Like the wording of the proclamation of the Indonesian independence, every school student in Indonesia learn to recite both the Pancasila and the 1945 Constitution’s preamble.

The wordings of the 1945 Constitution’s preamble in Indonesian language:

Bahwa sesungguhnya kemerdekaan itu ialah hak segala bangsa dan oleh sebab itu, maka penjajahan di atas dunia harus dihapuskan karena tidak sesuai dengan perikemanusiaan dan perikeadilan,

Dan perjuangan pergerakan kemerdekaan Indonesia telah sampailah kepada saat yang berbahagia dengan selamat sentosa mengantarkan rakyat Indonesia ke depan pintu gerbang kemerdekaan negara Indonesia, yang merdeka, bersatu, berdaulat, adil dan makmur,

Atas berkat rahmat Allah Yang Maha Kuasa dan dengan didorongkan oleh keinginan luhur, supaya berkehidupan kebangsaan yang bebas, maka rakyat Indonesia menyatakan dengan ini kemerdekaannya.

Kemudian daripada itu untuk membentuk suatu pemerintah negara Indonesia yang melindungi segenap bangsa Indonesia dan seluruh tumpah darah Indonesia dan untuk memajukan kesejahteraan umum, mencerdaskan kehidupan bangsa, dan ikut melaksanakan ketertiban dunia yang berdasarkan kemerdekaan, perdamaian abadi dan keadilan sosial, maka disusunlah kemerdekaan kebangsaan Indonesia itu dalam suatu Undang-Undang Dasar negara Indonesia, yang terbentuk dalam suatu susunan negara Republik Indonesia yang berkedaulatan rakyat dengan berdasar kepada : Ketuhanan yang maha esa, kemanusiaan yang adil dan beradab, persatuan Indonesia, dan kerakyatan yang dipimpin oleh hikmat kebijaksanaan dalam permusyawaratan/perwakilan, serta dengan mewujudkan suatu keadilan sosial bagi seluruh rakyat Indonesia.

The English translation of the 1945 Constitution’s preamble:

Whereas independence is a genuine right of all nations and any form of colonialisation should thus be erased from the earth as not in conformity with humanity and justice,

Whereas the struggle of the Indonesian independence movement has reached the blissful point of leading the Indonesian people safely and well before the monumental gate of an independent Indonesian State which shall be free, united, sovereign, just and prosperous,

By the grace of God Almighty and urged by the lofty aspiration to exist as a free nation, now therefore, the people of Indonesia declare herewith their independence,

Pursuant to which, in order to form a government of the State of Indonesia that shall protect the whole people of Indonesia and the entire homeland of Indonesia, and in order to advance general prosperity, to develop the nation’s intellectual life, and to participate in the implementation of a world order based on freedom, lasting peace and social justice, Indonesia’s national independence shall be laid down in a Constitution of the State of Indonesia, which is to be established as the State of the Republic of Indonesia with sovereignty of the people and based on the belief in the Almighty God, on just and civilized humanity, on the unity of Indonesia and on democratic process that is guided by the inspirational wisdom in consultation and representation, so as to realize social justice for all Indonesians.

What is Pancasila?

Pancasila [pronounced pan-cha-see-laa] is the Indonesian state’s philosophy. It is from two old classical words [Sanskrit]: ‘panca’, which is the word for number five and ‘sila’, which means principle.

At the end of World War II, the Indonesian independence movement’s leaders faced with problem of a heterogen population. Not only has different religions, but also different races and ethnicities. They hoped to unite all of these and thousands of scattered islands into a new nation. Sukarno and Hatta who got their educations abroad were familiar with some terms of international politics like nationalism, socialism, monotheism.

However, Sukarno in particular was digging very hard into the many aspects of the Indonesian society and looked for the common grounds from their histories and traditions to find one important thing which can unify the population and become the national principles on which the Indonesian nation would be built.

In June 1945, Sukarno in his speech entitled ‘The Birth of Pancasila’ stated his five principles: nationalism, human rights, concensus, socialism and monotheism. This version was later on refined by a special committee and through a long debating process, the leaders came out with a new version:

  1. A belief in an almighty God (Ketuhanan yang maha esa);
  2. A just and civilised humanity (Kemanusiaan yang adil dan beradab);
  3. The unity of Indonesia (Persatuan Indonesia);
  4. A democratic process guided by inspirational wisdom in consultation and representation (Kerakyatan yang dipimpin oleh hikmat kebijaksanaan dalam permusyawaratan dan perwakilan); and
  5. Social justice for all Indonesians (Keadilan sosial bagi seluruh rakyat Indonesia).

The Pancasila is symbolically represented in the coat of arms of Indonesia [Garuda=the big Eagle] as seen in official Indonesian documents and government properties. Inside a shield on the eagle’s breast, God is represented by a star, humanity by a circular chain, nationalsm by a bull’s head, democracy through concensus and represtation by a many-trunked banyan tree, and social justice by springs of cotton and wheat.

In term of law, the Pancasila is not only seen as the state’s philosophy but also as the legal source [grund norms]. In the Constitution, although the collective name Pancasila is not mentioned but each principle is written in it’s preamble. It means that Pancasila is the root or basic of every article in the Constitution. As a result, amending the Constitution will be a very difficult exercise because a new article must not conflict with the Pancasila, which since the independence has been seen as something that has an almost supernatural and glorified meaning for the nation.

Policy on Foreign Investment in Indonesia

By Amien Warsita

Basic Policy on Foreign Investment

Economic development is a process of transferring potential economic resources into real economic strength through capital investment and utilization of technology, the expansion of knowledge and efficiency, and the improvement of organizational and managerial ability. The efforts to develop the economic potential should be based on self reliance.

The Government recognizes that the constraining factor is the scarcity of domestic capital which affects the existence of resource gap. This does not lead to a reluctance to use foreign capital when it benefits the national economy if it does not create a dependence on foreign countries.

Foreign investments should be utilized to maximum advantage to further accelerate development and their activities ought to be directed to economic sectors where domestic capital is still short. With this approach, it is expected that the role foreign investment is to play is a complementary one. Based on these policies the law on foreign investment and domestic investment were issued [law no. 1, 1967 and no. 6, 1968]. Both laws govern the status of foreign and domestic investments and the incentives to be granted. The objectives of these investment laws are to encourage investment activities. So far, these laws do not promote the development of the business world, especially the development of the weak economic group. For these, in every issue and implementation policies the Government keeps considering the negative impact which could hamper the development objectives in general.

To promote investment activities, the Government grants incentives for investment within the framework of foreign and domestic investments. The policy inducing investment activities based on the priority scale has been issued from time to time in such a way as to obtain the promotion of domestic investment and to realize the complementary role of foreign investments. These policies were realized by the issuance of the Investment Priority List. This list is issued annually and is the elaboration and specification of the priorities as set fort in the Repelita II.

The issuance of the Investment Priority List is aimed at keeping the balance among the foreign and domestic investment opportunities. The development of foreign investment activities creates with it the problem of balanced growth. In order to achieve balanced growth the government is promoting the development of domestic investment specifically of weak economic group. This is part of the strategy for the trilogy of development.

The policy taken in this respect is:

(a) To increase the national participation in the ownership of companies

In order to enlarge public participation in the development efforts, the mobilization of funds and forces should be undertaken, so that they have a firm role in the development program. Special stress is paid to raise the role of the weak economic groups to play an adequate role in the national economic order as with that of foreign investment and of other economic groups. The assimilation of capital and of expertise is intended to fill the gap between the weak economic groups and the other groups. This policy is not aimed at discouraging the role of foreign investment. In this way the efforts of promoting the national participation in the economic activities accordingly is to strengthen the weak economic group to take part in the national economic order proportionately.

The development of the weak economic group is also undertaken by the Investment Coordinating Board (BKPM). Investment within the framework of the Domestic Investment Law should be open for participation of small scale enterprise, cooperatives, smallholders and other weak economic groups.

The policy promoting national participation in foreign investment was issued in 1974, which stated that every foreign investment must be in the form of a joint venture and that the share of the local partner at the initial investment should be at least 20% and within 10 years it should be increased to a majority (at least 51%).

The following are the criteria for obtaining national participation by way of majority sharing:

(1) to increase the share of the local partner of the existing joint venture;

(2) to allow other local partners to join in the ownership of companies;

(3) to open the participation of the non-bank financial institutions with the provision that the ownership will not exceed 25% and limited for 5 years, after which, the shares must be transferred to other local partners;

(4) the participation through the capital market;

(5) other participation systems which will be considered by the Government.

(b) Indonesianisation of manpower and the transfer of technology

Indonesia has an abundance of manpower which is potentially required for development purposes. the expertise and the technical know-how is a pre-requisite for development together with the increase of manpower productivity.

In order to maximize the utilization of manpower the Government seeks to ensure that all development efforts including investment should be geared to a policy of labour-intensive production. this is to achieve fuller employment and broader public participation in development. To this end, Government policy in investment stresses technologically labour-intensive investment rather than capital-intensive investment.

Owing to the lack of expertise and technical know-how, the Government imposed its policy on domestic as well as foreign investment to assign expatriates, though with conditions such as that:

(1) certain professions are completely closed to foreign experts when local skills are available;

(2) certain professions are open temporarily for foreign experts, while Indonesian personnel should be trained to make the substitution.

In considering work permits for foreign experts, the Government requires the foreign investor to recruit Indonesian personnel. Every foreign investor is obliged to undertake regular training and educational programs and to set up a schedule for the replacement of foreign personnel.

This policy should be intensified so that the Indonesian personnel will be able to manage the investment and development program. The increasing know-how is not to be limited to management but also to technical matters and to further develop such expertise. Such a policy, requires time and a series of programs.

(c) Fostering investment in regions outside Java

One of the objects of the development policy is to encourage development in regions outside Java. For the concentration of investments in only one or two areas will create economic, social and political distortion. It will hamper the efforts of the Government to maintain national stability. The Government is thus reviewing all applications which have the effect of fostering development in regions outside Java.

The Government realized the difficulties in directing foreign investment due to the fact that every investment has its own orientation. Investment in the field of industries producing consumer products or import substitution will be oriented to the availability of a ready market. It depends on the population as consumers, as well as the availability of high skills, manpower and infrastructure.

The Government tries to encourage private investment in the exploitation of natural resources and to develop the agricultural sector outside Java. Since the infrastructure is still lacking, additional investment is required to develop investment projects. To encourage such investment, the Government provides more incentives.

The development of industrial estates and bonded areas in several regions are among the devices used. Through the provision of better industrial locations and available infrastructure, it is hoped that this policy will effect further regional development. This approach will of course develop to accommodate also the export oriented industries.

The spreading of investment into regions is interrelated with the spreading of population from the densely populated area into the scarcely populated ones. The trans-migration program as part of the Government development priority, however, is to be promoted within the policy of spreading economic activity in the regions. An integrated approach between the trans-migration program, the raising of employment and the spreading of economic activities in the region will multiply the development goals.

(d) Restriction on the foreign and domestic investment activities

As mentioned before, the role of foreign investment is complementary to national investment. The Investment Priority List has elaborated the restriction provisions on foreign investment activities based on the FIL No. 1 of 1967.

The restriction provisions are aimed at giving investment privileges to domestic investment. Foreign investment is of course welcomed but it must be directed to activities that are still highly needed, and to activities which the domestic investor is unable to undertake, owing to the high technical know-how and the amount of capital that is required.

The direction is expressed in the form of the selection of incentives to be granted to foreign investment. These restrictions and selection approaches describe the investment opportunity to foreign investors and the promotion of domestic investors at once. Fields open to foreign investment stated qualitatively are as follows:

(1) Exploitation and processing of natural resources and raw materials into processed and finished products;

(2) Production of machinery, equipment and manufacturing which require intensive technology and capital;

(3) Production of export products especially with guaranteed markets;

(4) Other fields which involve certain risks that the domestic investors are unable to afford.

These policies are elaborated in detail in the IPL issued by the Investment Coordinating Board, which is based on the Second Five Year Development Plan (Repelita II).

Certain Government policies are formulated to encourage business activities in general and capital investment in particular, namely:

(1) increasing exports of certain or all products of investment projects without neglecting domestic requirements;

(2) saving foreign exchange by reducing imports or producing substitutes for imported goods;

(3) utilizing local raw materials and products;

(4) increasing the value added;

(5) augmenting economic and social effects of capital investments so that they can yield more benefits;

(6) absorbing new technology know-how through the transfer of technological and managerial skills to Indonesians;

(7) yielding new or scarce types of products, particularly capital goods or industrial raw materials;

(8) protecting the economically weak groups and assisting them in promoting their activities;

(9) protecting national companies-particularly those receiving no facilities-against competition from investors possessing greater capital and technological capabilities;

(10) protecting investment projects, which have passed the period in which facilities are provided, against possible competition from new ones in the same field of activity who are still enjoying incentives;

(11) measures for environmental conservation are a prerequisite for certain types of activities to avoid the disturbances in the environment and ecological balance;

(12) capital and operation risks: operations requiring huge financing with high risks which national capabilities still lack are a priority for foreign investments;

(13) local equity participation in accordance with the priorities of the Second Five Year Development Plan;

(14) saturated capacity represents a consideration in directing and creating an efficient business climate.

The IPL issued regularly by the BKPM specifies economic activities which are open and restricted to foreign and domestic investments based on the above mentioned considerations. Four categories of investment activities are set forth in the IPL, namely, the priority sectors of the economy, less priority sectors, non-preferred sectors and closed sectors to the investment. The IPL will be reviewed annually, taking into account the development of foreign and domestic investments and the increasing ability of capital and know-how on the domestic sector. In this case the direction and selection of the incoming foreign investment will be based on the more sophisticated projects required in the development process.

The policies to promote local domestic investors have been issued in several fields. For example, the granting of the right to forestry exploitation to the local partner instead of to the joint venture company. With this policy approach the bargaining power of the local partner in a joint venture can be raised. The foreign investor is directed to exploitation and manufacturing the products. A similar policy is also promoted in the field of trade.

As set forth in the Law No. 6 of 1968 concerning domestic capital investment, the foreign role in trade activity in Indonesia should be replaced by the national. The Government eliminated the foreign investment in trade business as of 1 January 1978. Foreign trading companies are obliged to transfer their activities in the sectors of production, based on the prevailing laws and regulations.

Provisions on the aspect of trade still apply to joint enterprises under the Law No. 1 of 1967, stipulating that the enterprises may undertake the import and purchase domestically of capital goods and raw materials or supplies for use in their own production or operation purposes and that they may undertake the export of their own products. As for the distribution of their products in the domestic market, such is still exclusively permitted only through national enterprises.

(e) The problems of possible dependence on foreign investment

There are some feelings that the enactment of FIL has created national dependency on foreign investment. The foreign investment progress in Indonesia during the last 10 years has supported part of this fact. In the investment field, some efforts have been made to avoid the effects of dependency on foreign investment.

(1) To increase the capability of the domestic capital and entrepreneurship. many investment activities can be undertaken by domestic investment and competing with foreign investment. The Government policy to assist and give direction has resulted in strengthening domestic investment;

(2) National participation in the ownership and management of joint enterprise will be encouraged;

(3) Defining the field of activities open to foreign investment more selectively with consideration of the real national capability to undertake business without jeopardizing the continuance of national development;

(4) Speeding up the development of basic industry and industry processing natural resources to industrial raw materials to minimize the dependency of domestic industry on imported capital goods and raw materials;

(5) Foreign investment should, to the maximum extent possible, give preference to the use of services rendered by Indonesian nationals and to the use of capital goods, raw materials and supplies produced in Indonesia;

(6) Transfer of technology as a part of the beneficial package of foreign investment should be directed to enhance national capability to invest technology suitable for national development;

(7) Diversification of foreign investment sources is also considered so that the dependency on limited foreign investment sources can be avoided.

Incentives for foreign investment

The existing investment laws and regulations emphasize a positive policy for the encouragement of investment in Indonesia. These provide a number of incentives, which are mainly based on fiscal policy.

Incentives for investments have the following general functions:

(1) as a subsidy granted to enterprises for initial period of their operation in the field of activity desired by the Government;

(2) directing investment activities to the national development objectives;

(3) as an encouragement to enterprises and investors who participate actively in national development.

Some considerations should be made in defining incentives for investments to meet the above functions:

(1) National development policy, medium as well as long term;

(2) The availability of production factors in national or regional level to support economic development;

(3) The availability of economic, social and political stabilities to secure the continuance of national economic development;

(4) The prevailing tax policy;

(5) The level of development progress in achieving the national development objectives.

Based on the above considerations it is clear that it will be difficult to compare the incentives for investment in different countries to conclude which are more generous and which less generous.

In granting incentives for investments the Government pays attention to the various stages of investment activities. This approach is expected to meet the function of incentives granted to enterprises. Four stages have been selected in the preparation of a company establishment-the period of construction, the period of operation or production and the period of development. Incentives for investments will differ from stage of investment activities.

(1) In the preparation period of the company, the incentives may be granted by:

a. exemption of capital stamp duty payable on equity capital;

b. exemption from previous taxes and investigations for domestic investors participating in a joint enterprise.

(2) In the construction period of the project, the incentives may be granted as a form of exemption or reduction of import duties and sales tax for capital goods.

(3) In the operation or production period:

a. exemption of reduction of import duties and sales tax for raw materials and supplies for first 2 years of the operation;

b. tax holiday or investment allowance, depending on the scale of priority of the investment;

c. provision of accelerated rate of depreciation of fixed assets;

d. provision of carry forward of losses;

e. exemption of dividend taxes.

(4) In the development period of the company for the expansion of production capacity, the incentives may be granted by way of:

a. exemption of capital stamp duty payable on additional equity capital required;

b. exemption from previous taxes and investigations for domestic investors participating in expanding equity capital of joint enterprise;

c. exemption or reduction of import duties and sales tax for additional capital goods;

d. investment allowance;

e. exemption of dividend taxes;

f. provision of accelerated rate of depreciation;

g. provision of carry forward of losses.

The above incentives for investments in the framework of Law No. 1 of 1967 on foreign investment as it has been amended by Law No. 11 of 1970 can be further specified.

Tax holiday:

This incentive is available for new enterprises in priority sectors of the economy. Priority sectors of the economy open for foreign capital investment and domestic capital investment set forth in the category of “Priority” in the IPL(DSP) issued annually by the Government.

The basic tax holiday period is two years, starting from the commercial production of the enterprise. The tax exemption period of 2 years can be extended up to 6 years, provided that certain conditions are met. Such extension will cover an additional 1 year tax exemption for each condition:

– if the investment contributes to a significant increase or saving of foreign exchange;

– if the investment is located outside Java to promote regional distribution of the development;

– if the project requires the investors to make a large investment in infrastructure and/or involves other extraordinary risks;

– if the investment coincides with other special priority objectives of the Government.

Investment Allowance:

This incentive is available for new enterprises in lower priority sectors of economy categorized as “Facility” in IPL and available for existing enterprises expanding their investment in a priority or lower priority sectors of economy. This allowance which is a premium for the investors, aggregates 20% of the sum of capital invested to be spread evenly over 4 years, beginning with the year in which the investment is made.

Accelerated depreciation of fixed assets:

Beside the normal rate of depreciation according to the existing rules, the enterprises are allowed to apply an accelerated rate of depreciation, at the option of the enterprises within a period of 4 years, beginning with the year in which the investment is made.

Carry forward of losses:

Any loss incurred may be carried forward for 4 successive years. If the loss incurred during the first 6 years after the establishment of the enterprise, the loss may be carried forward indefinitely until it can be fully set-off against income.

Dividend tax:

Dividend tax may be exempted for a period equal to the period of corporate tax exemption or for 2 years in the case of investment allowance.

Capital Stamp Duty:

Exemption of capital stamp duty payable on equity capital.

Other tax incentives:

An additional incentive is given to domestic capital investors in the framework of domestic as well as foreign capital investment, in which the capital invested is unquestionable and hence free from previous taxes and investigations by tax office. this incentive is given with regard to the fund originating from illegal income and windfall profits made during the period of inflation.

Import incentives:

For the setting-up and the operation of investment project in priority and lower priority sectors of economy, the importation of capital goods for the requirement of initial operation and raw materials or supplies to be processed for the first 2 years of the operation may be granted exemption or reduction of import duties and sales tax, provided that such goods have not yet been manufactured or produced domestically and are not used, rebuild or re-conditioned goods.

Importation of personal effects, clothes, foodstuffs and other consumer goods up to the value of US$50 (FOB) per person or US$100 (FOB) per family per month for the purpose of foreign experts assigned to foreign enterprises approved by the Government may be exempted from import duties sales tax.

Transfer of foreign exchange:

The enterprises shall be granted the right to transfer abroad in the original currency of the invested capital at the prevailing rage of exchange at such time for:

– net operating profits in proportion to shareholding of the foreign participant;

– proceeds of the sale of shares by the foreign participant to the Indonesian participant or other Indonesian nationals;

– expenses for foreign personnel assigned to the enterprises and for Indonesian personnel training abroad;

– repayment of principal and interests on foreign loans, provided that such foreign loans shall obtain prior approval of the Government as a finance resource for the capital investment;

– allowances for depreciation of capital goods imported in accordance with the foreign investment import scheme;

– Government compensation received by the enterprises in case of nationalisation;

– royalties or technical fees to an amount and period of payment under the prior approval of the Government;

– repatriation of remaining invested capital of the foreign participant at the time of total liquidation of his interest in the enterprise, provided that such repatriation shall not take place prior to the expiry of the period of tax holiday of investment allowance.

International protection agreements:

With the aim to encourage and to protect the investment of foreign nationals, legal persons or companies in Indonesia, the Government concluded Investment Guarantee Agreements with the Governments of foreign countries and ratified Indonesia’s adherence to the Convention on the Settlement of Investment Dispute between States and Nationals of Other States.

To put into effect the implementation of the complementary functions of foreign investment substituting the unavailability of domestic investment, the treatment extended within the scope of Domestic Investment Law will be more favorable than the treatment extended within the scope of the FIL. Different treatment will consist of the selection of fields of activities open for foreign and domestic investments, different incentives granted to similar process and stage of production undertaken by foreign and domestic investments, selective market orientation and project location, minimum requirement of the capital invested and the availability of local bank loan to finance the intended investment approved by the Government. The derogation of equal treatment which shall be principally rendered to foreign investment and domestic investment as set forth in the Investment Guarantee Agreement, is put in a Protocol, as an integrated part of the Agreement.

The Government undertakes not to expropriate or nationalize any enterprise, nor revoke its ownership rights or reduce its right of control in management, except in cases as might be required by public interest, which has to be determined by an Act of Parliament. In the case of expropriation or nationalization, compensation will be provided in accordance with the principles of International Law.

Institution improvement

Simplification of the systems and procedure of capital investment constitute an encouragement for the flow of capital investment required for national development. As a consequence of promoting private capital investments in Indonesia, the Government commits itself to seek for better ways and means of handling all problems arising from the implementation of such investments, which are multiple and growing from day to day. Considerable efforts of the Government in this case appear since 1973, when the BKPM once established in 1973 to replace the Technical Committee on Capital Investment.

To secure the realization of such simplification, greater authority is required by the BKPM to handle all aspects of investment to meet the idea of the centralization of all activities of Government investment administration and of the processing of applications and grant of permits. Two decrees were signed by the President on 3 October 1977 to restructure the existing BKPM and to simplify the systems and procedures of private capital investment under Law No, 1 of 1967 and Law No. 6 of 1968 concerning Foreign and Domestic Capital Investments.

The following new functions carried out by the BKPM under new decrees are:

(1) to issue an investment priority list at regular periods;

(2) to formulate investment policy subject to the approval of the President;

(3) to appraise or evaluate investment applications, either foreign or domestic;

(4) to seek for the approval of the President of foreign investment applications;

(5) to approve on behalf of the Government domestic investment applications;

(6) to issue on behalf of the Minister concerned with the implementation of investment approved by the Government, permits and licenses consisting of:

a. provisional and permanent operating permits;

b. raw material use permits;

c. limited import licenses;

d. limited export licenses;

e. limited domestic purchase permits;

f. limited domestic trade permits for domestic investments;

g. working permits for foreign nationals;

h. right of exploitation of land;

i. decision on granting tax incentives;

j. decision on granting import duty incentives.

(7) to control and execute the guidance on the implementation of capital investment;

(8) to stimulate the activities of capital investment in the regions.

The Provincial Investment Coordinating Board (BKPMD) will assist BKPMP in inter alia, the evaluation of investment projects, the exercise, control and supervision of investment projects.

With this new system and procedures, investors need only communicate BKPM as a single Government authority to file with and finalize investment application and to solve all problems concerning capital investment. Investors are no longer obliged to arrange contacts with different departments and Government agencies, as has been in fact the practice before.

By restructuring the BKPM and delegating authority to appraise the investment application and to issue permits necessary for the implementation of approved investment projects, the Government believes that the investors will find the whole procedure of investment application to be a much more efficient and less time-consuming process, and that the longer it takes for the Government to approve investments, the longer it takes to proceed with Indonesia’s development.

[(1978),20:2 Malayan Law Review 362-377]

Foreign Private Investment in a Developing Nation: An Indonesian Perspectivei

By Dr. Soedjatmoko

Dr. Soedjatmoko, who is presently Indonesia’s Ambassador to the United States, has served his government ever since 1945 – with a brief respite during the last years of Guided Democracy. The recurrent theme of his published writings – mostly short, concentrated essays – is the meaning of Indonesia’s history; a preoccupation to which he brings the critical methods of the social sciences as well as a constant awareness of the spiritual dimensions of man. His writings have had an influence out of all proportion to their slender bulk, both on the younger generation of intellectuals in his own country, and on Western scholars of Indonesia. In Australia, the text of his 1967 Dyason Memorial Lectures of the Institute of International Affairs has had a wide audience.ii


The sub-title immediately raises a question. What makes Indonesian perspective on the problem of foreign investment so special? I believe, the fact that Indonesia is one of the few countries in the world that has moved full cycle from rejection of foreign private investment to a new acceptance may have some bearing on the general topic of this seminar. This shift has led to an unusual focus on Indonesia and its economic potentials as the new opening area of investment opportunity.

Starting from 1958, our conflict with the Dutch led the Indonesian Government at that time progressively to seize most of the foreign enterprises on Indonesian soil. Her growing emphasis on an anti imperialist struggle led her to recast the economy into what might best be called a ‘command economy’ that was supposed to operate by government fiat, in support of a radical foreign policy that was far beyond our national strength. It eventually led to Indonesia’s isolation from the rest of the world, a total breakdown of the economy, and in 1965 to the collapse of the governmental power structure. Out of the ensuing turmoil a government has emerged that is characterised by sobriety, a sense of realism and a commitment to the priorities of monetary stabilisation and economic development.

The New Political Orientation

The utopian fervour, the insistence on trying to build an ideal society for Indonesia is hostility to all the rich and powerful countries in the world, and the radical economic nationalism which masked an inflated xenophobia, have now been replaced by a general climate of economic realism and pragmatism, an openness to the outside world, an awareness of the importance of international economic co-operation, and a recognition of the vital role of private enterprise in the improvement of the economy. Hence a much more positive evaluation of the role private foreign capital could and should play in Indonesia’s economic development.

This, of course, does not mean that the basic attitudes that underlie the phenomenon of economic nationalism have all disappeared. The present economic leadership of the country is just as committed to prevent the re-establishment of foreign economic domination, and is no less intent on maintaining control over national resources and economic development and on securing the equality of Indonesia in her economic relations with the outside world. However, this leadership is guided by a realistic understanding of the basic laws of economics and of the dynamic of a modern global economy and fully realises the need for the assistance of foreign private capital, skill and experience for accelerated development. At the same time it has a much greater confidence in the possibilities of accommodating the sometimes conflicting interests of national development and the operations of private foreign enterprise as profit-making organisations. The return of the foreign enterprises taken over by the former regime to their original owners and the Foreign Investment Law promulgated in the beginning of 1967, are manifestations of this new, realistic orientation.

Before we go into a brief discussion of the legal aspects of this Foreign Investment Law, it would seem to me that one prior question should be answered, namely” how stable is Indonesia’s present political and economic course? The question can be answered in a number of ways. One could point to the firmness of the commitment to economic development priorities of the present leadership, or to the political courage that it has shown in putting through the painful stabilisation policies that were called for. One could also point to the organisational as well as ideological weakness of the oppositional forces in the country. But to me the most important factor that should be brought out is the emergence of a new post-independence, post-revolutionary generation into the political arena. It is this generation that has formulated, and is implementing and supporting the policies that emanate from this new economic orientation. Because they have never known the pain and humiliation of colonial subjugation, their outlook on the world is much freer and their self-confidence more natural. And equally important, this generation is fully familiar with modern science and technology and the possibility of their application to our problems.

Because the new economic realism is a very essential part of the new values that motivate this new generation of leadership, we can now look at the course that Indonesia has taken, both in its own economic and political development, and in its relations with the outside world, as a movement of growth – a growth of which the direction is stable.

Let us now have a look at some of the legal aspects of the Foreign Investment Law.

Main Issues of Interest to the Foreign Investor

In deciding whether to initiate investment in a given country after having carefully considered the business prospects, the prospective investor is concerned, in the first instance, with the safety of his capital and with the availability of protection against a variety of risks, including that of expropriation. A second broad category of issues which he must consider deals with the modes of entry, the organisational structure in which to carry on the venture, and the facilities made available to him for effectively managing his business operations. The third major area of interest concerns the facilities for the repatriation of capital profits and dividends.

I shall discuss the main points concerning these three broad categories of issues, but I think we must recognise that even more important than the specific legal provisions concerning these matters is the so-called investment climate, the state of government and public opinion on the role and the rights of the foreign investor in the host country. Many of the problems will not arise, particularly in the area of security of investment, if the investment climate is a hospitable one. Even if they do arise, it will not be difficult to reach a compromise or to find an interpretation of the laws of regulations which will fit the mutual needs of the parties if there is goodwill on both sides.

Nevertheless, it is important that the legal structure be reasonably adequate to permit the foreign investor to enter and carry forward his enterprise with the confidence that he will not likely encounter serious difficulties, as long s he comports himself in a reasonable manner and with full recognition of the fact that investment is a two-way street.

The legal safeguards provided by the host country, of course, do not operate in isolation from the safeguards provided by the capital exporting countries, such as investment guarantees, and those provided by the international community under both customary international law and international institutions or agreements. The international system may also include bilateral treaties between the host country and the capital-exporting country.

In considering the safeguards provided by the Indonesian legal system, I think you will wish to bear in mind that our commercial code is still fundamentally based on the legislation which the Netherlands introduced in Indonesia to deal with the problems of so-called Europeans and those assimilated to the European Group for legal purposes. There has been considerable discussion in Indonesian concerning the philosophy underlying our legal system following the abolition of colonialism. For example, there is a current of opinion which holds that there should now be only one legal system in Indonesia instead of the dualism which characterised our society in the colonial era and that the system should be based on adat (customary) law. However, the fact remains that our laws dealing with commercial and financial problems, particularly in so far as they affect foreigners and large-scale ventures, generally are clearly derived from Western models or at least have a strong Western component.

Thus, the Agrarian Act of 1960 introduced radical changes in land law, including unification of the law and the elimination of the dualism which had differentiated between land rights in the Western sphere and land rights in the customary law sphere. While the new Agrarian Act is purportedly based on customary law, it is in fact thoroughly modernised by the introduction of Western concepts, such as titles in land ownership, the distinction between real and personal rights and a system of compulsory registration which will ultimately be applied to non-/Western as well as Western-held land. The law also restricts the right of absolute ownership of land to Indonesian citizens.

The derivation of our commercial law from Western models is undoubtedly reassuring to potential foreign investors since it is easier for them to understand and to feel comfortable with a legal system which is familiar to them.

Returning to the problem of security of investment, you will find that our system provides for two basic safeguards on which investors tend to rely, namely laws governing the circumstances under which expropriation may be carried out and the right of access to an independent judiciary.

The Foreign Capital Investment Law (Law No. 1 of 1967, dated January 10, 1967) sets out the broad framework of conditions under which foreign investment is welcomed and protected in Indonesia. It governs the issues concerning entry, the establishment of a foreign entity, operation and management, and incentives for investment. It provides ample latitude for foreign investors to enter and operate without great difficulty.

The effect of the new law is to open most fields of business activity to foreign capital. The only fields of investment which are completely closed to foreign capital are those which fulfil a vital function in national defence (Article 6(2)). Other fields to which access is restricted, but may nevertheless be entered provided that the foreign investor does not exercise full control, are referred to in Article 6(1). These are fields of vital importance to the country, such as harbours, public utilities, atomic energy and mass media.

I need not emphasise that the new law has been designed to attract foreign capital to Indonesia for investment in projects which will contribute to the healthy development of the Indonesian economy. Accordingly, it offers a combination of incentives and accommodations which can stand comparison with those offered by other developing nations.

Part of the approach taken to attract new projects is to offer specific incentives, consisting of the following:

  1. Exemption from tax on corporate profits for a period of up to five years, and exemption from the dividend tax on profits during those years;
  2. Full authority to select management and recruit or use foreign technicians and experts for positions which Indonesian manpower is not yet capable of filling;
  3. The offer of land at advantageous terms, carrying with it rights of building and exploitation formerly denied to foreign business enterprises.
  4. Exemption from import duties for equipment, machinery, tools and initial plant supplies; and
  5. Exemption from the capital stamp tax on the introduction of foreign capital for investment.

Profit transfer is guaranteed by law, and no restriction is imposed as to the amount. Also of great importance is the document entitled ‘Executive Directives for the Policy on Foreign Capital Investment in Indonesia’, issued by the Cabinet Presidium on January 27, 1967, which stipulates the order of priority of investments in the framework of the overall economic policy of the Government. Specifically, it provides for three general categories, (1) Foreign capital investment which may increase foreign exchange earnings, such as mining, agricultural export, etc; (2) investment which makes possible import substitutions; and (3) Investment which while not directly affecting the volume of foreign exchange nevertheless is of a quick-yielding character, increases employment opportunities, introduces new technology, or brings in modern equipment.

Current Investments

Although the new investment law has been in effect for a relatively short period (almost two and a half years) the response of foreign investors to Indonesia’s invitation to invest in that country has been encouraging. A large number of Australian, US, European, Japanese, and other companies have accepted the challenge and have started with their operations to assist Indonesia to build up the country. Some 20 foreign oil companies including major oil companies of the United States have concluded exploration and production contracts. It is estimated that by 1970 when these new contracts will have begun to show results, the total oil output should reach about one million barrels a day, as compared with 520,000 barrels a day in 1967. In the field of mining, five large companies are prepared to invest for the exploitation of copper, nickel, tin and bauxite. Twenty-five companies are working in the field of forestry and 55 in the manufacturing sector.

As of the first quarter of this year, 129 proposals from foreign investors had received the approval of the Government, representing a projected capital investment of $570 million including $236 million for mining (petroleum excluded), $99 million for forestry and $86 million for manufacturing. US investment accounts for 45 per cent of total projected investment ($273 million); 11 companies are operating in the field of manufacturing with an investment outlay of $26.7 million; three in the field of mining with an investment of $229.5 million; two companies in forestry with $3.3 million and nine others in various fields with an outlay of $14 million, making a total of 25 companies. This does not include the foreign bank branches and oil companies. Other countries following the US lead are: Canada, South Korea, the Netherlands, Japan and various other countries. It may also be interesting to note that out of the 129 ventures, 83 of those ventures are in the form of joint enterprises, 41 are straight investments and five are operating on the basis of contract-of-work.

We realise that foreign aid, foreign technical assistance and foreign private investment by themselves can never make a country a viable economy, but their role in a period of recovery can be crucial. Foreign investment is therefore expected to play an important role in the implementation of Indonesia’s Five Year Development Plan which was started in April this year. This Five Year Plan gives priority to (1) agriculture, particularly food production; (2) the development of mining and encouragement of industries which produce equipment and inputs for the agricultural products; (3) the strengthening of infrastructures, particularly transport and communication. The main objective of the plan is a simple one, namely to raise the standard of living for a future growth by way of food and clothing, improvement of infrastructure, provision of better housing and an increase of employment opportunities. In this plan emphasis is also given to rural and regional development.

This Five Year Plan will also provide the context within which the government-to-government aid to Indonesia provided by the Inter-Government Group on Indonesia, which includes Australia, the US, Japan, the Netherlands, Germany, France, the UK, Italy and Belgium, will be co-ordinated. The consultations on which Indonesia’s aid requirements are determined within the IGGI are based on assessments by the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. In addition, the IMF has been most active in advising the Government on monetary and fiscal affairs while the Bank is assisting Indonesia in planning development programmes and preparing capital projects.

Transition and Evolution

Indonesia is a latecomer among developing countries in dealing with foreign investment. We are still in a transitional period and are still in the process of gaining the experience needed to guide us further in the area of codification and regulation. That part of our legal system that concerns modern economic activities of both domestic and foreign origin is, therefore, still in the process of readjustment and evolution. This process of adaptation to developmental goals is not only a theoretical one, but necessarily evolves in response to new problems and new experiences. We will also have to keep under constant review other laws that have a bearing on the general investment and business climate. At present this is the case for instance with Indonesian corporation law. With technical assistance from the International Monetary Fund, we are in the process of reforming our tax laws. Beside this, the agrarian law and the labour law will at some point have to be related more closely to our development goals.

Corporation Lawyers: Role and Style

While generally no American corporation makes a move without consulting its lawyers, the role Indonesian lawyers play in the activities of our business corporation is much less pronounced. The heavy reliance on legal counsel by foreign corporations is related to the importance of litigation and judicial procedures in the resolution of conflict in their country. In Indonesia, such conflict are most of the time resolve through administrative procedures and adjustments. This is, of course, not characteristic for Indonesia alone. It applies also to many European countries.

This difference in role may be one of the reasons why many Indonesian administrators are often somewhat puzzled when in the course of negotiations they are faced with elaborate stipulations raised by legal counsel of foreign corporations in anticipation of contingencies that might arise in the future. In part, this puzzlement stems from their unfamiliarity with the role legal counsel plays in the activities of business corporations in the US. In part, this may be the result of an important difference in societal setting. American business and their legal counsel are used to operate in a society that has been stable for quite some time, and there is therefore a considerable degree of predictability of future responses and implications once a particular course of action is decided upon. Lately, some doubts have arisen about this purported stability and predictability, but that is beside the point.

The attitudes that have been shaped by this condition still persist. Our people, on the other hand, are trying to build towards stability. They are working from a situation in which the horizon of visibility and predictability is still limited, though clearly expanding. And though these officials may be able to see the validity of the points raised, they are quite often not in a position to answer. Why? Not because they are lacking in goodwill or because they are technically incompetent, but often simply because no one can entirely foresee the broader setting that will eventually develop – partially thanks to the operations of foreign enterprises-and in which these problems will have to be answered. Any assurances given at this stage are bound to have only limited validity. Also, no government can afford to prejudice its future policy options by making premature commitments on the basis of hypothetical situations.

But even more important in this connection may be the differences in attitude that centre around the concept of ‘good faith’ in Indonesian commercial law. The central position of this concept in Indonesia has led to a lesser concern with protective clauses spelled out for specific contingencies than is the case in the American tradition.

An understanding of these differences may make it easier for an Australian or American lawyer to communicate while negotiating in Indonesia. Conversely, a greater familiarity on the part of the Indonesian government officials, businessmen and lawyers with Australian or other practices and the special role of legal counsel in business activities would be helpful too.

It should also be realised, however, that in the evolution of the Indonesian commercial legal system, adaptations will have to be made that will enable it to bridge differences with the legal systems and practices of other countries, like Australia, Japan and Western and Eastern Europe, each with their own legal culture. The tendency of some Australian and American lawyers to try to impose on us their own legal concepts with regard to such issues as corporate laws and tax laws, seems to us sometimes rather excessively one-sided. Often we are faced with demands for contractual guarantees as regards taxation, foreign exchange regulations and so forth, for the entire duration of the contract. There have been cases where we have indeed compromised on these points, as for instance in the case of certain mining contracts covering large investments. But it should be realised that the insistence on such waivers undermines the strength of the legal system as a whole, including the protection of foreign investments in general.

This would obviously be against the long run interests of foreign investors. For example, some of the waivers requested involved bypassing the foreign exchange system, which was developed in co-operation with the International Monetary Fund as an integral element of our economic stabilisation programme. It seems to us that the interest of foreign investors would not in the long run be served by weakening that mechanism.

We sometimes even find ourselves in the ironic position of having to explain to prospective American investors the reason why we object to the suspension of the operation of market forces and why we consider it important to keep competition open, when excessive protective measures are insisted upon. In order to meet this kind of problem more adequately we have asked the World Bank to help us in developing optimal criteria for both the investors and for Indonesia, that could be generally applied in this connection. All this, I hope, will explain why we take the position that would be investors should accept both the existing legal framework and the way in which it will develop in the future.

The long-range protection for foreign private capital lies in the stability of a favourable business and investment climate. This is only possible if, as in Indonesia, the incentives and accommodations of foreign investment are also made available on a non-discriminating basis to domestic investors. In fact, the rapid development of national business should be seen as directly in the interest of foreign investment as well.

Foreign Investment and the Political Climate

The stability and continuity of a political climate that is favourable to foreign investment will very much depend on the willingness and the capability of foreign enterprises to develop linkages with the environment in which they operate, with the business community, the universities and other teaching institutions, as well as with the intellectual community in general. By involving local business in some of the spin off activities of these enterprises, through technical assistance, through utilisation of local raw materials, the stimulation of local servicing facilities and of manufacturing of components and spare parts, through making available staff members for teaching purposes in order to accelerate the transfer of technology, organisational and managerial skills at all levels, and by taking an interest I the development of small and medium sized indigenous business firms in their localities, the foreign companies could very well become a catalytic ad accelerating factor in the development of the society in which they operate.

The positive contribution that foreign business could make, not only to economic development, but to a healthy political growth as well, without in any way assuming a political role, should therefore not be underestimated. I think it is quite possible for private foreign business to play this role without endangering its primary role as a profit-making organisation. In this manner, foreign private business will avoid the danger of becoming an alien enclave in a stagnant and increasingly hostile environment. It is in this kind of integration with the patterns of national development that its best protection lies.

If foreign investment comes to be seen by a majority of the political public as insensitive to national aspirations, as an obstacle to national development, or as an alien element pursuing ends that are contrary to the national interest, political pressures against the purely legal safeguards are bound to develop. It is of the greatest importance that private foreign business operating in an underdeveloped country should develop the capacity to identify with the developmental goals of co-operative endeavour with national business that it is regarded as an ally, an accelerator and a catalyst of national development whose continued presence is beyond doubt in the national interest as well.

Ultimately, the protection of foreign private investment lies in the rapid development of an indigenous commercial and entrepreneurial middle class and the development of a community of business interests between them and foreign enterprises in their country. Any contribution private foreign business could make to that end would provide additional long range security for their investment.

Foreign Investment in the Global Setting

There is, however, an even wider setting, almost within the same time span, within which security of private investment in developing countries inevitably will have to be considered as well. The determinants here are the population explosion, the question of international poverty and the need for generalising economic development throughout the world. I hope you will allow me in closing to say a few words about this.

It is, of course, a truism to state that the world is becoming increasingly interdependent. There are few economic or political decisions, taken in the national context, that will not evoke international repercussions and vice versa. The world is also rapidly becoming smaller and more and more crowded. The world population is expected to double in the next 30 years. The increasingly uneven density of population in various parts of the world, on top of widening inequalities in the distribution of wealth, is bound to create important shifts in the balance of forces as well as tremendous tensions in the world during the coming decades. But before everything else, mankind must be able to answer the very elementary questions of how are we going to feed that population; how to produce enough to clothe them and to meet other essential material needs the world over, if civilised life is to be maintained. The rapid population increase, especially in the poor nations, will therefore have to be met by an increased economic production capability and especially by a much more extensive involvement of the poor nations themselves in those productive processes.

If we, that is mankind as a whole, fail to organise ourselves for this purpose, the tensions that inevitably will develop in the poor nations will destroy the possibility of their evolution towards increasingly open societies capable of rational and creative relationship with the outside word. In this way, the international order itself, including the security of the rich nations, will be in danger. Our capacity to organise ourselves for this task will very much determine the shape and the quality of our life by the time we enter the 21st Century, if we ever reach that point. This, however, will require a major redirection of world resources and the striking of a new balance-globally-between expenditure for armaments, and for the combating of domestic and international poverty. For this, a reassertion is needed of the political will to bring about such a redirection of world resources.

In this respect, the search that is now taking place the world over for those forms and methods that would be most advantageous to promote the transfer of private capital, skill and managerial capability from the developed countries to the new nations, is a crucial one. The experience of the first United Nations Development Decade has shown that unless there is such a greater flow of capital throughout the world, especially of private capital to the developing countries, there is little prospect of an adequate response to this problem. One can only hope that private business the world over can develop the capacity, the ingenuity-over and beyond short term considerations of profit-to develop the forms and modalities that will make such an expanded role possible as well as profitable. After all, business corporations are the natural repositories of the technology, the skills, the organisational and managerial capacity for this very task.

It is equally true that an increased application of private capital to generate world-wide development will by itself not be sufficient. Unless the flow of government-to-government development funds in the form of foreign aid is continued at adequate levels for some time, there is no prospect that infrastructure development in a number of new nations can proceed sufficiently so as to enable private capital to play its productive and socially creative role. Much will also depend on our conceptual and operational capability to move in this direction. We need to develop a more adequate and consistent system of rights and responsibilities, of incentives, safeguards and guarantees of various kinds on both the side of the developed as well as of the poor nations. We will have to search for more adequate forms and methods that can facilitate in a substantial way the transfer of capital and other resources. The scope and capabilities of existing multilateral development agencies like the World Bank and regional banks as well will have to be re-examined in this connection. Likewise, the access of underdeveloped countries to international capital and bond markets, and the development of an internationally coherent tax system related to international development needs. Attention should also be given to the role which international corporations are increasingly playing in internationalising development. The extra-national character of the decision centres of these companies poses important problems and, in the words of Philip de Seynes, United Nations Under Secretary General for Economic and Social Affairs, calls for the development of a new system of international law with greater economic content.

It may not be possible for the profit motive alone to bring about the substantially stepped-up role of private capital sufficient to deal with the population explosion and the problems of poverty that may tear the world apart. What may be needed as well as a clearer understanding of the magnitude and the urgency of the problems which the whole of mankind will have to face 20 to 30 years from now, and a clearer vision of the kind of world in which we do want to live. I think it is important for all of us, in discussing problems connected with the security of foreign investment and the legal safeguards for the protection of foreign investment in developing countries, that we do so with a full awareness of the magnitude and the urgency of the role that has to be played by private capital and the urgency for private capital and the governments of the developed as well as the underdeveloped countries together to create the conditions to make this possible. If we are to come to grips with the problems that will determine the total global environment in which all of us, including private capital, will have to live in the relatively near future.

Being myself totally innocent of a training in law, I will not presume to give you a breakdown of the challenges this poses to those in the legal profession who are involved in the activities of business corporations. This challenge certainly goes far beyond the legal aspects of foreign investment problems in the time frame of the present. Still, it is from this perspective that I invite you to look at the problem of investing in a developing nation.



iThe present article is an abridgement of a lecture delivered in Dallas, Texas, under the auspices of the International and Comparative Law Center of the South-western Legal Foundation. It is to be included in a forthcoming book, Proceedings of the Symposium on Private Investors Abroad. Copyright by Matthew Bender and Co. Inc.

iiSee The Australian Outlook, December, 1967, and January, 1968. Soedjatmoko’s other writings are difficult to come by. See his contribution to Soedjamoko, ed.: An Introduction to Indonesian Historiography, Cornell, 1965; and Robert N. Bellah: Religion and Progress in Modern Asia, New York, 1965.

Oleh: Dr Sony Rospita Simanjuntak
Pengamat Hukum Pertambangan Indonesia & Peneliti pada Konsultan Hukum Allens Arthur Robinson, Melbourne, Australia

Walaupun telah berulangkali pemerintah pusat berusaha meyakinkan daerah bahwa penerbitan Keputusan Presiden Nomor 29 Tahun 2004 dan Keputusan Presiden Nomor 28 Tahun 2004 baru-baru ini adalah semata-mata berupa pemberian sebuah power kepada Badan Kordinasi Penanaman Modal (BKPM) untuk menjalankan sistim pelayanan satu atap, bukan penarikan kembali power yang telah didesentralisasikan ke pemerintahan daerah (khususnya pemerintahan kabupaten dan kota), sepertinya kecurigaan daerah terhadap pusat masih terus saja ada. Sifat curiga atau saling curiga seperti itu sebenarnya adalah sangat normal bahkan sifat seperti itu bila perlu agar tetap dibina sebagai salah satu metoda pengawasan, tentunya selama hal itu dilakukan secara wajar.
Intisari dari argumentasi yang terdengar adalah jika memang bukan berupa penarikan kembali otoritas daerah sedangkan pelimpahan wewenang oleh daerah ke BKPM adalah sukarela sifatnya, lantas dimanakah letak tujuan daripada peraturan baru tersebut?
Akan halnya dengan pelayanan ‘one stop service’ atau ‘one roof service’ itu sendiri, agaknya semua pihak tidak butuh untuk diingatkan kembali akan essensinya yang tidak lain adalah untuk menarik penanaman modal asing dengan cara memotong proses birokrasi dengan harapan penghematan biaya dan waktu selain pemberian suatu kepastian. Di dalam tubuh BKPM itu sendiri sesungguhnya sudah lama pemerintah mengusahakan agar BKPM di dalam pemberian pelayanannya beraspirasikan ‘one stop service’, yaitu dengan pemberian perizinan basic lain yang dibutuhkan ketika dikabulkannya sebuah permohonan penanaman modal. Hal tersebut dimungkinkan oleh penganutan sistim pendelegasian. Demikian juga pada waktu yang lalu, sesungguhnya Badan Kordinasi Penanaman Modal Daerah (BKPMD) adalah juga mengacu kepada sistim pendelegasian. Termasuk di dalamnya pendelegasian kepada Kepala Pemerintah Otorita.
Lantas, apakah tujuan dari, terutama, Keputusan Presiden Nomor 29 Tahun 2004 tersebut? Jika selama ini telah dilakukan pendelegasian-pendelegasian, mengapa diperlukan penerbitan keppres tersebut? Apakah hal itu justru sangat relevan sehubungan dengan hukum otonomi daerah?
Adalah pada tempatnya untuk pertama-tama sekali mengulang kembali falsafah tentang kebutuhan akan badan yang sekarang ini diberi nama BKPM. Walaupun Undang-Undang Penanaman Modal Asing 1967 tidak mengaturnya secara rinci, kebutuhan akan badan seperti ini terlihat ketika Indonesia mengeluarkan Undang-Undang Penanaman Modal Asing yang pertama, yaitu Undang-Undang Penanaman Modal Asing 1958.
Menurut sejarahnya, badan tersebut merupakan lembaga yang membantu pemerintah. Lembaga tersebut berada di bawah dan bertanggung-jawab kepada pimpinan pemerintah. Selanjutnya dikatakan bahwa berdasarkan sistim ketatanegaraan Indonesia, Presiden mempertanggung-jawabkan keputusan-keputusan yang diambil oleh badan tersebut kepada DPR.
Walaupun tidak terlihat jelas hukum perundang-undangan yang dirujuknya, namun dapatlah dimengerti bahwa power atas penanaman modal asing diletakkan kepada Presiden, yang dalam pelaksanaan sehari-harinya Presiden dibantu oleh BKPM. Namun, relevansinya terlihat menjadi agak kabur ketika bukan saja permohonan penanaman modal asing yang dikelolanya tetapi juga permohonan penanaman modal dalam negeri. Hal tersebut dikarenakan kerancuan di dalam pemakaian terminologi penanaman modal dalam negeri bagi penanaman modal yang masih ada asingnya tetapi minoritas disamping semakin relax-nya Hukum Penanaman Modal Asing Indonesia. Sehingga upaya Pemerintah untuk sesegera mungkin mengeluarkan undang-undang investasi yang baru demikian juga mengeluarkan DNI yang baru dimana modal investasi minimum yang butuh approval dari BKPM ditetapkan (sehingga kalau memang tidak dibutuhkan BKPM tidak perlu memproses persetujuan investasinya), sudah sesuai atau on the right track.
Tadi dikatakan bahwa power di bidang penanaman modal asing terletak pada Presiden, yang dalam pelaksanaannya dibantu oleh BKPM. Di dalam prakteknya pada masa yang lalu, tidaklah semua permohonan harus disampaikan kepada Presiden untuk mendapatkan persetujuan. Presiden juga telah melakukan pendelegasian kepada Ketua BKPM. Namun persetujuan yang diberikan oleh Ketua BKPM adalah tetap atas nama Presiden.
Di masa lalu, semangat pendelegasian ini mendapatkan penekanan yang lebih lagi demi terciptanya slogan ‘one stop service’. Menteri-menteri terkait lain, yang pada dasarnya adalah juga pembantu-pembantu Presiden, mendelegasikan kewenangannya kepada Ketua BKPM sehubungan dengan penanaman modal asing dan penanaman modal dalam negeri. Misal, Menteri Keuangan memberikan delegasi kepada Ketua BKPM untuk memberikan keringanan/kelonggaran bidang perpajakan. Demikian juga sebelum berlakunya hukum otonomi daerah, menteri yang menangani bidang perindustrian, menteri yang bertanggung-jawab di bidang pertambangan dan energi dan menteri yang membidangi pertanian dan kehutanan serta menteri yang bertanggung-jawab atas bidang kesehatan, pada dasarnya mendelegasikan kewenangan pemberian izin usaha industri kepada Ketua BKPM. Pengecualian terdapat atas sektor pertambangan umum dan kehutanan dimana tata-cara penanaman modalnya masih diatur oleh departemen teknis masing-masing.
Pada waktu itu prisip yang dianut adalah bahwa Ketua BKPM dalam menyelesaikan sebuah perizinan industri harus melakukannya atas nama menteri yang bersangkutan. Adapun mengenai pengawasan teknisnya, semuanya adalah masih merupakan kewenangan menteri bidang masing-masing, yang dapat pula pelaksanaannya dikordinasikan bersama dengan BKPM dan BKPMD.
Dengan demikian, sebelum diberlakukannya hukum otonomi daerah, departemen-departemen juga pada dasarnya sudah tidak melayani pemberian izin usaha industri apabila pemohonnya adalah PMA/PMDN. Yang dilayani adalah pemohon yang bukan PMA/PMDN. Seperti yang disebutkan di atas, pengecualian terdapat di sektor pertambangan umum dan kehutanan, dimana pada waktu itu, seorang calon kontraktor PMA/PMDN di bidang pertambangan umum, misalnya, selain berurusan dengan BKPM juga berurusan dengan departemen yang membawahi sektor pertambangan umum. Praktek inilah yang telah mendapat banyak kritikan karena tidak konsekuen dengan azas ‘one stop service’ yang didengung-dengungkan BKPM.
Sekarang dengan diberlakukannya hukum otonomi daerah dimana terdapat banyak sekali desentralisasi, sudah tentu departemen teknisnya juga harus mengacu kepada hukum otonomi daerah. Sehingga penerbitan dua keppres tersebut di atas sesungguhnya sejiwa dengan hukum otonomi daerah. Apabila departemen teknisnya adalah merupakan unsur daerah, maka otomatis rekomendasi dari daerah tersebutlah yang dibutuhkan oleh Presiden dalam menolak atau mengabulkan sebuah permohonan izin penanaman modal asing. Yang jelas, jika ingin lebih efektif maka sektor pertambangan umum dan kehutanan tidak perlu lagi mendapat pengecualian, karena praktek seperti itu telah banyak dikritik sehubungan dengan birokrasi dan red-tape.
Konsekuensi dari Keputusan Presiden Nomor 29 Tahun 2004 di bidang pertambangan umum, misalnya, adalah bahwa BKPM dalam memproses persetujuan penanaman modal asing (berdasarkan rekomendasi departemen teknis/daerah terkait) bisa saja sekaligus memproses pemberian kontrak karyanya berdasarkan pelimpahan wewenang dari departemen teknis atau yang sesuai berdasarkan hukum otonomi daerah.
Walaupun bentuk negaranya berbeda, pelayanan badan penanaman modal asing yang terpusat seperti itu terdapat di Australia oleh lembaga yang disebut Foreign Investment Review Board (FIRB). Seperti diketahui, negara Australia adalah negara federasi, dimana berdasarkan Pasal 51(xx) Konstitusi Australia, pemerintah federal diberi power untuk mengatur urusan-urusan sehubungan dengan foreign takeovers dan foreign investment. Sehingga permohonan penanaman modal asing di Australia harus disampaikan kepada FIRB yang berada di Canberra. FIRB adalah lembaga advisory pada Treasurer. Dengan demikian, walaupun negaranya adalah federasi dimana masing-masing negara bagian mempunyai otonomi, namun hal itu tidak membuat tidak dapat dilakukannya pemusatan pelayanan penanaman modal asing di Canberra. Sebagai contoh, apabila sebuah perusahaan asing ingin menambang di negara bagian Victoria, maka perusahaan tersebut, sejauh mengenai persetujuan/izin penanaman modal asingnya, harus berhubungan dengan FIRB di Canberra. FIRB dalam proses pemberian approval akan terlebih dahulu meminta rekomendasi dari Departemen Pertambangan negara bagian Victoria.
Selanjutnya, pengawasan penanaman modal asing itupun dilakukan oleh FIRB yang bekerja atas nama Treasurer. Seluruh perusahaan penanam modal asing berkewajiban untuk menyampaikan laporan secara periodik ke FIRB di Canberra. FIRB secara terus-menerus dan aktif melakukan monitoring hingga tercapainya pengalihan saham mayoritas penamam modal asing kepada perusahaan lokal. Perbedaannya adalah bahwa FIRB hanya berfokuskan kepada pemberian persetujuan/izin penanaman modal asing yang merupakan wewenang pemerintah federal. Akan halnya lisensi pertambangannya sendiri, sebagai misal, adalah didapatkan langsung dari pemerintah negara bagian yang bersangkutan, demikian juga dengan kontrak karyanya.
Sebagaimana diketahui Indonesia adalah negara kesatuan. Penyerahan urusan pemerintah ke daerah oleh pusat sehubungan dengan hukum otonomi daerah adalah masih dalam azas pendelegasian. Dengan demikian, semangat ‘one roof service’ kiranya tidak menjadi sebuah batu sandungan dari sudut hukum konstitusi, walaupun mungkin pelayanan seperti itu bisa saja di-challenge oleh daerah dalam waktu yang cepat karena tingginya semangat kompetisi dengan daerah lainnya.
Yang menjadi pertanyaan, jika memang mau dipertanyakan, adalah apakah BKPM yang adalah lembaga non departemen secara hukum dapat dibenarkan dalam penjatuhan sanksi atas kelalaian atau pelanggaran yang dilakukan oleh penanam modal asing sehubungan dengan izin/persetujuan penanaman modalnya? Karena apabila dibandingkan dengan Australia, FIRB adalah badan penasehat Treasurer. Approval diberikan oleh Treasurer dan keseluruhannya adalah merupakan tanggung-jawab Treasurer.
Selain itu kelihatannya kurang disorot akan pentingnya power untuk pemberian izin/persetujuan penanaman modal asing (bukan izin usaha industri/investasinya) tetap ada di tangan Presiden, dalam konteks Negara Kesatuan Republik Indonesia, sehubungan dengan pemberian kepastian/jaminan hukum. Sebagaimana diketahui, salah satu pasal terpenting dari Hukum Penanaman Modal Asing Indonesia adalah pemberian jaminan untuk tidak menasionalisasikan perusahaan PMA dan apabila hal itupun terpaksa untuk dilakukan, maka tidaklah gampang untuk melakukannya. Hal tersebut semata-mata hanya dapat dilakukan demi KEPENTINGAN NEGARA dengan syarat bahwa keadaan tersebut harus pula terlebih dahulu diundangkan (harus ada Undang-Undangnya). Dan jika memang demikianlah halnya maka Pemerintah Republik Indonesia harus membayar kompensasi berdasarkan Hukum Internasional, yang berarti bahwa Pemerintah Republik Indonesia akan duduk dalam perkara tersebut sebagai salah satu pihak.

Oleh Sony Rospita Simanjuntak, LLM (Maret 1997)
Staff pada Direktorat Batubara, Direktorat Jenderal Pertambangan Umum, Departemen Pertambangan dan Energi

Dalam setiap pembahasan mengenai hukum pertambangan dari suatu negara, hal yang pertama sekali dilihat adalah bagaimana perlakuan konstitusi negara tersebut terhadap sumberdaya mineralnya. Tidak jarang konstitusi suatu negara mengatur secara langsung sumberdaya mineralnya. Sebagai contoh, konstitusi Brazil yang baru (1988) secara eksplisit menetapkan bahwa sumberdaya mineral merupakan kekayaan negara. Konstitusi baru tersebut juga menetapkan bahwa mineral energi nuklir merupakan monopoli negara.
Pengecekan terhadap konstitusi ini akan menjadi lebih penting lagi bagi negara federal di mana biasanya pembagian wewenang antara pemerintahan persekutuan dengan pemerintahan negara bagian ditetapkan di dalam konstitusi. Negara Australia, misalnya, karena konstitusinya tidak memasukkan sumberdaya mineral ke dalam hal-hal yang berada di bawah wewenang pemerintahan negara persekutuan, maka secara otomatis sumberdaya mineral menjadi salah satu wewenang negara-negara bagian. Sebagai konsekuensinya, setiap negara bagian di Australia berhak mengeluarkan undang-undang pertambangan sendiri sehingga hukum pertambangan dari suatu negara bagian di Australia bisa berbeda dengan hukum pertambangan negara bagian lainnya.
Akan halnya dengan negara Indonesia, UUD 1945 tidak mengatur sumberdaya mineral secara eksplisit. Namun demikian, pasal 33 ayat 3 UUD 1945 menjadi relevan bagi sumberdaya mineral karena sumberdaya mineral merupakan kekayaan alam yang terkandung di dalam tanah dan air. Dalam konteks hukum pertambangan secara umum, pasal 33 ayat 3 ini memberi makna bahwa sumberdaya mineral adalah kekayaan negara (sering juga disebut sebagai milik bangsa). Selanjutnya, ayat 2 dari pasal 33 UUD 1945 menjadi relevan, karena pasal ini adalah pasal yang berlaku umum bagi semua sektor industri termasuk sektor pertambangan. Bagi sektor pertambangan, pasal 33 ayat 2 ini memberi makna monopoli oleh negara bagi usaha-usaha pertambangan yang strategis. Karena negara Indonesia adalah negara kesatuan, maka hukum pertambangannya adalah hukum nasional yang berlaku sama di seluruh wilayah Indonesia.

1. Kekayaan Negara
Dalam konteks hukum pertambangan, penetapan sumberdaya mineral sebagai kekayaan negara berarti penolakan praktek pemilikan mineral (bahan galian) secara pribadi. Hal ini menunjukkan bahwa fungsi sosial bahan galian lebih besar dibandingkan dengan fungsi perorangannya. Dengan demikian di Indonesia, pemegang hak atas tanah tidak bisa mengklaim kepemilikan atas bahan galian yang terdapat di bawah tanahnya. Dengan perkataan lain, konstitusi Indonesia menganut doktrin pemisahan yang jelas atas hak atas tanah dengan hak atas bahan galian yang ada di bawahnya. Pemberian hak atas tanah kepada seseorang tidak termasuk pemberian hak atas bahan galian yang terdapat di bawah tanah tersebut.
Azas bahan galian sebagai kekayaan negara ini sangat penting dipahami oleh seluruh pemegang hak atas tanah. Undang-undang pokok Agraria 1960 sebagai hukum nasional yang berlandaskan hukum adat, mengakui hak ulayat. Namun sebagai konsekuensi dari prinsip bahan galian sebagai kekayaan negara, pemegang hak ulayat atas tanah tidak berarti secara otomatis pemilik bahan galian yang terdapat di bawah tanah ulayat tersebut. Dari itu, penolakan masyarakat adat atas usaha pertambangan di atas tanah ulayat tidak akan pernah dapat dibenarkan oleh UUD 1945. Kepentingan masyarakat adat sejauh aspek religiusnya dilindungi oleh hukum pertambangan. Setiap hukum pertambangan di dunia ini membuat batasan-batasan bagi usaha pertambangan sehubungan dengan lokasi. Usaha pertambangan tidak dapat dilakukan di daerah yang dianggap sakral. Penetapan suatu daerah merupakan daerah sakral diatur oleh undang-undang. Jadi jelas bahwa penolakan masyarakat adat atas usaha pertambangan karena ingin mempertahankan hutannya, misalnya, tidak dapat dibenarkan kecuali apabila hutan tersebut berdasarkan hukum telah ditetapkan sebagai daerah sakral.
Sebagai kekayaan negara (milik bangsa), maka tentu saja negara diharapkan untuk mengelolanya dengan baik. Pemerintah mengatur pemberian hak untuk mengusahakan pertambangan dalam bentuk undang-undang pertambangan. Dalam dunia pertambangan, dikenal pembebanan khusus yang disebut dengan royalti. Pengusaha pertambangan diharuskan untuk membayar royalti. Pada prinsipnya, royalti ini dibayarkan kepada pemilik mineral (bahan galian) sebagai imbalan atas pemberian hak untuk mengusahakan pertambangan. Apabila bahan galian tersebut milik raja/ratu maka dibayarkan kepada raja/ratu, apabila milik perorangan (pemilik tanah) maka dibayarkan kepada pemilik tanah, selanjutnya apabila bahan galian tersebut milik negara maka dibayarkan kepada negara. Jadi, dalam konteks bahan galian sebagai kekayaan negara, maka royalti adalah penerimaan negara non-pajak (dalam konteks hukum pertambangan Indonesia, iuran tetap dan iuran ekplorasi/produksi kesemuanya adalah royalti dimana iuran tetap sebagai royalti minimumnya).
Sebagai konsekuensinya, di Indonesia, pembebanan royalti oleh masyarakat setempat di atas royalti oleh negara, juga tidak dapat dibenarkan. Hal tersebut semata-mata, sekali lagi, karena bahan galian merupakan kekayaan negara bukan kekayaan pribadi masyarakat setempat. Pengakuan negara terhadap kepentingan masyarakat setempat atau demi kemakmuran masyarakat setempat sebagaimana ditekankan oleh anak kalimat kedua dari pasal 33 ayat 3 UUD 1945, dijelmakan dalam bentuk pemberian bagian terbesar dari royalti kepada daerah tersebut. Jadi, pembebanan baru, apabila hal itu diinginkan bagi kepentingan masyarakat lokal, tidak boleh dikaitkan dengan keberadaan bahan galiannya. Masyarakat setempat hanya dimungkinkan untuk menerima pendapatan karena terdapatnya usaha pertambangan di daerahnya, sejauh hal tersebut berkaitan dengan hak atas tanahnya (bukan bahan galiannya). Pendapatan tersebut berupa kompensasi (ganti rugi karena pemegang hak atas tanah tidak dapat memanfaatkan haknya). Bagi pemegang hak atas tanah, termasuk tanah ulayat, bentuk kompensasi ini dapat dimodifikasi dalam bentuk pemegang saham atas perusahaan pertambangannya.

3. Monopoli Negara
Tadi dikatakan bahwa Pasal 33 ayat 2 merupakan dasar bagi praktek monopoli negara atas bahan galian tertentu dan pengusahaannya (oleh perusahaan negara). Dalam praktek dunia pertambangan, apabila konstitusi suatu negara tidak menyebutkan nama bahan galian yang menjadi monopoli negara, maka penetapan tersebut dapat dibuatkan di dalam undang-undang pertambangannya. Akan halnya dengan Undang-Undang Pokok Pertambangan 1967, undang-undang tersebut tidak menetapkan bahan-bahan galian apa saja yang merupakan monopoli negara melainkan menyebutkan bahwa bahan-bahan galian tertentu dapat menjadi monopoli negara sejauh hal tersebut dan pengusahaannya ditetapkan dengan undang-undang. Hingga saat ini, telah ditetapkan bahwa migas dan bahan galian radioaktif merupakan monopoli negara.
Konstitusi Indonesia memberikan kriteria bagi monopoli negara sebagai cabang produksi yang mempunyai arti penting bagi negara dan yang menguasai hajat hidup orang banyak. Dengan demikian terbuka kemungkinan untuk mencabut monopoli negara apabila bahan galian migas dan rakdioaktif tidak lagi memenuhi kriteria di atas. Sebaliknya, terbuka pula kemungkinan bagi penetapan baru atas bahan galian yang menjadi monopoli negara (yang diusahakan oleh perusahaan negara).
Sebagai kesimpulan, kedua prinsip yang ditetapkan dalam UUD 1945 telah dipenuhi oleh undang-undang pertambangan Indonesia. Namun, adalah penting untuk dinyatakan di sini bahwa Undang-Undang Pokok Pertambangan 1967 bersifat sangat nasionalistis, melebihi apa yang diminta oleh konstitusi. Berdasarkan undang-undang tersebut, pengusahaan pertambangan bahan galian di Indonesia lebih ditekankan kepada pengusahaan oleh perusahaan negara bukan swasta. Seluruh bahan galian golongan A (yang diantaranya migas dan radioaktif adalah monopoli negara), pada dasarnya, tidak dapat diusahakan oleh swasta. Selain itu, undang-undang tersebut mengatur bahwa perusahaan negara dapat mengusahakan bahan galian golongan B dan C. Malahan, untuk mengusahakan pertambangan bahan galian golongan B oleh pihak swasta nasional, harus melalui Dewan Pertambangan. Dengan praktek pencadangan negara, semakin kecil kesempatan pihak swasta nasional untuk mengusahakan pertambangan. Sedangkan pihak swasta asing, sama sekali tidak diperbolehkan untuk memegang kuasa pertambangan. Partisipasi pihak penanam modal asing hanya dapat diwujudkan selaku kontraktor pihak pemerintah.
Sifat Undang-Undang Pokok Pertambangan 1967 yang sangat nasionalistis tersebut ternyata dipengaruhi oleh situasi dunia pada waktu diundangkannya undang-undang pertambangan Indonesia. Pada tahun 1950-an hingga tahun 1960-an, negara-negara yang baru merdeka menginginkan hak mereka atas kekayaan sumberdaya mineralnya. Hal itu berarti pengambilalihan kepengusahaan pertambangan oleh pihak asing selama masa penjajahan. Pada saat ini pula, paham ekomomi sosial sebagai lawan dari ekonomi kapitalis menjadi demikian menariknya, terutama bagi negara-negara yang baru merdeka. Pengusahaan pertambangan sendiri oleh negara menjadi trend walaupun langsung disadarinya kelemahan dalam modal dan teknologi. Tidak heran apabila bersamaan dengan undang-undang pertambangan yang nasionalistis tersebut diperkenalkan pula sistem kontrak. Pihak swasta asing mengusahakan pertambangan dengan berpartnerkan perusahaan negara atau langsung dengan pemerintah negara tersebut berdasarkan kontrak. Selain itu, ada kekhawatiran bagi negara-negara yang baru merdeka tersebut, apabila pihak asing diberikan hak untuk mengusahakan pertambangan akan dapat menjajah kembali terutama karena pada waktu itu wilayah konsensi pertambangan sangatlah luas dan hak konsensi pertambangan sangat kuat dibandingkan dengan hak yang ada sekarang (lisensi).
Situasi dunia sekarang ini sudah sangat berbeda. Trend yang ada sekarang ini adalah pengusahaan oleh swasta. Oleh karenanya, undang-undang pertambangan Indonesia perlu ditinjau kembali. Sifat yang sangat nasionalistis mungkin sudah harus dibuang mengingat trend ekonomi sekarang ini yang tidak bertumpukan lagi kepada pengusahaan oleh negara. Undang-undang pertambangan yang baru selain harus tetap memenuhi prinsip yang ditetapkan oleh UUD 1945 juga haruslah sebuah undang-undang yang realistis sehingga dapat mencapai maksud dan tujuan pengusahaan kekayaan negara demi kemakmuran rakyat Indonesia.

By Dr Sony Rospita Simanjuntak (published in Minergynews. Com in 2001)
[Pengamat Hukum Pertambangan Indonesia dan Peneliti di Kantor Konsultan Hukum Arthur Robinson & Hedderwicks, di Melbourne, Australia]

Mencoba untuk mendudukkan persoalan pada tempatnya tanpa mengurangi ‘the good spirit’ dari otonomi daerah, artikel ini ingin mengemukakan bahwa sesungguhnya pendelegasian pusat ke daerah bukanlah hal yang sama sekali baru bagi sektor pertambangan umum. Untuk tahap tertentu, sebelum ini, sektor pertambangan umum telah mengalami desentralisasi walaupun sifatnya ‘partially’.

UU Pokok Pertambangan No. 11 Tahun 1967 membagi bahan galian menjadi tiga golongan:1) bahan galian golongan A atau strategis seperti migas, batubara dan timah; 2) bahan galian golongan B atau vital seperti emas, tembaga dan intan; dan 3) bahan galian golongan C atau bukan strategis dan bukan pula vital seperti pasir, batu granit dan batu permata lainnya.

Pengadministrasian bahan galian golongan C telah mengalami pendelegasian oleh Pemerintah Pusat ke pemerintah daerah (dalam hal ini kepada Gubernur terkait, yang selanjutnya membagi tugas pendelegasian ini dengan pemerintah daerah tingkat II). Bahkan untuk bahan galian golongan B-pun, tidak tertutup kemungkinan untuk pendelegasian. Hanya yang terakhir ini jarang sekali terjadi karena sifat pendelegasiannya yang didasarkan atas permohonan (Gubernur terkait mengajukan permohonan kepada Pemerintah Pusat, dalam hal ini Menteri yang membidangi sektor pertambangan dengan alasan demi kepentingan pembangunan di daerahnya).

Akan halnya dengan pengadministrasian bahan galian golongan C ini, dalam sejarahnya telah mengalami kejanggalan. Pada zaman kolonial Belanda, bahan galian yang digolongkan kepada golongan C ini tidak diatur oleh UU Pertambangannya (Indishe Mijnwet 1899). Kewenangan bahan galian golongan C ini berada di tangan Gubernur.

Jadi, ketika Indonesia merdeka bahan galian golongan C ini bukannya mengalami deregulasi tetapi sebaliknya, mengalami regulasi yang justru dalam perjalanan pengadministrasiannya terjadi ekstra kehati-hatian Pemerintah Pusat dalam pendelegasiannya. Pertama-tama, pendelegasiannya berdasarkan azas dekonsentrasi di mana pemerintah daerah yang bekerja tetapi atas biaya Pemerintah Pusat, yang dirasakan kurang oleh pemerintah daerah karena mereka menginginkan pemberian ‘power’ yang lebih besar.

Hal tersebut baru menjadi kenyataan 20 tahun kemudian, yaitu pada tahun 1986 ketika bahan galian golongan C didelegasikan pengadministrasiannya kepada Gubernur terkait atas dasar desentralisasi. Alasan yang sering diberikan atas labannya pemberian otonomi bahan galian golongan C adalah alasan praktis seperti ketidaksiapan ‘personnel’ (termasuk ‘personnel’ untuk pengawasan ‘compliance’ atau inspeksi tambang).
Tetapi penulis beranggapan bahwa hal tersebut juga adalah sebagai akibat kerancuan dari UU Pokok Pertambangan yang telah memasukkan bahan galian golongan C ini bersama-sama dengan bahan galian lainnya, di mana UU mengharuskan bahwa Menterilah yang bertanggung-jawab atas seluruh bahan galian, tidak hanya atas pengadministrasian tetapi juga atas pengawasan pengusahaan atau ‘supervision’.

Apa Perbedaannya dengan Pendelegasian yang Sekarang?

UU Otonomi Daerah No. 22 Tahun 1999 dan UU Perimbangan Keuangan No. 25 Tahun 1999, yang diberlakukan pada 1 Januari 2001, adalah peraturan yang dikeluarkan sebagai pelaksanaan TAP MPR No. XV/MPR/1998 yag menetapkan pemberian otonomi kepada daerah, pemanfaatan kekayaan nasional secara adil, dan perimbangan keuangan antara pusat dan daerah dalam konteks negara kesatuan. UU Otdanya sendiri mengatur pendesentralisasian bahan galian selain migas kepada pemerintah daerah tingkat II terkait, kecuali mengenai ‘policy’-nya yang masih menjadi tanggung-jawab pusat untuk membuatkan formulanya.

Karena hal ini tidak langsung diikuti dengan penggantian UU Pokok Pertambangan maka sebelum ini telah muncul pertanyaan: Dapatkan UU Otda mengalahkan UU Pokok Pertambangan yang lebih tua usianya? Mengantisipasi hal ini MPR telah mengeluarkan TAP MPR No. IV/MPR/2000 pada tanggal 18 Agustus 2000 yang khusus ditetapkan demi pelaksanaan otonomi daerah.

Ditentukan pula bahwa kebijakan yang ditetapkan dalam TAP tersebut merupakan bagaian dari GBHN yang perwujudannya harus dilakukan oleh Presiden dan DPR melalui perundang-undangan. Bahkan secara eksplisit TAP tersebut memberlakukan UU Otonomi Daerah No. 22 Tahun 1999 dan UU Perimbangan Fiskal No. 25 Tahun 1999. Secara eksplisit juga ditetapkan kebutuhan untuk merevisi kedua UU tersebut agar sesuai dengan Pasal 18 UUD’45 sebagaimana yang telah diamandemen.

Kembali kepada pertanyaan semula, apabila tadinya sejak tahun 1986 hanya bahan galian golongan C saja yang didesentralisasikan ke pemerintah daerah, itupun kepada pemerintah daerah tingkat I (Gubernur) bukan kepada pemerintah daerah tingkat II (Walikota/Bupati), maka dengan pemberlakuan UU Otda, bukan hanya bahan galian golongan B saja yang diminta untuk didesentralisasikan seperti halnya bahan galian golongan C, tetapi juga bahan galian golongan A (kecuali migas). Dan semua bahan galian tersebut didelegasikan bukannya kepada Gubernur terkait tetapi kepada Walikota/Bupati. Jadi dapatlah dibayangkan bagaimana ‘generous’-nya pendelegasian yang sekarang ini tetapi juga merupakan suatu perubahan yang sangat drastis.

Bayangkan saja, Bupati yang tadinya hanya diberi wewenang untuk mengelola SIPD bahan galian golongan C yang wilayah pengusahaannya di bawah 25 hektar, tiba-tiba diberi ‘power’ untuk mengelola bukan saja SIPD bahan galian golongan C untuk wilayah pengusahaan yang lebih luas tetapi juga mengelola pengusahaan bahan galian golongan B yang luasnya ribuan hektar (yang tadinya dalam bentuk KP yang perolehannya dari Menteri atau Dirjen). Tidak cukup itu saja. Bupati juga sekarang punya ‘power’ untuk mengelola pengusahaan bahan galian golongan A (selain migas) seperti KP batubara. Tidak heran jika banyak yang meragukan kesiapan para Bupati (termasuk Walikota).

Terus terang, masalah manajemen pengusahaan pertambangan tidaklah sekedar masalah pemberian izin pengusahaan saja. Masalah hukum bisa timbul di luar masalah perizinan seperti ‘overlapping’ dan ganti rugi. Pertikaian dapat saja melibatkan banyak pihak. Dapat terjadi pertikaian antara masyarakat, pemegang izin usaha, atau pemohon izin usaha dengan penguasa. Atau antara pemegang izin usaha atau pemohon izin usaha dengan pemegang izin usaha lainnya. Atau antara pemegang izin usaha atau pemohon izin usaha dengan pemegang hak atas tanah. Atau bisa juga antara sesama pemohon izin usaha.

Tanpa menganggap kecil kemampuan dan pengetahuan kantor Bupati dalam menyelesaikan pertikaian-pertikaian, dapat dimengerti apabila ada keragu-raguan terhadap kapasitas kantor-kantor tersebut. Dan hal ini sangat penting untuk segera diantisipasi mengingat bahayanya apabila ada pihak yang nakal yang akan memanfaatkan ‘loopholes’.

Syukurlah bahwa pada intinya, berdasarkan hukum administrasi negara, baik pendelegasian yang diatur oleh UU Pokok Pertambangan maupun yang oleh UU Otda, kedua-duanya adalah masih dalam kategori ‘delegated duties’. Sebagai bahan perbandingan, ciri-ciri utama ‘delegated duties’ di Australia, misalnya, adalah bahwa suatu pendelegasian dapat ditarik kembali pada setiap waktu dan suatu pendelegasian tidak dapat didelegasikanlebih lanjut kepada pihak lain (Hal yang terakhir sehubungan dengan tuntutan pertanggung-jawaban).

Menurut penulis, tidak ada salahnya untuk menekankan karakter seperti itu, mengingat bahwa desentralisasi Indonesia yang diberlakukan sejak tanggal 1 Januari 2001 yang lalu adalah desentralisasi dalam kerangka negara kesatuan.

Jika dibandingkan dengan Australia, misalnya, pembagian wewenang pemerintahan atau ‘power’ diadakan berdasarkan konstitusi. Karena sektor pertambangan umum, misalnya, tidak tercantum dalam Konstitusi Australia sebagai salah satu kewenangan Pemerintah Federal maka secara otomatis sektor itu menjadi kewenangan Negara Bagian terkait untuk mengaturnya. Akan halnya dengan Indonesia, pasal 33 UUD’45 secara jelas memberikan ‘power’ ini kepada Pemerintah Pusat.

Pemberian ‘power’ atas sektor pertambangan (kecuali migas) kepada pemerintah daerah oleh Pemerintah Pusat adalah berdasarkan UU Otda yang merupakan penterjemahan GBHN. Sehingga, apabila GBHN yang usianya adalah lima tahun itu diganti dengan GBHN yang menetapkan lain, maka UU Otdanya pun harus diubah.

Jadi, bukannya tidak mungkin apabila pemerintah daerah kehilangan ‘power’-nya dengan cara mengubah TAP MPR. Tetapi hal itu tentunya akan jauh lebih sulit daripada ketika pendelegasian hanya diatur oleh UU Pertambangan saja, yang dapat diubah oleh Pemerintah Pusat bersama-sama dengan DPR saja. Seperti diketahui, penetapan (TAP) MPR melibatkan suara-suara dari daerah.

Lantas pertanyaan selanjutnya adalah: Apakah perlu ‘power’-nya diatur oleh konstitusi? Penulis beranggapan bahwa hal tersebut tidaklah penting lagi, karena sudah ditetapkan oleh TAP MPR. Memang ada negara-negara yang mendasarkan secara eksplisit dalam konstitusinya bahwa migas dan terkadang emas sebagai milik negara atau ‘Crown’. Hal itu berarti bahwa di luar bahan galian itu, bahan-bahan galian lainnya adalah milik ‘land-owners’.

Menurut penulis, hal tersebut sangat mungkin apabila kontribusi pertambangan sudah tidak ‘significant’ lagi dengan perkataan lain, nilai strategisnya telah berkurang/hilang. Bagi Indonesia, terjadi pemisahan yang sangat jelas antara hak atas tanah (permukaan tanah) dengan hak atas bahan galian yang terdapat di bawahnya. Semua bahan galian telah ditetapkan oleh UUD’45 merupakan kekayaan nasional (baca: kekayaan seluruh bangsa Indonesia) yang dikuasai oleh negara. Beranjak dari asumsi dasar inilah makanya terddapat pembagian kue antara bukan saja Pemerintah Pusat dengan pemerintah daerah terdapatnya bahan galian tetapi juga dengan pemerintah daerah lainnya.

Yang mungkin lebih penting bagi Indoensia sekarang ini adalah yakin akan ‘the good will’-nya Pemerintah Pusat dalam pengaturan proses penyampaian bagian kuenya. Sesungguhnya hal inilah yang selama ini dirasakan tidak benar oleh daerah (baik oleh pemerintah daerah tingkat I maupun oleh pemerintah daerah tingkat II), yaitu masalah birokrasinya. Bahkan khususnya oleh pemerintah daerah tingkat II serasa tidak pernah menerimanya kerana penerimaan dari iuran tetap, iuran eksplorasi dan iuran produksi oleh Gubernur disatukan dengan dana lainnya. Secara hukum hal inilah yang dicoba untuk diselesaikan oleh UU Otda dan UU Perimbangan Keuangan.

UU Perimbangan Keuangan secara jelas mengatur bahwa 20% penerimaan dari masing-masing iuran tetap, iuran eksplorasi dan produksi diberian kepada Pemerintah Pusat dan 16% dari masing-masing iuran di atas kepada pemerintah daerah tingkat I terkait. Sehingga sisa 64% penerimaan dari iuran tetap, keseluruhannya menjadi hak pemerintah tingkat II terkait. Sedangkan sisa 64% penerimaan iuran eksplorasi dan iuran produksi, dibagi dua. Setengah, atau 32% dari masing-masing merupaan hak pemerintah daerah tingkat II terkait dan sisanya (atau setengahnya lagi) dibagi rata kepada semua pemerintah daerah tingkat II yang terletak di propinsi terkait.

Hal yang mungkin dianggap luar biasa dalam desentralisasi Indonesia ini adalah pendelegasiannya yang diberikan bukan kepada Gubernur tetapi kepada Walikota/Bupati yang jumlahnya banyak sekali yaitu lebih dari 350. Kritikan pun banyak berdatangan termasuk dari pihak pengusaha. Walaupun sekiranya rejim pengadministrasiannya dibuat ‘uniform’ dengan catatan sanggup pula dilaksanakan dengan ‘uniform’, sekedar dari sudut efisiensi saja sudah langsung dirasakan kurang cocok.

Walau seefisien apapun kantor-kantor Bupati/Walikota, yang jelas masing-masing harus mempunyai sarana dan ‘personnel’ untuk administrasi dan pengawasan. Dan ini sudah jelas tidak kecil mengingat pelayananya juga termasuk penyelesaian jika terjadi pertikaian-pertikaian sebagaimana disebut di atas tadi. Coba pula dibayagkan berapa tingginya biaya operasi bagi perusahaan yang mengoperasikan tambang dalam satu propinsi tetapi berbeda-beda kabupaten.

Kritikan lainnya adalah sehubungan dengan penanaman modal asing, termasuk ‘foreign borrowing’, terlepas apakah ini juga sudah termasuk hutang swastanya. Hal ini ironis sekali, karena justru dari dulu sudah dirasakan perlunya daerah diberikan insentif untuk saling bersaing dalam mempromosikan potensi daerah masing-masing termasuk dalam rangka mengundang penanaman modal asing. Dengan sistim sekarang ini, terjadi kekhawatiran apakan daerah (apalagi daerah tingkat II) sanggup melaksanakannya serta tangguh dari KKN walaupun sekarang sudah ada UU Anti KKN-nya. Mencoba menjawab kritikan ini, dengan catatan UU Anti KKN-nya efektif, supaya lembaga BKPM yang merupakan lembaga Pemerintah Pusat, diberikan ‘power’ yang lebih lagi (sehingga tidak ‘ompong’) selain harus mempertahankan keindependenannya.

Setiap penanaman modal asing baik ‘direct investment’ maupun ‘takeover’ di sektor pertambangan umum harus mendapatkan persetujuan dari BKPM dan pelaksanaan persyaratan-persyaratannya harus dimonitor terus oleh BKPM. Sehingga harapan untuk terjaganya kepentingan nasional dapat tercapai. Akan halnya ‘foreign borrowings’ sebenarnya UU Otda telah mengatur hal ini, yaitu harus mendapatkan persetujuan dari Pemerintah Pusat. Penetapan seperti itu adalah sangat wajar mengingat keterangan di atas tadi bahwa sesungguhnya desentralisasi di Indonesia adalah desentralisasi dalam kerangka pendelegasian.

Selain itu, sesungguhnya ada lagi cara yang dapat dilakukan oleh Pemerintah Pusat dalam rangka pengawasan, yaitu dengan mengambil contoh Pemerintahan Federal Australia dalam kasus ‘the Tasmanian Dam’ dan ‘the Fraser Island’. Dalam kasus ‘the Tasmanian Dam’, Pemerintah Federal menggunakan ‘external affairs’ power’-nya untuk menggagalkan pembangunan dam di ‘Franklin River’ demi kepentingan nasional.
Tindakan Pemerintah Federal Australia ini dianggap kontroversial. Pemerintah Federal berdasarkan ‘the Convention for the Protection of the World Culturan and Natural Heritage’ yang diratifikasinya, menetapkan bahwa daerah yang akan dibangun dam tersebut merupakan darah yang harus dilindungi.
Akan halnya dengan kasus ‘the Fraser Island’, ‘the Commonwealth’ menggunakan ‘foreign trade’s power’-nya, di mana hasil tambang perusahaan tambang di Queensland tidak diberikan izin ekspor. Akhirnya perusahaan tambangnya tutup karena tidak ekonomis kalau produksinya tidak diekspor. Hal-hal seperti itu masih bisa dilakukan oleh Pemerintah Pusat Indonesia apabila memang demi kepentingan nasional.

Namun mencegah keputusan-keputsan yang kontroversial, diharapkan Pemerintah Pusat dapat membuat ‘policy’ yang tepat dan mudah-mudahan pemerintah daerah dapat menterjemahkan ‘policy’ tersebut dengan baik ke dalam peraturan daerah masing-masing. Sehingga pendelegasian sektor pertambangan umum kepada daerah tidak berarti bahwa daerah dapat semena-mena dalam mengelola bahan galian yang terdapat di daerahnya tanpa memperhatikan ketentuan hukum yang lebih tinggi dan hukum perundang-undangan lainnya.

Jadi, desentralisasi di sektor pertambangan umum sesungguhnya bukanlah hal yang baru sama sekali. Sebelum ini sektor pertambangan telah mengalami pendelegasian walaupun tidak ‘fully’. Sudah lama dirasakan bahwa desentralisasi di sektor pertambangan umum adalah penting guna meningkatkan prospek daerah. Masalahnya sekarang ini menjadi ruwet karena adanya kepentingan-kepentingan lain yang mengarahkan desentralisasi ini kepada pemberian hak milik atas bahan galian kepada masyarakat adat atau daerah.

Hal yang terakhir ini sudah benar-benar di luar konteks, walaupun tidak tertutup peluang untuk ke arah itu yakni dengan mengubah terlebih dahulu UUD’45 dan kalau memang sektor pertambangan tidak terlalu penting kontribusinya bagi negara, mengapa tidak? Anggap saja seperti bahan galian golongan C pada zama kolonial Belana, apabila itu terdapat di bawah tanah Adat maka merupakan milik masyarakat Adat terkait, apabila keberadaannya di bawah tanah hak milik perorangan akan menjadi milik sang pemilik tanah dan apabila terdapat di bawah tanah negara (tanah yang belum diberikan hak atas tanah di atasnya) akan merupakan milik pemerintah terkait. Namun tuntutan agar ‘ownership’ atas migas diberikan juga kepada daerah terkait, mengingat kontribusinya untuk perekonomian negara, rasa-rasanya seperti terlalu jauh untuk Indonesia sekarang ini.

By Dr Sony Rospita Simanjuntak (published in Minergynews. Com in 2001)
[Pengamat Hukum Pertambangan Indonesia dan Peneliti di Kantor Konsultan Hukum Arthur Robinson & Hedderwicks, di Melbourne, Australia]
Menjamurnya kontrak pertambangan di Indonesia, khususnya kontrak karya yang jumlahnya ratusan, telah memberikan asumsi yang salah seakan-akan sistem kontrak di sektor pertambangan pertama kali diperkenalkan ke dunia oleh negara Indonesia. Bahkan di dalam negeri ada yang berusaha memberikan suatu legitimasi dengan mendasarkannya kepada Hukum Adat segala, yakni dengan persetujuan ‘paruh’, ‘pertelu’ dan sebangsanya, yang menurut penulis adalah suatu hal yang mengada-ada.

Lain halnya jika dikatakan bahwa praktek sistem kontrak di sektor pertambangan tumbuh dengan sangat suburnya di bumi Indonesia. Yang terkakhir ini dapat dibuktikan dengan cepat dari banyaknya jumlah kontrak pertambangan, terutama oleh yang namanya kontrak karya (tanpa memperhitungkan berapa banyak yang tidur atau dipakai sebagai obyek spekulasi). Pesan yang ingin disampaikan adalah agar Indonesia tidak harus kesenangan bila pihak perusahaan terutama asing memuji-muji kontrak karya karena hal itu adalah lumrah. Di luar negeri, untuk proyek-proyek tertentu, sistem tersebut memang lebih diinginkan daripada sistem perijinan biasa (yaitu yang diatur oleh undang-undang pertambangan).

Di Australia misalnya, kontrak semacam itu disebut sebagai ‘indenture’, ‘franchise agreement’, ‘State Agreement’ atau ‘Government Agreement’ (Crommelin, 1981, McNamara 1982, Warnick, 1988). Penting diketahui bahwa di Australia sistem ini disenangi terutama untuk proyek skala besar yang membutuhkan pembangunan sejumlah infrastruktur. Sistem kontrak tersebut diberlakukan khususnya untuk proyek-proyek yang letaknya di daerah ‘frontier’ dimana sejumlah prasarana phisik harus dibangun seperti listri, air dan jalan. Bahkan mungkin sekali bahwa prasarana sosial lainnya seperti sebuah perotaan, sekolah atau rumah-sakit pun harus dibangun.

Sehingga dari sudut penyediaan lahan, jelas sekali bahwa perusahaan membutuhkan bantuan pemerintah misalnya dengan pemerintah mengeluarkannya sebuah ketentuan khusus yang mewajibkan pemegang hak atas tanah untuk melepaskan haknya demi usaha pertambangan. Akan mudah dipahami bila perusahaan menuntut jaminan penuh atas hak menambangnya yakni dengan pemeberian sekaligus hak menambang untuk setiap tahapan sejak tahap eksplorasi sampai produksi. Dari sudut permodalan, sistem ini tentunya sangat menjanjikan karena memberikan perasaan lebih aman kepada para pemegang saham dan juga ‘lenders’. Hal yang menjanjikn lainnya adalah jangka waktu menambang. Jika umur proyek memungkinkan, bisa diberikan jangk waktu yang lebih panjang dari yang biasanya ditetapkan oleh hukum pertambangan.

Proyek seperti ini juga menuntut komitmen pihak pemerintah untuk menjamin terciptanya kerjasama yang baik antara pemerinta daerah terdapatnya lokasi pertambangan dengan badan-badan pemerintahan lainnya. Komitmen lainnya adalah pemberian hak khusus atas air bawah tanah dikarenakan pemanfaatan air adalah hal yang tidak bisa dielakkan bagi terlaksananya usaha pertambangan. Dahulu pemerintah di Australia juga bisa menetapkan standar dan prosedur khusus mengenai lingkungan hidup, tetapi sekarang tidak bisa lagi karena undang-undang lingkungan hidupnya melarang. Tetapi permintaan penetapan tarif khusus atas royalti dan pajak masih berlangsung.

Di daerah di mana ‘trespassing’ bukanlah merupakan suatu pelanggran, adalah wajar jika proyek seperti itu menuntut adanya ketetapan khusus mengenai pengamanan phisik lokasi tambang. Proyek seperti ini juga menginginkan penyelesaian Hak Adat (‘native laws’) atas tanah, bahan galian, dan tempat suci yang baik. Sehingga cara yang terbaik atau bahkan yang tercepat adalah dengan menandatangani ‘State Agreement’ dengan pemerintah. Dan jangan heran jika untuk proyek semacam ini, pihak perusahaan pun menginginkan hanya ada satu ‘point of contact’, biasanya adalah departemen yang membawahi sektor pertambangan, yang akan mengkordinir semua pihak terkait dari pelbagai departemen dan badan-bada pemerintahan mewakili pihak pemerintah.

Yang membuat sistem kontrak ini menjadi sedemikian menariknya bagi para ahli hukum di Australia adalah karena kontrak semacam ini membutuhkan ratifikasi parlemen. Hal tersebut terlihat dari nama kontraknya, misal: ‘The Broken Hill Proprietary Company’s Indenture Act’ 1937-1940 (SA). Nah, oleh karenanya, yang bermain di sini tidak hanya hukum kontrak dan hukum administrasi saja tetapi juga hukum tata negara. Tetapi yang paling sering ditonjolkan adalah ratifikasi guna pemberian kekuatan hukum bagi pemerintah sebagai eksekutif untuk mengikatkan diri secara sah dalam sebuah perjanjian.

Hal tersebut terlebih-lebih mengingat sering-seringnya ketentuan dalam perjanjian dibuat menyimpang dari ketentuan umum yang diatur oleh undang-undang (misal: tidak sama dengan yang ditetapkan oleh hukum tata ruang, peraturan sumberdaya air, atau hukum pajak). Karenanya pemberian kekuatan hukum oleh parlemen sebagai pihak legislatif sangatlah penting artinya. Selain itu ratifikasi membawa arti bahwa pemerintah sebagai salah satu pihak dalam berkontrak dapat dituntut di pengadilan apabila terbukti melakukan wanprestasi. Namun yang sangat menarik bagi penulis justru hukum kontrak yang dikaitkan dengan hukum tata negara dalam hal amandemen. Karena sifatnya adalah kontrak maka sebuah amandemen hanya dapat dilakukan apabila kedua belah pihak setuju.

Sebuah amandemen juga memerlukan penguatan hukum oleh legislatif. Namun yang sangat penting adalah pengratifikasian tidak menutup kemungkinan bagi diundangkannya undang-undang baru oleh parlemen. Dengn diberlakukannya undang-undang yang baru, mau tidak mau kontrak harus diamandemen. Peranan hukum tata negara ini sangat kritikal. Sebuah undang-unang paling sediit harus diubah oleh sebuah undang-unang juga. Sehingga di Australia, kunci sukses dari sebuah ‘State Agreement’ adalah apabila isi kontraknya tidak terlalu menyimpang dari yang ditentukan oleh peraturan dan perundang-undangan yang berlaku umum.

Bagaimana Pengalaman Indonesia selama ini dibandingkan dengan Pengalaman Australia di atas?

Fakta pertama mengatakan bahwa usaha pertambangan di Indonesia adalah ‘foreign control’. Sistem kontrak pertambangan menjamur, karena memang asing tidak boleh memegang titel pertambangan (saat ini namanya: Kuasa Pertambangan). Kedua, kebanyakan lokasi pertambangan terletak di daerah terpencil dan perusahaannya berskala besar serta dituntut untuk membangun infrastruktur. Keduanya merupakan faktor dalam banyaknya jumlah kontrak pertambangan di Indonesia. Sekarang masalahnya adalah apabila hukum pertambangannya diubah dengan memperbolehkan asing memegang titel pertambangan, apakah hal itu akan membuat sistem kontrak tidak menarik lagi?

Jawabannya adalah tidak. Namun, disinilah letak pentingnya peranan Pemerintah. Jika memang proyeknya berskala besar dan lokasi tambangnya di daerah yang terpencil sehingga membutuhkan pembangunan infrastruktur, tidak ada salahnya diberikan dalam bentuk kontrak karya. Prinsip tersebut harusnya diberlakukan secara umum sehingga memberi kemungkinan juga bagi swasta nasional untuk mendapatkan kontrak karya. Tetapi, jika proyeknya tidak pantas untuk diberikan kontrak karya, sebaiknya Pemerintah memberikan titel pertambangan biasa saja (yaitu yang berdasarkan hukum pertambangan).

Dengan demikian, Pemerintah membatasi diri dalam mengikatkan diri langsung kepada pihak swasta dalam bentuk perjanjian di mana posisi Pemerintah turuh menjadi para pihak daripada sebagai penguasa. Pengaruh ketentuan penyelesaian sengketa melalui arbitrase internasional juga tidak baik bagi Pemerintah. Biaya arbitrase internasional yang sangat mahal tersebut tidak hanya membuat Pemerintah menjadi ekstra hati-hati tetapi sudah lebih merupakan trauma bagi Pemerintah untuk bertindak. Memang tidak bisa dipungkiri bahwa pilihan arbitrase internasional oleh pihak penanam modal asing adalah wajar sebagai akibat ketidakpercayaan atas sistem peradilannya ‘the host country’.

Namun berbeda dengan Australia, selama ini boleh dikatakan bahwa sistem kontrak pertambangan di Indonesia diatur oleh hukum kontrak dan hukum administrasi saja. Prinsip ‘lex specialist’-nya kontrak-kontrak tersebut telah sedemikan digembar-gemborkan walaupun terdapat ketidakjelasan atas persyaratan ratifikasi. Tidak heran apabila setelah adanya BUMN-BUMN di sektor pertambangan seperti Pertamina, Timah, Aneka Tambang dlsbnya, pihak asing masih saja menginginkan Pemerintah sebagai salah satu penanda-tangan kontrak dan kontraknya agar disampaikan kepada DPR. Peranan DPR dalam hal ini juga sesungguhnya sangat membingungkan, apakah sekedar mengetahui atau meratifikasi?

Dari pihak pengusaha asing, jelas mereka membutuhkan tindakan tersebut demi investasinya. Dari pihak Pemerintah, tidak jelas mengapa harus disampaikan ke DPR. Bisa saja karena ketentuan hukum penanaman modal asingnya yang mensyaratkan kerjasama seperti itu harus diberitahukan kepada DPR, tetapi bisa juga karena hukum pertambangannya yang mensyaratkan bahwa pengelolaan bahan galian strategis oleh swasta harus diberitahukan kepada DPR. Dengan demikian, apabila bahan galiannya bukan bahan galian strategis dan pengusahaannya adalah oleh swasta nasional, maka tidak perlulah kontrak itu diberitahukan kepada DPR.

Hal tersebut mungkin tidak menjadikan suatu keberatan bagi pengusaha swasta nasionalnya jika proyeknya bukan skala besar dan yang tidak membutuhkan pembangunan infrastruktur. Tetapi jika suatu ketika kelak ada pengusaha swasta nasional yang sanggup untuk mengusahanak proyek besar dan membutuhkan pembangunan banyak infrastruktur, tentunya dibutuhkan jaminan berupa ratifikasi dari DPR. Masalah ratifikasi ini menjadi lebih runyam lagi karena pada masa ORLA ada Surat Presiden Sukarno (Surat Presiden No. 2826/HK/1960 tertanggal 22 Agustus 1960) yang mengatakan bahwa kerjasama luar negeri yang sifatnya komersial tidak perlu diratifikasi oleh DPR.

Memang selama ini terjadi banyak sekali penundaan penandatanganan kontrak karya (terutama dengan asing) karena begitu banyaknya jumlah permohonan sedangkan harus menunggu DPR bersidang. Tetapi apabila Pemerintah mengerti akan keuntungan sebuah ratifikasi dari sudut hukum tata negara, maka ratifikasi adalah sangat kritikal bagi setiap kontrak pertambangan yang ditandatangani langsung oleh Pemerintah.

By Dr Sony Rospita Simanjuntak (published in Minergynews. Com in 2001)
[Pengamat Hukum Pertambangan Indonesia dan Peneliti di Kantor Konsultan Hukum Arthur Robinson & Hedderwicks, di Melbourne, Australia]
Ada orang berkata bahwa manusia yang hanya mengandalkan hasil alam, seperti tambang, daripada hasil suatu budidaya atau industri adalah bak binatang saja (tanpa akal budi). Bahan galian adalah modal warisan bagi manusia, sedangkan hasil budidaya adalah pendapatan manusia sehingga manusia boleh memanfaatkan modal warisannya dengan sangat hati-hati semata-mata demi upaya peningkatan pendapatan (Bemmelen, 1949).
Dengan perkataan lain, adalah normal bagi suatu negara yang baru merdeka untuk mengandalkan penerimaannya dari usaha tambang yang merupakan bisnis tradisional atau primitif. Namun ke depan, negara tersebut harus mampu beralih ke mata pencaharian yang lebih canggih. Kalaupun toh masih dari sektor pertambangan, maka sudah ada nilai tambahnya, atau dengan kata lain sudah diproses.

Ironisnya, pada abad ke 21 ini, entah karena salah atur atau salat strategi, Indonesia yang telah lebih setengah abad merdeka, kembali ke titik awal (kalau tidak minus) pada kategori pemula. Sekarang ini, yang menjadi pusat-pusat ekonomi Indonesia adalah sektor pertambangan, kelautan, pertanian, dan pariwisata yang kesemuanya adalah pemanfaatan sumberdaya alam. Namun kali ini berbeda dengan negara yang masih muda yang masih punya posisi kuat atas sumberdaya alamnya, justeru sektor-sektor modal utama Indonesia inilah yang dituntut oleh IMF untuk lebih dibuka lagi untuk globalisasi dan penanaman modal asing.

Sekarang bagi sektor pertambangan, apakah artinya semua ini? Masih adakah gerangan ruang untuk menolak ditambangnya bahan galian demi anak-cucu (dalam pengertian konservasi) bila kenyataannya memang sektor inilah yang dijadikan modal untuk bangkit? Atau, masih relevankan alasan untuk menahan dulu sampai punya modal dan kemampuan sendiri untuk menambang, yang berarti sikap perlawanan terhadap penanaman modal asing? Sedangkan kenyataannya sudah setengah abad kesempatan diberikan, kemampuan modal dalam negeri untuk menambang masih saja minim. Justeru sekarang ini, potensi sektor pertambangan sebagai modal pembangunan sudah jauh berkurang dibandingkan ketika baru merdeka, karena sudah setengah abad dieksploitasi dan hasilnya disalahgunakan tadi.

Dengan keadaan ekonomi saat ini, adalah sulit bagi Indonesia untuk jual mahal dengan menolak usaha pertambangan. Sulit bagi Indonesia bicara mengenai sektor pertambangan dan pembangunan yang berkesinambungan (the sustainable development). Belum lagi untuk konsentrasi dengan masalah lingkungan hidup. Saat ini saja, internasional dengan greenpeace dan eco-labelling dan entah apa lagi nantinya (human rights?) sudah menyulitkan sektor pertambangan. Belum juga berbicara tentang persaingan antar sektor ini dengan sektor pariwisata nantinya (the beauty of nature?). Masalah lainnya, menurut pendapat penulis, yang tidak kalah pentingnya bagi usaha pertambangan di Indonesia adalah perlombaan sektor ini dengan lajunya tingkat penduduk sehubungan dengan persaingan atas lahan.

Secara konsitional saja, sesungguhnya tidak ada alasan untuk menolak pengusahaan sumberdaya mineral di Indonesia. Pasal 33(3) UUD’45 telah memberikan kuasa kepada Pemerintah untuk mengatur diusahakannya sumberdaya mineral. Yang penting adalah bagaimana Pemerintah mengontrol sumberdaya mineralini sehingga memberikan manfaat bagi Indonesia. Dari segi pengadministrasian pengusahaan secara sederhana dapat dikatakan bahwa terserah kepada Pemerintahlah bagaimana mengatur pengusahaan penambangan bahan-bahan galian, yang mana yang ingin dijadikan monopoli pemerintah dan yang mana yang boleh diusahakan oleh swasta melalui lembaga perizinan, entah apa pun nama izin yang diberikan.

Pada awal-awalnya Indonesia, sebagaimana layaknya negara-negara dunia ketiga lainnya, memperlakukan sektor pertambangan dengan ekstra hati-hati. Hal ini tercermin dalam undang-undang pertambangannya yang sangat nasionalistik. Kemudian, karena ketidakmampuan dalam modal, teknologi, dan manajemen, berangsur-angsur berubah menjadi liberal. Terlepas dari misi baik yang diemban PBB, justeru di bawah pengaruh PBB-lah negara-negara terbelakang mulai membuka pintunya dengan memperkenalkan undang-undang penanaman modal asing (PMA). Di Indonesia untuk PMA di sektor pertambangan, dimulai sejak UU PMA 1958 dan UU (Perpu) Pertambangan 1960 yang kemudian diganti dengan UU PMA 1967 dan UU Pertambangan 1967.

Sekarang ini, mengapa ada pengusahaan pertambangan sendiri oleh BUMN (seperti Pertamina, Aneka Tambang, Timah, Tambang Batubara Bukit Asam, termasuk BUMD seperti PD Kerta Pertambangan Jawa Barat, PD Pertambangan DI-Yogyakarta, dan PD Pertambangan Dati II Jember) dan ratusan kontrak kerjasama disamping pengusahaan pertambangan berdasarkan pemberian izin yang biasa, tidak lain adalah merupakan usaha Pemerintah dalam rangka mengejar manfaat tadi. Pertanyaannya adalah apakah misi Pemerintah tersebut tercapai?

Jika memang harus melalui pengusahaan sendiri, yang berarti monopoli, maka adalah penting bahwa itu hanya bisa dilakukan apabila Pemerintah sanggup untuk membiayai dan mengerjakan sendiri semua-semuanya termasuk tahapan yang beresiko tinggi dan pada modal seperti eksplorasi dan konstruksi (Stigzelius, 1962). Biasanya kunci utama dalam pengusahaan sendiri adalah efisiensi. Sedangkan, tanpa memperhatikan dari dekat kemampuan teknologi, manajemen dan pemasaran BUMN di Indonesia, dari sudut permodalan saja, sekarang ini Pemerintah sudah nyata-nyata tidak mampu. Selanjutnya, fakta mengungkapkan bahwa BUMN di Indonesia jauh dari apa yang disebut dengan efisien.

Tidak heran apabila kontrak-kontrak kerjasama di sektor pertambangan menjadi sangat penting peranannya, karena sistem ini adalah cara utama bagi PMA berusaha di sektor pertambangan. Hukum pertambangan di Indonesia masih belum memperbolehkan PMA untuk langsung menjadi pemegang izin pertambangan. Walaupun kenyataannya, sebagai terobosan dalam menjawab tuntutan keadaan, kontrak karya ditinjau dari sudut pemberian hak-haknya adalah sudah hampir sama saja dengan izin pertambangan. Mengingat bahwa dasar dari pengusahaannya adalah semata-mata kontrak, maka berbeda dengan pengaturan rejim hukum pertambangan, peranan pihak yang mempunyai ‘bargaining powers’ sangat besar. Dari pihak PMA, sudah tentu mereka tidak akan mau datang kalau tidak ada prinsip ‘fair treatment’. Perlu menghindar dari pemerintah tuan rumah yang menjadi tamak ketika PMA berhasin menemukan bahan galian yang dieksporasinya. Jadi, tugas Pemerintah adalah bagaimana membuat formula yang seimbang.

Selama sistem PMA di sektor pertambangan masih menganut sistem kontrak, memang sudah sewajarnya apabila Pemerintah (termasuk pemerintah daerah) harus selalu ulet dalam bernegosiasi dengan PMA tambang. Secara umum, keuntungan yang diperoleh suatu negara dari pemberian izin pertambangan adalan dari pajak dan royalti disamping hal-hal yang tidak langsung seperti penyediaan lapangan kerja dan perangsangan pertumbuhan daerah. Biasanya negara-negara sangat cepat untuk saling mempelajari berapa sesungguhnya persentase royalti dan pajak yang lazim. Perolehan dari royalti (iuran tetap dan iuran produksi) dan pajak inilah yang harus diawasi dengan sungguh-sungguh, jangan sampai bocor atau tertipu.

Jika dulu Pemerintah mengundang Freeport dan PMA tambang lain dengan ‘tax-holiday’ untuk beberapa tahun, maka selain karena itu merupakan strategi saat itu untuk mengundang masuk PMA, hal itu juga diimbangi dengan keharusan PMA untuk membuka daerah, membangun sekolah dan rumah sakit dan lain sebagainya, yang dikenal dengan ‘community programs’. Dari segi hukum PMAnya sendiri, PMA diharapkan untuk memberikan ‘training’ (alih teknologi) dan program divestasi atau penyertaan modal dalam negeri. Namun, apabila perusahaan PMA sudah dikenakan pajak berdasarkan hukum perpajakan yang berlaku umum disamping pembayaran royalti, maka tidak heran jika ‘trend’-nya sekarang ini bagi PMA adalah untuk menghindar dari kewajiban-kewajiban pembangunan sekolah, rumah sakit dan sejenisnya, mengacu kepada praktek-praktek dunia pertambangan umumnya. Demikian pula dengan program divestasi, negara-negara maju sekalipun seperti Australia, bila tidak ada pengusaha dalam negeri yang mau mengikutsertakan modalnya dalam perusahaan tambangan asing, tidak harus program divestasi tersebut dilaksanakan secara paku-mati.

Jadi, selama PMA tambang masih berdasarkan sistem kontrak, Pemberintah memang harus adu ulet dalam bernegosiasi. Disamping itu, jika memang Pemerintah dan kondisi perusahaan swasta nasional memungkinkan, Pemerintah dapat menetapkan ‘policy’ yang dapat mendongkrak kemampuan perusahaan swasta nasional di sektor pertambangan, seperti penyertaan modal dalam negeri/lokal pada waktu usaha tambang memasuki tahap produksi, sehingga bukan saja ketergantungan kepada PMA yang berkurang tetapi misi Pemerintah yang diembankan oleh UUD’45 tercapai.

By Sony Rospita Simanjuntak (1995)
1 Objectives
As applied elsewhere, Indonesia’s mineral development constitutes only one element of its total national development. Therefore, the development must be structured to fit into the total economic development plan. Today, Indonesia has just commenced the second long term development plan. [Indonesia adopts a 25 year long term development plan consisted of five short term plans. The first long term plan ceased in 1994] In brief, the objective of the second long term plan is to prepare the nation for a take-off process (into an industrial country). As to mineral development, the claimed objectives are: to support the industrialisation program through an adequate supply of raw material inputs for industry and energy, to earn or save foreign exchange, and to create employment. [Directorate-General of Mines and Energy, Kilas Balik 50 Tahun Pertambangan Umum dan Wawasan 25 Tahun Mendatang (A Reflection of 50 Years General Mining and a View for the Next 25 Years), 1995, VIII-1. In practice, however, the Government is still emphasising in the earning of foreign exchange than the two other goals. It is also suffice to say here that the latter objective ha never been addressed properly. There has not been any directions requiring mining projects to increase their labour intensity]

2 National Mineral Policy
In order to achieve goals of mineral development, it is fundamental for a country to have a national mineral policy. [R Bosson & B Varon, The Mining Industry and the Developing Countries (1977), 153] Indonesia, however, has not had a clear defined national mineral policy yet, although one may argue that it has one incorporated in its total economic policy. [The formulation of a mineral policy is not, however, an easy task. This is in particular because in the mining industry, issues are not homogeneous for all type of minerals. Each mineral has its specific consideration economic, military and socially. See R F Mikesell & J W Whitney, The World Mining Industry: Investment Strategy and Public Policy (1987), 129. It has been suggested that for the establishment of a mineral policy, a team of specialists is needed. The team must not be the monopoly of people with expertise in subjects like geology, exploration, mining and mineral processing mineral economics, macroeconomics only but also people with expertise in development strategy and legislation, public organisation and administration, law, and taxation regimes. See Bosson & Varon, ibid, 176] The absence of this policy for developing countries is not unusual. [Bosson & Varon, ibid] The World Bank said that in such countries, ‘decisions are made on an ad hoc basis and development of the mineral sector is often sporadic and ill-directed, at times even forfeited by the absence of a clearly defined policy.’ [Ibid]
The absence of a national mineral policy for Indonesia, to some extent, has come to the stage of creating legal uncertainties. Often, changes were made without amendments to the Mining Act. This lack in policy has contributed to the delay in the process of revising the Mining Act 1967.
For the benefit of the policy makers, the World Bank has elaborated important elements of a national mineral policy, they are: [Ibid 154-6]
• the basis of mineral development: weather a private, public, or mixed system;
• the mineral conservation measures;
• the procurement, maintenance, and dissemination of geological and mineral resource data;
• the encouragement of land reclamation and the elimination or control of air and water pollution;
• the incentives for mining which serves as a basis for regional development;
• the guidelines for determining whether responsibility for the infrastructure lies with government, the private sector, or both;
• the adequate provision for training and employment of indigenous personnel;
• the equitable share of the revenue;
• the channelling of the government revenues into continuing productive investment in industry, agriculture, and supporting infrastructure. (In many cases, developing countries have mistakenly channelled the revenues: foreign exchange earnings from mineral exports, for instance, go into the purchase of consumer goods; revenues from mineral activities including part of the royalties are used to support the government’s national budget; and alternative productive capacity or revenue-earning facilities are not formed to take over from the depleted reserves)
The current condition in Indonesia shows us that programs in Indonesian mineral development is still concentrating in the maximising foreign exchange earnings from resources.
3 Important Steps to Implement National Mineral Policy
1. An Effective Ministry of Mines or Mining

If one country wishes to develop its mineral resources, a ministry of mines is a must. The World Bank’s study in 1977 found that ‘the Ministry of Mines in developing countries is often large, bureaucratic, and ineffective institution It may suffer from over-staffing, low salaries leading to inability to attract qualified personnel, inadequate budget, incorrect procedures, lack of planning and inability to formulate policies or monitor relevant legislation, and ineffective decision-making’.[Bosson & Varon, ibid 157]

At present, Indonesia has a ministry of mines combined with energy, [See the organisational Chart of Indonesia’s Department of Mines and Energy] which is speculated to be separated soon. Actually, to some extent, the need for an effective ministry of mines is also shared by Indonesia. Today, for instance, a review on the organisational structure of the Directorate-General for General Mining is taking place.

The World Bank again has also pointed out primary responsibilities off a ministry of mines, they are:[Bosson & Varon, ibid 158-9]
• planning and co-ordinating current operations and future development;
• establishing an effective documentation centre; and
• supervising compliance with the mining legislation which is ‘sometimes the only function of a mining ministry but, sadly, one which is often neglected.’

2. A Working Geological Survey

To invest in the mineral sector development, an investor must have a plan which requires a factual basis. Thus, a government that wishes to develop its mineral resources must prepare a geological map of the entire country. It is crucial to keep in mind that it is the government’s duty to supply basic geological data and maps, and to carry out the infrastructure geology.

Officially, in Indonesia, this particular task is handled by the Directorate-General of Geology & Mineral Resources (DGGMR).[Presidential Decree No. 15 of 1984] Last year, the Directorate-General finished its duty in preparing a geological map of the entire country. However, it has still to deal with problems in fulfilling its function regarding basic geological data. A good Geological Survey must be able to obtain all data from surveys by private parties or other public agencies. One example is in the sector of coal, not to mention data held by private parties, all data in the public domain are widely scattered. Apart from data held by the DGGMR, there are data held by Pertamina (coal-related data collected from drilling) and PT PTBA (the State Coal Corporation).

3. The Availability of Onshore Financial Institutions

This is in particular essential for medium and small-scale mining operations, [Bosson & Vron ibid 160] since large-scale mining projects have usually relied on offshore sources.[Mikesell & Whitney, ibid 96. That is why for foreign investors in the mining industry, the availability of offshore financing is essential apart from the stable political-economic conditions of the country in whichh the mining is taking place. Ibid 104]
Indonesia does not have a special bank for mining. Although it has a development bank, the writer doubts whether this bank has a special window which serves the mining industry. However, commercial banks in Indonesia (including Bank Bukopin) have already been involved in financing the medium and small-scale mining sector, but it is also doubtful whether they serve the mining industry as effectively and probably not as generously as other sectors.

The Department of Mines and Energy has taken an active role in promoting the mining industry to bankers in Indonesia. Last year, for instance, it gave a seminar in the Reserve Bank (Bank of Indonesia). Bank Bukopin, for instance, has showed its strong interest in coal mining by small-scale operators. Also in this context, the Department of Mines and Energy has actively promotes the opening up of a ‘Mining House’ within the domestic stock exchanges in order to support mineral exploration and exploitation activities.

4. The Establishment of State-Owned Operating Company

This is particularly important if a country wants to establish a state monopoly to develop its mineral resources or to joint ventures with the private sector.[Bosson & Varon, ibid 161] However, this entity must be established as a stock company operating under the same rules and regulations as a private company.[Ibid] It must pay tax as any other company, transfer earnings to the government only as dividends, must be free from political interference in its daily operations, recruit staff on a professional basis, and must be headed by people who, though they may be political appointees, bring high professional competence to the job.[Ibid] In further, the company must have managerial and financial autonomy.[Ibid, 163] Employment policies must be also competitive with the private sector.[Ibid]

The current position of Indonesia shows us that the oil & gas industry is still a state monopoly.[Actually, radioactive minerals are also the state monopoly. However, no activities occurred in this are yet] Pertamina, the State Oil Company is, however, not a stock company but is claimed as a ‘corporate body’ established under a special statute (Pertamina Act 1971).[The Pertamina Act 1971 regulates the operation of this company] In the area of general mining, Indonesia has PT Timah (the State Tin Corporation), PT Tambang Batubara Bukit Asam (the State Coal Corporation), and PT Aneka Tambang (the State Corporation for Various Minerals). These three companies are now stock companies operating under the same laws and regulations as a private company. In fact, PT Timah has been partially privatised which will be followed soon by PT Tambang Batubara Bukit Asam.

Thus, apart from the petroleum industry, the Indonesian Government, to some extent, has walked away from the principle of permanent sovereignty over its mineral resources into a privatisation. This was stimulated by the fact that the country is lacking public funds and its heavy debt has caused difficulties in borrowing from international finance institutions.

With the swing into a privatisation, a future Indonesian mining code must provide a better legal framework defining, the relations between the investor and the government. The fundamental premise is that without a mining law, no mining right can be established; without a right, no company would venture to risk its capital.

Thus for Indonesia, a review in the granting of the so called ‘Contracts of Work’ concluded directly with the Government is crucial. This practice, although using the name authorised by the Mining Act 1967 does not have a legal foundation. Under the Mining Act 1967, a mining activity without a mining title is illegal. This particular contract is not limited to exploration activities carried out on behalf of the Government but a mineral development. In recognising the problem, a suggestion has been made by the World Bank to have a provision in a modern mining code requiring a contract to be annexed to each mining right.[Bosson & Varon, ibid 269]

5. A Proper Control over Mineral Products

A state marketing monopoly is one method in controlling mineral products. The reason for particular government to centralise the marketing functions is to strengthen its role as a controller and co-ordinator, [Ibid 157] especially to exercise its fuller control over its export earnings and foreign exchange flows. This method will, certainly, push away potential investors interested in large-scale projects because in many cases, the viability of large-scale projects depends upon the captive markets provided by the sponsors. Too often, these offshore financing parties require repayment in kind and firm marketing contracts.

Another method to maintain the role of controlling mineral products by the government is by imposing special rules like the meeting of the domestic need, including ‘the basis for establishing prices and by exercising the right of prior approval of all sales contracts’.[Ibid 163-4]

At present, the Indonesian government does not have monopoly on marketing its mineral products. There is no demand for the Indonesian government to take this role in the future either. So far, the Indonesian government has utilised the second method that of market regulator. A special rule of meeting the domestic need has been imposed for the coal industry. In the past, this requirement did not create problems to coal producers, due to the insignificant domestic demand on coal. However, an increase in the domestic need has made large producers put their efforts demanding the government to lift this condition from their contracts.

As to the control through the basis for establishing prices, the Indonesian government, for gold for instance has used the London Metal Exchange quotation. As to the control by exercising the right of prior approval for all sales contracts, the Indonesian government has this provision in mining contracts. There has been many complaints made by large producers about this requirement. They argued that their competitiveness has been disadvantaged, if they have to get the government’s approval every time they enter a tender. In response to this request, the Indonesian government requires prior approval for long term contracts only. However, the producers are asking for a change from getting an approval into a notification only.

6. An Establishment of a Suitable and Efficient Research and Development Institute

Indonesia is one of the developing countries that has already set up its own R&D Institute serving the mining sector.[The Mineral Technical Research & Development Centre (Pusat Penelitian dan Pengembangan Teknologi Mineral; PPPTM)] In line with the World Bank’s suggestion, due to the readiness of many R&D institutes in the world and also the possibility for a regional co-operation in R&D, it is important to bear in mind that the Indonesian R&D must emphasise in the acquisition of special expertise and training for the characteristic of the country’s mineralogy only.[Bosson & Varon, ibid 165]

7. A Flexible and Dynamic Mining Code

Normally, a mining code is a reflection of a national mining policy. Thus, any change in the policy must be adjusted in the mining code or at least in its supplementary laws. In addition, due to the continuous change, a periodical revision of the mining code is prudent. The Mining Act 1967 is the current basic mining code of Indonesia. As mentioned earlier, it is now being revised.

Ideally speaking, investors will be happy if they can deal only with one department: the ministry for mines which possibility will be achieved only if the mining code also covers the taxation, investment and other related matters. This one stop service has claimed to be a motto for the Directorate-General of General Mining in granting a mining title. However, this has not yet been achieved for investors in Indonesia, where apart from the Department of Mines and Energy they have also still to deal with the Department of Forestry, the Department of Internal Affairs, the Capital Investment Co-ordinating Board, the Department of Transmigration, the Department of Agriculture, the Department of Transportation etc.

8. A Sound Mining Taxation & Revenue Sharing

The basic premise of a mineral policy is that the country should benefit from every mining activity. On the other hand, a delay in mining means also a loss to the country. If in the mineral development by public sector, the contribution to the economy depends on the efficiency of operations, with privatisation investors must be allowed a normal return on their capital while the governments are entitled to gain revenue from the mining of their non-renewable resources.

Below are some elements of a fiscal regime in the mineral sector:
• administrative fees which are generally small but should cover the cost of the service;
• surface taxes (land rental) which are normally low because the main purpose is to ensure continuity and effective work of the area. A consideration must be made in imposing a rate that can discourage a practice of speculation;
• royalties which are paid to the owner of the mineral deposit. Normally, the rate is specified in the tax code but can be also negotiated. Royalties are set as a percentage of the gross, market, or mine-head value of the mineral extracted;
• export taxes, import taxes, and artificial exchange rates;
• income taxes (corporate tax);
• tax concession & subsidies;
• repatriation.

In Indonesia, there is a problem in regards with the imposing of administrative fees. The old regulation of Indonesia does not allow the government to impose an administrative fee on public service. This has been a problem also in providing prospective investors with printed brochures and regulations since the government does not have fund to provide them but cannot charge a service fee.

As to the surface taxes, apart from the dead rent imposed by the Department of Mines and Energy, mining title holders are also charged with a land and building tax which is not exclusively applied to the mining industry only but to all industries and private land owners. The Department of Mines and Energy has been successful in persuading the Taxation Department to impose lower rates for the mining sector.

As to the income taxes, mining companies are levied with a single income tax which is a central government’s tax. Thus, provincial governments do not levy income tax. However, these provincial governments impose regional taxes, of which vehicle tax is the importance one.

As to the revenue sharing, it is important to bear in mind about the basic principle in this area which is the encouragement for further investment rather than concentrating in gaining more revenue by imposing higher rate of taxes.[Bosson & Varon ibid 170] The Department of Mines and Energy of Indonesia has, to some extent, made its efforts to bring the Tax Department to recognise the high risk of the mining industry so that it can impose a lower income tax rate but has generally failed to make this change.

9. The Passing of Other Legislation

Apart from the mining and tax codes, in the case of privatisation in the mineral development, a good investment code is required. It is crucial that this legislation must provide guarantees to investors.

Indonesia has already had a special law in investment. The current legislation is the Foreign Investment Act 1967 which was passed 11 months before the passing of the Mining Act 1967. The Investment Act has the guarantee provision needed.

10. The Availability of Specialists in dealing with Multinationals & Proper Utilisation of Technical Assistance

It has been indicated that most developing countries are facing the lack of negotiators. This disadvantage may result in a loss to the host government because its interests are not protected or to the other extreme, no investment made because it frightens away potential investors.[Ibid 175] To some extent, this lack of expertise also causes a delay in the negotiating process. It is suggested that countries should not hesitate to engage experts to assist in such negotiations.[Ibid] Although the effectiveness of this mechanism is now in question since external factors such as the roles play by the international market and the international banking system are becoming more influential.[S Zorn, Recent Trends in LDC Mining Agreements, in Sideri & Johns (ed.), Mining for Development in the Third World: Multinational Corporations, State Enterprises and the International Economy (1980) 217]

As to the technical assistance, it has also been indicated that many developing countries refuse this aid and persuade themselves that they have sufficient internal capability.[Bosson & Varon, ibid 175] According to the World Bank, again, this attitude is wrong because this aid can be utilised in training nationals.[Ibid 177]

Today, not much of this aid is available. The current framework is that the project is funded half:half. The aid provider institution finances its experts and the recipient government finances its own personnels. Ironically, due to the lack of negotiators who can protect the interest of the Government, many technical assistance arrangements are not really aimed for the transfer of technology or training of nationals above mentioned.