ANALISIS KRITIK TERHADAP PUTUSAN MAHKAMAH KONSTITUSI NOMOR 36/PUU-X/2012

This article discusses the Constitutional Court Judgment No. 36/PUU-X/2012. In this judgment, the majority of the Justices decided that the 1945 Constitution requires the State to exercise direct control over the upstream oil and gas activities. Wewill criticise the Justices' deliberation that underlies the decision. The Court failed to shed light on questions pertaining to the legal rationale for 'five activities' doctrine that form the framework of 'State control 'per Article 33 (3) of the Constitution and to the procedures in determining the priority ranking. In addition, the majority Justices are deemed to have left the question of whether the State is able to manage oil and gas industry unanswered. We will also describe how this judgment might result in the declining interest offoreign investors to invest in Indonesia, particularly in the field of exploration and exploitation of natural resources. Artikel ini membahas Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 36/PUU-X/2012. Dalam putusan tersebut, mayoritasHakimKonstitusimemutusbahwa DUDNRI Tahun 1945mensyaratkanNegara secaralangsung menguasai kegiatan hulu Migas. Diuraikan kritik terhadap pertimbangan hukum dari putusan, yakni kelalaian Mahkamah tidak menjelaskan dari mana asal 'lima kegiatan' sebagai komponen "penguasaan negara' dalam PasaI33(3) UUD NRI Tahun 1945, bagaimana menentukan prioritas rangkingnya, dan perihal mayoritas Hakim Konstitusi yang tidak menentukan apakah Negara mampu mengelola industri Migas. Selain itu, diuraikan pula bahwa putusan tersebut berpotensi mengurangi ketertarikan investor asing untuk menanam modalnya di Indonesia, khususnya di bidang eksplorasi dan eksploitasi sumber daya alam