Sunday, February 14, 2010

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 !!!

Saturday, February 13, 2010

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!!!

Tuesday, February 09, 2010

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!!!