Syanuddin, Syanuddin (2023) Analisis Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 18/puu-xii/2014 Terhadap Pengujian Undang- Undang Nomor 32 Tahun 2009 Tentang Perlindungan Dan Pengelolaan Lingkungan Hidup Terhadap Undang- Undang Dasar 1945. Other thesis, Universitas Islam Riau.

Text 171010582.pdf - Submitted Version Restricted to Registered users only Download (2MB) | Request a copy

Abstract

Article 59 paragraph (4) juncto Article 102 Law Number 32 of 2009 requires a permit for the management of B3 waste, but on the other hand Article 95 paragraph (1) stipulates that the producer of B3 waste is required to manage the B3 waste produced with the threat of criminal sanctions if not do it. The existence of these two contradictory norms has harmed the constitutional right to "recognition of guarantees, protection and fair legal certainty", as stipulated in Article 28D paragraph (1) of Law Number 32 of 2009. Therefore a legal issue arose which then the existence of this article The examiner submitted a judicial review of the Article in Law Number 32 of 2009 concerning Environmental Protection and Management which then raised the question of what was the basis for the considerations of the Panel of Judges of the Constitutional Court in carrying out the review of Article 59 Paragraph (4), Article 95 Paragraph (1) ) and Article 102 of Law No. 32 of 2009 concerning the Protection and Management of the Environment against the 1945 Constitution. The main problem in this study is how the constitutional judges consider the decision of the constitutional court number 18/PUU-XII/2014 concerning the protection and management of the environment and what are the implications of the decision of the constitutional court number 18/PUU-XII/2014 concerning the protection and management of the environment. This research is included in normative legal research, namely analyzing problems from the point of view or according to applicable provisions or laws and regulations. Coupled with other legal materials consisting of literature books, papers, articles, research results and other scientific works related to this research. In this study, the results obtained were that the Constitutional Court bases it on positive legal considerations and legal considerations other than positive law. Whereas as argued by the Petitioner, Article 59 paragraph (4) in conjunction with Article 102 and Article 95 paragraph (1) of Law Number 32 of 2009, in decision number 18/PUU-XII/2014, the Court declared Article 59 paragraph (4) of the PPLH Law contrary to the 1945 Constitution and does not have binding legal force as long as it does not mean "B3 waste management must obtain a permit from the minister, governor or regent/mayor in accordance with their authority and for B3 waste management whose application for permit extension is still in process must be deemed to have obtained a permit" . The Constitutional Court judge also removed the word "can" and gave a conditional unconstitutional interpretation of the phrase "environmental crime" in Article 95 paragraph (1) of the PPLH Law as long as it does not mean "including other criminal acts stemming from violations of this law."

Actions (login required)

View Item