S, Sulastri Elfrida. (2023) Eksistensi Peraturan Daerah Tentang Izin Mendirikan Bangunan Atas Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 91/puu-xviii/2020. Masters thesis, Universitas Islam Riau.

Text 211021039.pdf - Submitted Version Restricted to Registered users only Download (3MB) | Request a copy

Abstract

After the Constitutional Court Decision Number 91/PUU-XVIII/2020 has had an impact on the implementation of building permits (IMB) in district/city governments, this is because one of the Constitutional Court decisions states to suspend all actions/policies that are strategic and have broad impacts , and it is also not permissible to issue new implementing regulations relating to Law Number 11 of 2020 concerning Job Creation for two years. This has an impact on IMB services whereby district/city regional governments are required to issue regional regulations to replace IMB with building approvals (PBG). Based on these problems, there are 2 (two) main problems in this study. First, what is the impact of the Constitutional Court Decision Number 91/PUUXVIII/2020 on the Implementation of Law Number 21 of 2020 Concerning Job Creation. Second, how the implementation of building approval permits (PBG) after Law Number 11 of 2020 concerning Job Creation was declared conditionally unconstitutional by the Constitutional Court. This research uses a normative juridical research method, the approach used in this research is a statutory approach related to the Existence of Regional Regulations Concerning Building Permits Based on Constitutional Court Decision Number 91/PUU-XVIII/2020. Research result. First, the meaning of conditional unconstitutional in the Constitutional Court Decision No. 91/PUU-XVIII/2020, is that the formation of Law no. 11 of 2020 is contrary to the 1945 Constitution. If the legislators succeed in improving it within 2 (two) years, then Law no. 11 of 2020 will become constitutional, on the other hand if the legislators fail to improve it within 2 (two) years, then Law no. 11 of 2020 will be permanently unconstitutional. As long as it is in conditional unconstitutional status, the contents of Law no. 11 of 2020 can still apply, because point 4 of the ruling expressly states Law no. 11 of 2020 is still valid. Second, in Government Regulation Number 16 of 2021 there are other more specific derivative regulations, so this has an impact on ambiguity in interpreting specific provisions, especially in the management of PBG in Regency/City Governments. This is exacerbated because the Regional Government has not been able to issue a Regional Regulation that has been adjusted to the Government Regulation due to one of the Rules of the Constitutional Court Decision Number 91/PUU-XVIII/2020.

Actions (login required)

View Item