contract) antara Pertamina dan pihak lain beralih kepada BP MIGAS, (b) dengan terbentuknya BPMIGAS, kontrak lain yang berkaitan dengan kontrak sebagaimana tersebut pada huruf a antara Pertamina dan pihak lain beralih kepada BPMIGAS.
(3) Pasal 104 PP No.35/2004 huruf a dan b mengatur bahwa pada saat Peraturan Pemerintah ini berlaku (14 Oktober 2004 –pen) : (a) Kontrak Bagi Hasil dan kontrak lain yang berkaitan dengan Kontrak Bagi Hasil antara Pertamina dan pihak lain tetap berlaku sampai dengan berakhirnya kontrak yang bersangkutan, (b) Kontrak Bagi Hasil dan kontrak lain yang berkaitan dengan Kontrak Bagi Hasil sebagaimana dimaksud dalam huruf a, beralih kepada BP MIGAS
(4) PP No.35/2004 diubah dengan PP No.34/2005 yang menyisisipkan 4 (empat) pasal, yakni Pasal 103A, Pasal 103B, Pasal 103C, dan Pasal 103D dalam PP 35/2004.

Pick a Wisdom from Karaha Bodas Case

Edition of Sinar Harapan 8 May 2007.

Non edited version

By: Sulistiono Kertawacana
Legal practitioner in Jakarta



In Mid-March 2007, the Cayman Islands court awarded that Pertamina breached the Joint Operation Contract (JOC) to Karaha Bodas Company (KBC), the contractor of Power Geothermal (PLTP) of Karaha. Pertamina must pay compensation to KBC as the implementation of the international award Geneva, Switzerland December 18, 2000.

In fact, the Arbitration has been punishing Pertamina and PLN. Pertamina and PLN decided to break Energy Sales Contract (ESC), and Pertamina has violated JOC. Therefore, Pertamina and PLN together and each sentenced to pay compensation KBC some U.S. $ 261,100,000 (U.S. $ 111,100,000 for the costs suffered by KBC and U.S. $ 150 million for profits have accrued to KBC), including 4% interest per annum, commencing from January 1 2001.

Negligent of Legal Aspects

Two projects of PLTP Karaha have been signed on 28 November 1994 i.e JOC and ESC. JOC (Pertamina and KBC) set Pertamina to be responsible for managing the operation of the geothermal and KBC as a contractor. KBC must develop geothermal energy and built, owns, and operates power plants. While the ESC (KBC, Pertamina, and PLN), KBC (as Pertamina and the Contractor under JOC) will supply and sell electricity to PLN. The choice of law, both JOC and ESC are Indonesian law.

However, there is an odd clause which escaped from Pertamina’s and PLN’s attention. Article 15.2 (e) JOC (contained similar contents with Article 9.2 (e) ESC) that the "events of Force Majeure shall include, but not limited to: ... (e) with respect Contractor only, any Government Related events' (events that caused by Force Majeure, including but not limited to: ... (e) only applies to the Contractor (KBC-pen), any action relating to the Government).

Supposedly, the parties involved in the JOC and ESC (Pertamina, PLN, and KBC) prohibited acts in violation of Indonesian law including government actions relevant provisions issued by the project that is binding on all parties. Article 1320 of Indonesian Civil Code stated that "(one of the legal requirements) because the agreement is lawful". Article 1339 of Indonesian Civil Code stated that "the agreement binds not only what is expressly stated therein, but also everything that according to the nature of consent required by (among others-writer) Law".

Furthermore, Article 1337 of Indonesian Civil Code states that "a cause is forbidden if it is prohibited (inter alia- writer) by the Law". The meaning of the Lawt is the legislation, including the government's decision to suspend the project Karaha PLTP. Referring to Article 1335 of Indonesian Civil Code, an agreement with a prohibited reason, does not have the force of law.

This means, according to Indonesian law, Article 15.2 (e) JOC and Section 9.2 (e) adverse ESC Pertamina and PLN is not valid. Force Majeure for Pertamina and PLN should include measures relating to the government.

Pick a Wisdom

At least, there are 3 lessons learned from this incident. First, consider a deep study of law before the government shall suspend / cancel state projects. Therefore, many of the awards have been hurt Indonesia due to cancelation, as the case of Patuha PLTP and PLTP Dieng.

Therefore, if the essence of force majeure clause is similar to JOC and ESC, the cancellation should be submitted by the state through the courts, despite a presidential decree issued on the suspension of the project. This is for testing of force majeure clause of validity of this model according to Indonesian law. This way is more secure. A stronger reason for the state if the cancellation of the contract, sued the foreign investors. Because of the glass eyes of the law of contract cancellation by a court, decision is more neutral than the Presidential Decree.

Second, the Minister of State Owned Enterprises (SOEs) needs to issue a circular letter (accompanied by the legal review) to all SOEs that SOE must reject the proposed force majeure clause in the construction of such clause stated on JOC and ESC. The goal is so that easier for SOEs in negotiations with partners to avoid paying compensation in the future.

Third, it is not enough to suspend / cancel the service-learning project indicated (Corruption, Collusion and Nepotism). Instead, the investigations of corruption come before the cancellation / suspension of the project. The reason of IMF recommendations, almost certainly because of the high cost of the project indicated that the state's financial burden. The goal, if in the midst of corruption investigations, pending projects, international positive perceptions that Indonesia canceled in order to eradicate corruption.

It Has Ever Tried

President Habibie has formed Team 7 Ministers (consisting of the Coordinating and Development Supervision Administrative Reform (chairperson), Finance, Minister of Industries and Trade, Minister of Mining and Energy, State Minister for Research and Technology / Head of BPPT, Minister for National Development Planning / Head of National Development Planning Agency, and State Minister for Administrative Reform of SOEs. The team was given the task to review the various private power contracts (about 27 cases) are considered harmful to Indonesia.

By appointing an advocate i.e Adnan Buyung Nasution (getting power of attorney from Pertamina and PLN), the government intends to cancel the private power contracts through the courts in Indonesia. The reason, the existence of causa and creation are not permitted because accomplished through Corruption Collusion, and Nepotism (CCN-KKN). The strategy is that before it was canceled by the district court, cases of corruption and dirty game of dismantled first. However, this attempt failed because the Attorney General (Andi M Ghalib) did not cooperate to make this effort.

Many private power contracts made with forced and under pressure, according to Indonesian law that parties may feel pressured to cancel the agreement. Paiton case is an early precedent for this. The lawsuit filed in the Central Jakarta District Court dated October 9, 1999. Legal team was ready to provide proof that the contract was full deception and corruption. Former President Director of PLN (Zuhal) was ready to testify that that how he was called on Cendana by Suharto, but he could not come in and just told to wait outside, while the Minister of Finance, Marie Muhammad and the Coordinator Minister S. Affif entered to meet Suharto and. They conferred on the inside, and then Suharto had decided the price, and Zuhaln was forced to sign. Actually, Zuhal disagreed, but Suharto had decided (Adnan Buyung Nasution: 174; 2004).

Furthermore, when President Abdurrahman Wahid (Gus Dur) era came many the pressures from foreign parties, including Ambassador to the United States (U.S.) in Indonesia, and various emissaries who came to Indonesia (U.S. Vice President, Secretary of State, and Henry Kissinger). Also when Wahid visited the United States, he was pressured by the U.S. businessmen and U.S. Senator. Indonesian Ambassador in the U.S., Dorodjatun Kuntjorojakti also was pressed to give advice to the government of Indonesia to revoke Paiton case. Minister of Mining and Energy (it was Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono) did not escape the pressure. Through the IMF, World Bank, and UNDP also launched pressure.

The Indonesian government could not resist and ordered the Director of PLN (it was Adhi Satriya) revoked the cancellation of contract lawsuit toh Paiton. Adhi Satriya refused; still intend to continue the lawsuit. Unfortunately, Adhi Satriya choosed to resign as Managing Director of PLN than wait 'fired' and to fight in court due to differences with the shareholders (the government) for and on behalf of PLN and the public interest. This step is important to test the absolute authority of shareholders of the company when the directors consider harmful and common interests.

We could learn from a Dutch jurisprudence which known as the Forum of Bank Arrest, Arrest Reported January 21, 1955 (N.J 1959 N.43). The court received the lawsuit and canceled the decision of the Board of Directors Meeting. The reason, Annual General Meeting of Shareholders decisions contrary to propriety and good faith.

Two important opportunities for the development of Indonesian law has been lost. Indonesian economy still slumped and stumbled sideways between the international perception of the investment climate and legal certainty Indonesia. We must note that investors from the country's famous anti-corruption, has applied double standards when fighting corruption a loss. Be aware !!!

Rattan Entrepreneur could File a Judicial Review to Revoke Rattan Export Policy on Rattan Raw Material

This Article has been published Import Export Indonesia on January 9, 2010
By: Sulistiono Kertawacana
Legal practitioner in Jakarta

Regulation of the Minister of Trade No. 33/M-DAG/PER/7/2009 tanggal 28 Juli 2009 (”the Regulation of the Minister of Trade No.33/2009”) which revised the Regulation of the Minister of Trade No.12/M-DAG/PER/6/2005 June 30, 2005 on Export Rattan ("the Regulation of the Minister of Trade No.12/2005"). Unfortunately, government policy has been only amended. In fact, entrepreneurs’ rattan industry expects exports of rattan raw material are prohibited at all to meet domestic needs.

Association of Furniture and Handicraft Rattan Indonesia (Asosiasi Mebel dan Kerajinan Rotan Indonesia – ”AMKRI”) estimates that if the export of rattan are still allowed, then in 2011 estimated the rattan industry will die. If expectations AMKRI and other business uses of rattan raw materials are not met expectations over the amendment the Regulation of the Minister of Trade No.12/2005, what legal steps could be done AMKRI and/or members?

Judicial Review

Indeed, AMKRI disappointment over the government's policy the only change the Regulation of the Minister of Trade No.12/2005, and not revoke the Regulation of the Minister of Trade No.12/2005 and all amendments, still have hope through the judicial review.

Article 24A Third Amendment of the 1945 Constitution authorizes the Supreme Court to examine the laws and regulations under the law against the law.

Article 31 of Law No.5/2004 that amended Law No. 14/1985 as lastly amended by Law No.3/2009 on the Supreme Court asserted that the Supreme Court has the authority to examine the laws and regulations under the law against the law. Furthermore, the Supreme Court will declare invalid the laws and regulations under the law for reasons contrary to the laws of higher or foundation does not meet the applicable provisions (Article 31 paragraph 2 of the Law No.5/2004).

Article 31A Paragraph (2) of the Law No.3/2009 that amended the Law No.14/1985 states that is able to petition for judicial review are (a) individual Indonesian citizens, (b) customary law community unit all still alive and in accordance with the development of society and the principles of the Unitary Republic of Indonesia regulated in law, or (c) a public legal entity or a private legal entity.

The rule is more extensive than those stipulated in Article 1 number 4 of the Supreme Court Regulation No.1 of 2004 on the Rights to Judicial Review ("the Supreme Court Regulation No.1/2004") which provides that the Petitioner Objections can be made by community groups or individuals.

Objection application is an application that contains an objection to the application of laws and regulations allegedly violated by legislation a higher level of submission to the Supreme Court to get the decision (Article 1 number 3 the Supreme Court Regulation No.1/2004). Objection application is also called a judicial review terms.

For the record, although referring to Article 2 paragraph (4) the Supreme Court Regulation No.1/2004 stated that objection filed within a period of 180 days from the stipulated laws and regulations concerned, the Supreme Court has accepted the petition for judicial review (judicial review) filed more than 180 days as stated in the Supreme Court Award Number: 41 P/HUM/2006 November 21, 2006. In consideration of such Award, the judges consider the 5 things.

First, in terms of comparative law in various countries, both in the Continental European legal system and Anglo-Saxon legal system are not known a time limit explicitly in a regulation to submit the Material Test Rights (Judicial Review) of the regulations applicable in general.

Second, in terms of analogy with the practices and procedures in the Constitutional Court of Indonesia, it is no time restrictions apply to file a judicial review against the Law and other regulations petitioned for judicial review. Therefore, there is the decision on the cancellation or unauthorized statements to the certain provisions of the Act into force actually since a few years ago.

Third, in terms of philosophical legal protection, the existence of a limitation on a person’s right to sue by limits filing period, in fact it s a form of reducing or limiting the actions of Human Rights in carrying out its right to file suit. If It is deemed necessary to be held, then the limit should be put into the Law or Law of Procedure, it is not in a form of legal products which is lower than the Law, including not in a the Supreme Court Regulation.

Fourth, in terms of the applicable positive law, ie by tracing the source of the law on judicial review of agency acknowledged that its jurisdiction is given to the judiciary, the Article 11 paragraph (2) of Law No.4/2004 on Judicial Power (which continues the same provisions of the Law before ), and also in Article 31 and 31A Law No.5/2004 concerning Amendment to Law No.14/2005 regarding the Supreme Court, it did not include any explicit time limitation to apply for the objections.

Fifth, the limitation period would be concerned about the emergence of the rules which are essentially contrary to public order, but it cannot be tested under the law simply because it is past time formally.

Reasons of Judicial Review

Member(s) of AMKRI may file an objection for the policies of the government relating to (1) the Regulation of the Minister of Trade No.12/2005 as lastly amended by the Regulation of the Minister of Trade No.33/2009 and (2) the Decree of the Minister of Industry and Trade No. 558/MPP/Kep/1 2 / 1998 as lastly amended by the Regulation of the Minister of Trade No. 07/M-DAG/PER/4/2005 on the General Provisions in the Export Sector. The General Provisions in the Export Sector classifies goods in (1) Regulated Export Goods, (2) Monitored Export Goods, (3) Prohibited Export Goods, and (4) Free Export Goods.

Regulated Export-Goods is export goods that can only be done by the Registered Exporter. Monitored Export-Goods is export goods that could only be done with the approval of the Minister of Industry and Trade (now the Minister of Trade) or a designated official. Prohibited Export-Goods is goods that could not be exported. Free Export-Goods is goods that do not include the notion of Regulated Goods exports, which Monitored Export Goods, and Prohibited Export Goods.
Important substance for application Objection to the Regulation of the Minister of Trade No.12/2005 amended by the Regulation of the Minister of Trade No.33/2009 shows that the Regulation of the Minister of Trade is deemed to have violated the laws and regulations are higher. Legislation, which is higher than the Regulation of the Minister of Trade No.12/2005 amended by the Regulation of the Minister of Trade No.33/2009 are Government Regulation, and / or the Law.

One of the provisions that could be referred as file a Judicial Review is Article 3 of Law No.5/1984 on Industry ("the Law No.5/1984") which regulates that industry development aims to (among others) enhance the prosperity and welfare in a fair and equitable to use funds, natural resources, and/or the results of cultivation and with due regard to balance and environmental sustainability.

At least, there are two alternative reasons for the cancellation of the rattan export regulations. First, the objection related to the amount of volume of raw materials that may be exported as stated in Appendix of the Regulation of the Minister of Trade No.33/2009. It means that Rattan Entrepreneurs do not object to the rattan classified policy rattan in the Regulated Export Goods, but because of the volume exported is allowed too much so that national rattan furniture producers experiencing shortages. Therefore, the Regulation of the Minister of Trade No.33/2009 is considered contrary to Law No.5/1984.

Second, the objection related to the classification of rattan in Regulated export goods, and considered more appropriate in the category Prohibited Goods Exports. Therefore, because of violation of the Law No.5/1984 is that raw rattan is allowed to export, not in the form of furniture or other crafts. Thus, it is reviewed to cancel the Minister of Industry No. Kep. 558/MPP/Kep/12/1998 as lastly amended by the Regulation of the Minister of Trade No.07/M-DAG/PER/4/2005 on General Provisions in the Export Sector. Indonesia by 85% (eighty-five percent) of rattan raw material supply of the world. Mastery of this material, it will turn the industry and rattan furniture.

Based on data obtained AMKRI, after the publication the Regulation of the Minister of Trade No.12/2005, rattan raw material industries experiencing shortages. As a result, one of the rattan industry center in Indonesia i.e. Cirebon, as of October 2008 of 426 rattan 144 companies have closed company, only 127 firms export rattan 1 container per month, 113 companies are only able to export up to 8 containers per month, only 20 companies can provide 8-15 containers per month, and only 11 companies to export 15-25 containers per month (Rattan Icon Magazine October 2008 edition).

In fact, before issuing the Regulation of the Minister of Trade No.12/2005, companies and rattan furniture in Cirebon average able to export at least 75-150 containers per month. With the number of 426 companies in Cirebon, the rattan industry in Cirebon could be exported 31950-63900 containers per month.

If the government policy actually resulted in the closure of many companies which, in turn, unemployment, contrary to the policy of industrial development, which aims to improve the prosperity and welfare as stipulated in Article Law No.5/1984. It is time for Rattan Entrepreneurs to file a Judicial Review to correct government policy.Good Luck!!!

Pengusaha Rotan Dapat Membatalkan Kebijakan Expor Bahan Mentah Rotan

Tulisan ini pernah dipublikasikan Export Import Indonesia pada 9 Januari 2010

Oleh: Sulistiono Kertawacana
Praktisi Hukum di Jakarta

Peraturan Menteri Perdagangan No. 33/M-DAG/PER/7/2009 tanggal 28 Juli 2009 (”Permendag No.33/2009”) telah mengubah Permendag No. 12/M-DAG/PER/6/2005 tanggal 30 Juni 2005 tentang Ketentuan Ekspor Rotan (”Permendag No.12/2005”). Sayangnya, kebijakan pemerintah hanya merevisi Volume Rotan Asalan dan Rotan Setengah Jadi Yang Dapat Diekspor. Padahal, pengusaha industri rotan mengharapkan agar ekspor bahan baku rotan dilarang sama sekali untuk memenuhi kebutuhan domestik.

Asosiasi Mebel dan Kerajinan Rotan Indonesia (”AMKRI”) memperkirakan bahwa jika ekspor rotan masih diperbolehkan, maka diperkirakan pada tahun 2011 industri rotan akan mati. Lantas, jika harapan AMKRI dan pelaku usaha lainnya yang menggunakan bahan baku rotan tidak terpenuhi harapannya atas revisi Permendag No.12/2005, langkah hukum apa yang musti dilakukan AMKRI dan/atau anggotanya?

Uji Materiil (Judicial Review)

Sejatinya, kekecewaan AMKRI atas kebijakan pemerintah yang hanya mengubah Permendag No.12/2005, dan bukan mencabut Permendag No.12/2005 beserta segala perubahannya, masih memiliki harapan melalui uji materiil (judicial review).

Pasal 24A Perubahan Ketiga UUD 1945 memberikan kewenangan kepada Mahkamah Agung (”MA”) untuk menguji peraturan perundang-undangan di bawah Undang-Undang (UU) terhadap UU.

Pasal 31 UU No.5/2004 yang mengubah UU No. 14/ 1985 sebagaimana diubah terakhir dengan UU No.3/2009 tentang MA menegaskan bahwa MA mempunyai wewenang menguji peraturan perundang-undangan di bawah UU terhadap UU. Selanjutnya, MA akan menyatakan tidak sah peraturan perundang-undangan di bawah UU atas alasan bertentangan dengan peraturan perundang-undangan yang lebih tinggi atau pembentukannya tidak memenuhi ketentuan yang berlaku (Pasal 31 ayat 2 UUno.5/2004).

Berdasarkan Pasal 31A ayat (2) UU No.3/2009 (mengubah UU No.14/1985) diatur bahwa yang dapat melakukan permohonan Uji Materiil adalah (a) perorangan warga negara Indonesia, (b) kesatuan masyarakat hukum adat sepanjang masih hidup dan sesuai dengan perkembangan masyarakat dan prinsip NKRI yang diatur dalam undang-undang, atau (c) badan hukum publik atau badan hukum privat.

Aturan tersebut lebih luas dari pada yang diatur Pasal 1 angka 4 Peraturan Mahkamah Agung No.1 tahun 2004 tentang Hak Uji Materiil (”Perma No.1/2004”) yang mengatur bahwa Pemohon Keberatan dapat dilakukan oleh kelompok masyarakat atau perorangan.

Permohonan Keberatan adalah suatu permohonan yang berisi keberatan terhadap berlakunya suatu peraturan perundang-undangan yang diduga bertentangan dengan suatu peraturan perundang-undangan tingkat lebih tinggi yang diajukan ke MA untuk mendapatkan putusan (Pasal 1 angka 3 Perma No.1/2004). Permohonan Keberatan disebut juga dengan istilah judicial review.

Sebagai catatan, meskipun berdasarkan Pasal 2 ayat (4) Perma No.1/2004 diatur bahwa Permohonan Keberatan diajukan dalam tenggang waktu 180 hari sejak ditetapkan peraturan perundang-undangan yang bersangkutan, MA telah menerima permohonan Uji Materiil (judicial review) yang diajukan lebih dari 180 hari sebagaimana dalam Putusan MA Nomor: 41 P/HUM/2006 tanggal 21 November 2006. Dalam pertimbangan putusan tersebut, majelis hakim mempertimbangkan 5 hal.

Pertama, ditinjau dari perbandingan hukum yang berlaku di berbagai negara, baik dalam sitem hukum Eropa Kontinental, maupun sistem hukum Anglo Saxon tidak dikenal adanya pembatasan waktu secara ekplisit dalam suatu peraturan untuk mengajukan Hak Uji Materiil (Judicial Review) terhadap peraturan yang berlaku secara umum.

Kedua, ditinjau dari segi analogi dengan praktek dan prosedur yang berlaku di Mahkamah Konstitusi Indonesia, juga tidak tidak diterpkan adanya pembatasan waktu untuk mohon judicial review terhadap produk UU maupun obyek yang dimohonkan judicial review, sehingga dalam kenyataan ada putusannya tentang pembatalan ataupun pernyataan tidak sah terhadap beberapa ketentuan UU yang daya berlakunya sebetulnya sejak beberapa tahun lalu.

Ketiga, ditinjau dari filosofis perlindungan hukum, maka adanya suatu pembatasan terhadap hak seseorang untuk menggugat dengan diberikannya batasan tenggang waktu pengajuan gugatan, pada hakekatnya merupakan bentuk pengurangan atau tindakan membatasi Hak Asasi Manusia (“HAM”) dalam melaksanakan haknya untuk mengajukan gugatan, dan apabila memang hal demikian dipandang perlu untuk diadakan, maka batasan itu harus;ah dituangkan dalam bentuk UU atau Hukum Acara, dan bukannya dalam suatu bentuk produk hukum yang lebih rendah daripada UU, termasuk juga tidak dalam suatu Peraturan Mahkamah Agung (PERMA).

Keempat, ditinjau dari hukum positif yang berlaku, yaitu dengan menelusuri sumber hukum tentang diakuinya lembaga judicial review yang diberikan yurisdiksinya pada badan peradilan, yaitu Pasal 11 ayat (2) UU No.4/2004 tentang Kekuasaan Kehakiman (yang meneruskan ketentuan yang sama UU sebelumnya), dan juga dalam Pasal 31 dan 31A UUNo.5/2004 tentang Perubahan atas UU No.UU No.14/2005 tentang Mahkamah Agung, ternyata memang tidak dicantumkan secara eksplisit adanya pembatasan tanggang waktu untuk mengajukan permohonan keberatan.

Kelima, adanya pembatasan tenggang waktu dapat dikhawatirkan akan timbulnya peraturan-peraturan yang pada hakikatnya bertentangan dengan ketertiban umum (publiek orde), tetapi ternyata tidak dapat diuji menurut hukum hanya karena sudah lewat waktu secara formal.

Dasar dan Alasan Uji Materiil

Anggota AMKRI dapat mengajukan Permohonan Keberatan atas berlakunya (1) Permendag No.12/2005 sebagaimana diubah beberapa kali dan terakhir diubah dengan Permendag No.33/2009 dan/atau (2) Keputusan Menteri Perindustrian dan Perdagangan Nomor 558/Mpp/Kep/1 2/1998 sebagaimana telah beberapa kali diubah terakhir dengan PerMendag No. 07/M-DAG/PER/4/2005 tentang Ketentuan Umum di Bidang Ekspor yang mengklasifikasikan Barang dalam (1) Barang Yang Diatur Ekspornya, (2) Barang Yang Diawasi Ekspornya, (3) Barang Yang Dilarang Ekspornya, dan (4) Barang Yang Bebas Ekspornya.

Barang Yang Diatur Ekspornya adalah barang yang ekspornya hanya dapat dilakukan oleh Eksportir Terdaftar. Barang Yang Diawasi Ekspornya adalah barang yang ekspornya hanya dapat dilakukan dengan persetujuan Menteri Perindustrian dan Perdagangan (sekarang Menteri Perdagangan –Pen) atau Pejabat yang ditunjuk. Barang Yang Dilarang Ekspornya adalah barang yang tidak boleh diekspor. Barang yang Bebas Ekspornya adalah barang yang tidak termasuk pengertian Barang yang Diatur Ekspornya, Barang yang Diawasi Ekspornya, dan Barang yang Dilarang Ekspornya.

Substansi penting atas Permohonan Keberatan terhadap Permendag No.12/2005 yang diubah terakhir dengan Permendag No.33/2009 adalah menunjukkan bahwa Permendag tersebut dianggap telah bertentangan dengan peraturan perundang-undangan yang lebih tinggi. Peraturan perundang-undangan yang lebih tinggi dari Permendag adalah Peraturan Presiden, Peraturan Pemerintah, dan/atau UU.

Salah satu dasar yang bisa dijadikan Permohonan Keberatan adalah Pasal 3 UU No.5/1984 tentang Perindutsrian (“UU No.5/1984”) yang mengatur bahwa pembangunan industri bertujuan untuk (diantaranya) meningkatkan kemakmuran dan kesejahteraan rakyat secara adil dan merata dengan memanfaatkan dana, sumber daya alam, dan/atau hasil budidaya serta dengan memperhatikan keseimbangan dan kelestarian lingkungan hidup.

Setidaknya, ada dua alternatif alasan pembatalan peraturan ekspor rotan tersebut. Pertama, keberatan terkait dengan jumlah volume bahan baku yang boleh diekspor sebagaimana dinyatakan dalam Lampiran Permendag No.33/2009. Artinya, pengusaha rotan tidak keberatan terhadap kebijakan diklasifikasikannya rotan dalam kelompok Barang Yang Diatur Ekspornya, tapi karena jumlah volume yang terlalu banyak dibolehkan diekspor sehingga produsen meubel rotan nasional mengalami kelangkaan. Karenanya, Permendag No.33/2009 dianggap bertentangan dengan UU No.5/1984.

Kedua, keberatan terkait dengan klasifikasi rotan dalam Barang Yang Diatur Ekspornya, dan menganggap lebih tepat dalam kategori Barang Yang Dilarang Ekspornya. Sebab, sumber pelanggaran atas UU No.5/1984 adalah karena diijinkannya ekspor rotan mentah (Rotan Asalan dan Rotan Setengah Jadi), dan hanya dalam bentuk meubel atau kerajinan lainnya yang boleh diekspor. Dengan demikian, yang direview untuk dibatalkan adalah Kep Menperin No. 558/Mpp/Kep/12/1998 sebagaimana telah diubah terakhir dengan PerMendag No. 07/M-DAG/PER/4/2005 tentang Ketentuan Umum di Bidang Ekspor. Sebab, Indonesia sebesar 85% (delapan puluh lima persen) pasokan bahan baku rotan dunia. Penguasaan bahan baku ini, tentu akan menghidupkan industri meubel dan kerajinan rotan.

Berdasarkan data yang diperoleh AMKRI, setelah diterbitkannya Permendag No.12/2005, bahan baku industri rotan mengalami kelangkaan. Akibatnya, di Cirebon saja, selaku salah satu sentra industri rotan, per Oktober 2008 dari 426 perusahaan rotan sebanyak 144 perusahaan yang sudah tutup, 127 perusahaan hanya mampu mengekspor 1 kontainer kerajinan rotan/bulan, 113 perusahaan hanya mampu mengekspor hingga 8 kontainer per bulan, 20 perusahaan hanya bisa menyediakan 8 (delapan) sampai dengan 15 (lima belas) kontainer per bulan, dan 11 perusahaan hanya mengekspor 15 (lima belas) sampai dengan 25 (dua puluh lima) kontainer per bulan (Majalah Rotan Icon edisi Oktober 2008).

Padahal, sebelum berlakunya Permendag No.12/2005, perusahaan mebel dan kerajinan rotan di Cirebon rata-rata mampu mengekspor sedikitnya 75(tujuh puluh lima) sampai dengan 150 (seratus lima puluh) kontainer per bulan. Dengan jumlah 426 (empat ratus dua puluh enam) perusahan di Cirebon, maka dari industri rotan di Cirebon saja diekspor 31.950 (tiga puluh satu ribu sembilan ratus lima puluh) sampai dengan 63.900 (enam puluh tiga ribu sembilan ratus) kontainer per bulan.

Jika kebijakan pemerintah justru mengakibatkan ditutupnya banyak perusahaan yang pada gilirannya menciptakan pengangguran, tentu kebijakan tersebut bertentangan pembangunan industri yang bertujuan meningkatkan kemakmuran dan kesejahteraan sebagaimana dimaksud Pasal 3 UU No.5/1984. Saatnya pengusaha rotan melakukan judicial review untuk mengoreksi kebijakan pemerintah. Selamat mencoba!!!

Pertamina VS Karaha Bodas: Judge the Law-Enforcement Perceptions in Indonesia?

Published on Bisnis Indonesia on 7 and 8 July 2004.

By: Sulistiono Kertawacana
Legal Practitioner in Jakarta

After going through the exhausting dispute, finally PERTAMINA intended to pay claims Karaha Bodas Co.. LLG (KBC) in the amount of U.S. $ 250 million to meet the decision of International Arbitration (U.S. $ 291 million-pen) because of suspension of the geothermal power plant (PLTP) Karaha project.

However, two days later (May 13, 2004), two from PERTAMINA (Priyanto as the former head of the Division of Geothermal and Syafei Sulaeman as the former chief sub Geothermal) and Robert Mc Kitchen (U.S. citizens) as Vice President KBC suspected under corruption case of Karaha PLTP project.

Karaha Geothermal Power Plant Project is a project to develop a geothermal power plant 400 Mega Watt (MW). There are two contracts signed on November 28, 1994. Namely, (i) Joint Operation Contract between PERTAMINA and KBC (associated with geothermal field development) and (ii) Energy Sales Contract between between PERTAMINA, KBC, and PLN that will act as buyer of electricity generated.

However, since the economic crisis and the recommendations from the International Monetary Fund (IMF), on 20 September 1997 the President through Presidential Decree No.39/1997 on Suspension / Re-Assessment of Government Project, State Owned Enterprises, and Private Businesses Associated with the Government /State.

Presidential was suspending the Karaha PLTP project until economic situation recovers. Furthermore, on 1 November 1997 through Presidential Decree No.47/1997, the Project should be continued. However, based on Presidential Decree No. 5 / 1998 on January 10, 1998 the Project was back on suspended.

Eventually the government, on March 22, 2002 through Presidential Decree No.15/2002, intends to continue the project. Furthermore, supported also by the Decree of the Minister of Energy and Mineral Resources of No.216K/31/MEM/2002 Geothermal Power Plant Project Status Determination of Suspended Karaha Being Forwarded.

From this series of stories, suspension PLTP the Karaha project was not purely PERTAMINA’s intention, but it is to carry out government policy.

In fact, government policy recommendations were backed by the International Monetary Fund (IMF), which is indicated by the Letter of Intent Government of Indonesia to the IMF to overcome the economic crisis. Of course, the crisis itself (and is internationally recognized) is not the will of the government. That is, suspension of the project is the impact of economic crisis follow-up beyond the control of the government; let alone PERTAMINA.

Termination of a contract by one party (not the agreement of the parties), in view of law, can be caused by defaults (default or non-fulfillment) or force majeur (emergency situation).

Starting point that distinguishes the two is the will to cancel the contract. If the intention to end the contract is one of the free will of parties, so he defaults. Meanwhile, if the failure of one party to fulfill the contract due to performance in circumstances beyond the control of one party, so in a state of forced and unpredictable events, called a force majeure.

Categorizing conditions in force majeur are (among others) government policies / regulations, natural disasters (floods, earthquakes, mountain erupted), war, riots, and armed rebellion.

If the contract cancellation is caused by the defaults, then the injured parties deserve compensation. Not so, however, if caused by force majeure. Because, on force majeur, the event is outside of the will of the parties and are not predictable.

Thus, the suspension of the project by PERTAMINA Geothermal Power Plant Karaha is force majeure. However, KBC does not care about the reason for that is the basis of suspension of project. Proved, in April 1998 sued KBC PERTAMINA through International Arbitration in Switzerland.

A Pathetic Dispute

Of the total claim for damages KBC to PERTAMINA for U.S. $ 560 million (U.S. $ 100 job losses that have been implemented for 8 exploration wells and 20 small wells by KBC million plus the value of benefits to be received), arbitration "only" claim KBC grant worth U.S. $ 261 million.

Indeed, there are some things that dubious "honesty" KBC in the disputed project. First, according to the Indonesian Geothermal Association (API) there are indications KBC to mark up for financing the project (of course in cooperation with the Indonesian side). Because, according to the API as well invests on average U.S. $ 3 million, so the maximum cost of about U.S. $ 40 million (KBC claim his expenditure of U.S. $ 100 million).

Second, based on insurance claims that have been received by KBC and the actual reserves of evidence, only 60 MW (Kompas 6/6/03). Consequently, KBC's ability to build projects for 400 MW Geothermal Power Plant as stated in the contract is still in doubt.

Third, KBC has received an insurance claim from Lloyd's - London on hold the project is U.S. $ 75 million. This means that if the insured value of the total project, the project is U.S. $ 75 million (much smaller than KBC lawsuit amounted to U.S. $ 100 for damages expenditure value KBC).

Fourth, there is a difference in the value of projects already carried out (expenditure) are reported to the Directorate General of Taxation (U.S. $ 83 million) with the proposed arbitration (approximately U.S. $ 100 million).

But, International Arbitration in 2000 had granted the lawsuit KBC with PERTAMINA to pay punitive damages of U.S. $ 261 million (. U.S. $ 111.1 million for expenses and losses of U.S. $ 150 million for loss profits (lost of profit) plus interest of four percent per year since 1 January 2001).

PERTAMINA has proposed a variety of legal efforts to cancel the implementation of the International Arbitration decision in foreign courts where the assets of PERTAMINA.

Based on Article 5 paragraph (2) b of the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Award dated June 10, 1958 ( "1958 New York Convention") - Indonesia has ratified a presidential decree stipulated that the petition No.34/1981- enforcement of arbitration International can be rejected as contrary to public order (public policy / public order).

Reasons for refusing a weapon contrary to public order are very flexible. Even sometimes seems so subjective. Especially for the countries that were defeated. In general, the public order is defined as the order, prosperity and security, justice, or not contrary to law.

By considering the suspension of the project based on state policies as stipulated in the Decree, then on August 27, 2002 the Central Jakarta District Court has awarded to grant the request of PERTAMINA that refused the execution of international-arbitration award.

The reason, contrary to public order, as allowed by Article 66 of Law No.30/1999 on Arbitration and Alternative Dispute Resolution.

The fate of Assets

The issue is, how the fate of PERTAMINA's assets frozen by the courts in foreign countries? KBC has sued for the conduct of arbitration decision in the courts of New York, Texas, Hong Kong, and Canada to be able to freeze the assets of PERTAMINA in the country.

New York court had frozen the existing PERTAMINA deposits in the Bank of New York. PERTAMINA fate that will be decided by the Supreme Court (Supreme Court / Supreme Court) in New Oreleans, United States (U.S.) in September 2004 to come.

Therefore, efforts to uncover cases of police corruption in Karaha PLTP project are one of the searches for new evidence (Novum) other than Novum in the form of an insurance claim payment from the Lloyd-London over the suspension of the project.

As we know, the U.S. has a Foreign Corruption Practice Act (FCPA) in 1977 which has been changed several times. U.S. companies operating in Foreign Affairs do FCPA jurisdiction outside the United States to reach that prohibits the practice of corruption (including bribery). Threats are fines up to U.S. $ 2 million for legal entities or U.S. $ 250 thousand for individuals and imprisonment of up to 5 years..

It is said, as quoted by Tempo Magazine, one had thought that corruption was investigated by the police include the status of PT Sumarah in Karaha Bodas. Allegedly, 10% of shares owned PT Karaha Bodas Sumarah is blank stock only alias no deposit on paid capital.

That is, Karaha Bodas was reasonably suspected to violate FCPA. The hope, if only stock proven no paid up, then the U.S. Supreme Court that will decide the case in September 2004, will refuse enforcement of international arbitration on the grounds KBC has been violated Indonesian law in violation of the FCPA substantially.

Therefore, police, prosecutors, and courts in Indonesia to quickly process cases of alleged corruption and KBC are expected to be terminated before the U.S. Supreme Court decision. It is a work effort that cannot be delayed.

Investment Insurance

Indeed, to anticipate the risk of direct foreign investment (especially in developing countries), the World Bank (WB) has initiated the Convention Establishing the Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency (MIGA). The Convention has received the World Bank in the 1985 annual meeting in Seoul (South Korea). All member countries of the World Bank and Switzerland can be a MIGA member (Article 4).

MIGA will promote investment flows MIGA Convention participating countries (especially developing countries). The way is to provide guarantees against non-commercial risk on capital investment (direct) in a participating country (host country) that came from countries other participants (investors).

Non-commercial risk is the risk of (i) monetary transfer, (ii) the revocation or nationalization of property and similar actions, (iii) breach of contract (breach of contract), and (iv) war or civil war (Article 11 a), but it can also be extended provided that the guarantee is requested by the host country and investors.

Indonesia has ratified the convention signed in Washington DC on June 27, 1986 and put it in the form of Presidential Decree No.31/1986 on the Ratification of MIGA Convention.

Judge Perception?

If we look, the international award granted claims of foreign investors due to the suspension or cancellation of projects in Indonesia is more of an international perception of the poor in the Indonesian legal certainty than the legal substance of the suspension or cancellation of the reasons the project itself.

Because, in fact we have a strong reason and fundamental to review various private power projects that were approved in the Suharto era. Whether those force majeur reasons for the crisis that hit Indonesia and indicated the reasons of corruption, collusion or nepotism ("CCN").

During his rule, Suharto has approved 27 private power contracts are handled by foreign companies in partnership with local companies owned by Suharto's family and cronies. Several of contracts clumsiness began to unfold after his downfall.

It is said that 20 of the 27 private power projects were not feasible. Even sometimes a tricky course (because not necessary). Private electricity prices to buy comparatively expensive PLN ie between U.S. $ 5.6 cents (Rp504) to U.S. $ 8.6 cents (Rp774) per kWh. Though the price of PLN electricity only Rp161 per kWh. In comparison, private electricity prices in Thailand, Laos, and Philippines as well, each for U.S. $ 4.2 cents, U.S. $ 1.29 cents and 5.3 cents (Trust No.34 Year II).

Clearly, the transaction is detrimental Indonesia. Therefore, although no reason was the economic crisis the Indonesian government should have a strong legal basis to review various private power projects are for the sake of Indonesian consumers.

Moreover, the IMF has also recommended the cancellation or suspensions of project reinforced by economic crisis conditions. That is, not the subjective reasons for the government of Indonesia alone; let alone PERTAMINA.

However, what power, bad image of law enforcement in Indonesia are now the 'attractiveness' of the International Arbitration to consider punishing RI. We must unite to provide an adequate explanation. It was this time, and Indonesia in the correct position.

Hopefully PERTAMINA case that we all can realize that sometimes perception is more important than objective conditions. Therefore, the perception is built in a long period.

Criticize "Dissolution" Scenario of IBRA

Sinar Harapan January 07, 2005

Bahasa Version

Sulistiono Kertawacana
Legal Practitioner in Jakarta

National Bank Restructuring Agency (IBRA) has extended his tenure. These expressions may be provocative. In fact, thus is standing the law. This was contrary to the public impression that spread in the media at the end of February and then a busy discussing the "dissolution" of IBRA.

Public affirmation of many fooled by paragraph 1 of Article 1 of Presidential Decree No.15/2004 regarding Task Termination and Liquidation stating that IBRA declared dissolved as of February 27, 2004. In fact, if we listen to the affirmation of Article 1 paragraph 3 and 4 juncto Article 2 of Presidential Decree No. 15/2004, essentially he extended his duty to 30 April 2004. The task was particularly associated with the completion of four things namely liquidate Frozen-Bank Operations / Business Activities of Frozen-Bank, obligations of shareholders, audit and transactions that have occurred prior to February 27, 2004. That is, the institutional IBRA has not disbanded, but only reduce and eliminate other tasks besides four IBRA it.

Previously, the agency was responsible to do the administration of government guarantees provided to commercial banks as mentioned in the Presidential Decree No26/1998 and control, coach and effort to restructure, including restructuring of banks by Bank Indonesia (BI) declared healthy and necessary legal action in order to restructure bank (Article 2 of Presidential Decree. 27/1998 on Establishment of IBRA).

In connection with banking restructuring program, (formerly) IBRA has duties to recover banks stated and delivered by BI, settle the bank's assets, both physical assets and obligations of the debtor through the Asset Management Unit (Asset Management Unit), and seek a refund of state has been distributed to the bank - bank through the settlement assets in a restructuring (Article 3 paragraph 1 of Government Regulation (PP) No. 17/1998 on IBRA, as amended by Regulation No. 47/2001-PP IBRA).

Clearance Tim
Article 6 of paragraph 1 of Presidential Decree. 15/2004 confirmed with IBRA for the task and / or dissolution of IBRA, all his wealth into state property managed by the Ministry of Finance (Finance). Clearly, this is confuse construction. Because there are doubts about the exact time when IBRA no longer wealth. Apparently, the president does not understand this.

Because, there are 63-days period, or approximately two months between the end of IBRA's task in certain areas as referred to Decree 15/2004 (February 27, 2004) with the agency's time frame stated dispersed (April 30, 2004). This is not the time for a moment that many faced IBRA conundrum. In the end, this will cause a serious legal problem.

Task renewal of IBRA has legal consequences for the validity of legal acts which Clearance Team has been formed by presidential decree No.16/2004 on the establishment of IBRA clearance team led by the Ministry of Finance, especially, related to the authority to represent completion of IBRA in business assets (wealth IBRA). Clearance Team has duties in charge of handling the problem filing, the state property-related cases in the judiciary, legal issues, financial administration, and assistance in the framework of implementation of audit IBRA clearance.

To carry out its duties, Clearance Teams should be assisted by the Working Group (KK), which was formed as the head of Team Finance settlement. One of the tasks of these families are handling the Working Group on Legal Issues (KKPMH) which acts as the power minister (as head of Team clearance) for the proceedings in the courts.

More Precisely Regulated by PP (Government Regulation)

Yet, should the existence of IBRA is extended to 30 April 2004 (by narrowing its function), with consequences for the local authorities for legal action for and in behalf of IBRA associated with wealth of IBRA that is an organ regulated by PP IBRA. This is where the importance of assertiveness of Presidential Decree No.15/2004 to decide when property assets under IBRA be managed by the Ministry of Finance.
Because, as long as the agency still standing, in principle the authority to represent good IBRA outside the court and in the courts (including the dispute in court relating to the wealth IBRA) is an organ regulated in the PP IBRA namely IBRA chairman (Article 5, paragraph 4 PP IBRA) .
Therefore, the validity of KKPMH acting as proxy of the Minister of Finance for the proceedings in the courts in the context of settlement for the benefit of potential wealth of IBRA has no strong basis for the authorities in court. Consequently, his opponent will easily win the legal dispute in court.

Therefore, the legal basis through Clearance Team to act KKPMH deal IBRA property disputes is weak. In fact, position, duties, and authority in the Ministry of Finance as stipulated PP IBRA was transferred to the Minister of State Owned Enterprises (PP No. 63/2001).

If the government authorities intend to cut existing organs of IBRA (in certain cases) because of perceived IBRA's task has been reduced, it is more appropriate if it should be arranged in PP IBRA (not by decree of a lower level than the PP in the hierarchy of legislation).

Clearly, the principle of legal construction of the extension of duty with camouflage IBRA "Liquidation" is better to have a political purpose with a weak legal footing. Prepare to reap KKPMH defeat in court as has been experienced during this IBRA. Good government is willing to learn from previous experiences. Construction law will affect litigations victory.

Debt Relief of Indonesia

Sulistiono Kertawacana
Legal Practitioner in Jakarta
Monday, July 25, 2005
Bahasa version
Suara Karya Version

By mid June, British Prime Minister Tony Blair and U.S. President George W. Bush agreed to remove 100 percent of the debt of poor countries on the African continent. How is about Indonesia? Does Indonesia have chance to get debt relief or necessary to apply Indonesia debt?

Reasons for Debt Relief
In the history of foreign debt, debt relief (part or all) occur because of legal or economic reasons. Economic reasons related to the debtor country's economic sustainability. As for legal reasons related to the legitimacy of a regime or misuse of loan funds
The reason the law looked the debt as odious debt (debt unclean) or criminal debt (debt criminal). Leonce Ndikumana and James K Boyce (1998) distinguish the definition of both.

Odious debt is a loan made by the illegitimate regime in a democratic perspective, that is not representative, authoritarian, dictatorial and oppressive used to oppress people.

Criminal debt is part of the loan funds to the countries that have been corrupted by government officials and / or his cronies. Therefore, it is not fair if the people of debtor countries must pay the entire debt.

The goal is that creditors are not just looking at loans disbursed economic risks (ability to return the debt). For, if the odious debt or debt uncategorized criminal debt, there is a risk not getting paid (in total).

According to the International Law Commission (1977), the doctrine of odious debts firstly recognized in 1898 when the U.S. refused to pay debts in the negotiations Cuba Spanish-American War. U.S. claims to both the U.S. and Cuba are not responsible for the debt-Cuba on the grounds, including the debt accumulated during the colonial Cuba and does not provide benefits for Cuba. Soviets did not acknowledge the debt that has accumulated the Tsar in 1921 with a similar reason.

Costa Rica considered that debt accumulated Frederico Tinoco regime to the Royal Bank of Canada was odious debt in 1923. This case ended up in the UK arbitration vs. Costa Rica.

Chief Judge of the United States, Taft set as illegitimate debt (won Costa Rica). The reason, the Bank has to know the debt is past president of F. Tinoco to private interests while in exile in foreign countries (Annual Digest of Public International Law Cases, 1923).

Reason for debt relief to economic reasons was when Germany first made after World War II. Obligations of Germany to creditors were DM 1.5 billion per year. This amount is burdensome. It was feared that the economy would be a mess (if it remains unpaid) which resulted in the emergence of chaos that triggered a model leader Hitler with his Nazi.

German negotiator, Josef Abs, managed to convince the creditors that Germany pay its debts in a healthy ratio of its foreign trade balance. The talks held in London on February 27, 1952 it agreed to remove the foreign debt of nominal Germany 51.5% (Ivan A Hadar, 2004).
Second, when the global debt problem, in 1982 Mexico declared itself "insolvent" and unable to pay off the obligation to pay debt principal and interest received private debt. This step is then replicated many other Latin American countries. The international community had together helped .

Model of World Bank

Historically, the World Bank has several models in order to reduce the debt the debtor countries. Those are Brady Plan, Toronto Term, Naples Term, and High Indebted Poor Countries Initiatives (HIPC). All of them requiring debtor countries Structural Adjustment Program run by the IMF.

Brady Plan initiated by the U.S. Finance Minister Nicholas Brady when trying to cope with external debt (ED) crisis Mexico. Terms countries get debt relief if 3 of 4 conditions met. They are (i) ED ratio of Gross National Product (GNP) of more than 50%, (ii) ED ratio of exports of more than 275%, (iii) the ratio of debt to exports increased more than 30%, and / or (iv) the ratio increased interest rates on exports more than 25%.

Toronto terms given to the debtor countries with GNP per capita criteria is less than US $ 610 (in 1990) or who experience debt problems and have continually balance of payments prospects are poor.

Naples terms given to the debtor countries with GNP per capita criteria is less than U.S. $ 500, or (ii) the ratio of net present value of the exports ED more than 350%. If the first criteria is not met, the debt reduction was probably less given.

HIPC initiative provided for the debtor country in a condition to the Naples terms provided by the International Development Association. Debtor is still sustainable if the ratio of net present values of its exports ULN 200-250% and the ratio of external debt service to export in the range 20-25%.

Indeed, the proposed debt relief for poor countries not only has long sounded. Jubile petition in 2000 signed by about 120 countries and supported, among others, Kofi Annan, Tony Blair, Nelson Mandela, and Gerhard Schroeder campaigned for debt cancellation of poor countries. According to him, every pound sterling of creditor countries sends as aid, requiring debtor countries to pay 9 Pounds Sterling

Indonesia Case

Its report in 1997, which entitled Summary of RSI Staff Views Regarding the Problem of ‘leakage’ Bank Project budgets, the World Bank, estimates that a minimum of 20% -30% of Indonesia's development budget funds being diverted. Of course, it is no exception World Bank projects.

World Bank internal report "Dice memorandum" detailed the leaks, which was below 15% in the Department of Health and the Ministry of Mines and Energy, 15% -25% in 8 departments (such as agriculture, education, public works, and religion), more than 25% in four departments (including forestry and domestic).Article 3 paragraph 5 (b) the Articles of Association (Articles of Agreement) World Bank (IBRD) World Bank would manage to make rules to ensure that loan funds will be used only for purposes agreed upon, by giving appropriate attention to economic considerations and efficiency , unaffected by political considerations and other non-economic.

Therefore, the World Bank must do the appropriate actions to prevent the leakage of funds lent to Indonesia. Moreover, Indonesia has the Corruption Perceptions Index ranks the top as the most corrupt country in the world.

But so far the World Bank (especially during the Suharto regime) as a blind eye to leak 20-30% loan to Indonesia as has been acknowledged in various World Bank reports that specified the Memorandum Dice. New World Bank revealed the corruption prevention loan fund since 1997 as noted in the report Helping Countries Combat Corruption: The Role of the World Bank.

However, based on General Accounting Office report (Institute of the U.S. Congress requested the investigation of corruption at the World Bank) in April 2000 entitled Management Controls Stronger, but Challenges in Fighting Corruption Remain concluded the World Bank and the debtor countries do not always act in accordance with auditing procedures for the project and oversight of financial management and loan disbursement process.

Leakage World Bank debt is debt that criminals might be legal reasons petition debt relief for Indonesia. Under Article 10 paragraph 3-letter number 10 C General Conditions Applicable to Loan and Guarantee Agreement of the World Bank declared open the possibility for the Court and the UN role in the dispute between the World Bank with the client (debtor countries-pen).

Currently Indonesia is also the state budget is still in tatters and the debt trap by ignoring the education sector and health services (currently the State Budget Law and Law on the National education system is being tested material on the Constitutional Court). And two things were very important for the sustainability of human development of Indonesia. Therefore, in addition to internal efforts to external efforts are also needed.

Unfortunately, until now there has been no legal action by the debtor countries themselves as well as representatives of NGOs through a lawsuit (legal standing). It is time we use the legal instruments in the approach to debt elimination. Is Indonesia will be a pioneering and precedent debt pattern? Let us try!