Where is article 46 of the Employment Creation Law missing? Palace pretext: Abolition is due to a typo



[ad_1]


PRECISION JOURNAL – Article 46 of the Employment Creation Law is an article that is eliminated when the Secretary of State completes the process of organizing the text of the Law. This has also been recognized by the DPR.

Report by Warta Ekonomi, Dini Purwono as the President’s Special Legal Affairs Personnel explained that the Secretary of State corrected article 46 of the Employment Creation Law that does not modify the subsidy that has been agreed by the DPR Labor Committee.

“What cannot be changed is the substance. The deletion is administrative / typographical (typographical error) in nature and actually makes the substance agree with what was approved at the DPR Baleg Panja meeting,” Dini said. on Friday, October 23, 2020.

Read Also: Calling Jokowi Signing Soon, PKS Faces This Big Shocking Controversy In Job Creation Law

Previously, Supratman Andi Agtas as Chairman of the DPR Body of Legislation (Baleg) revealed that Article 46 related to oil and natural gas should have been removed from the Employment Creation Law.

It is known that article 46 has its origin in article 46 of Law Number 22 of 2001 on Oil and Gas that appears in the Employment Creation Law as recorded in the 812-page manuscript sent by the DPR to the Secretariat of Been to the Merdeka Palace on Wednesday, October 14, 2020.



However, Article 46 was removed from the 1,187-page Manuscript Works Creation Act that was sent by the Secretary of State to various Islamic community organizations.

Also read: Bad news for all opponents of the Ciptaker Law, the palace suddenly conveys this shocking

Supratman emphasized that Article 46 of the Oil and Gas Law is related to the duties of the Downstream Oil and Gas Regulatory Body (BPH) because DPR Panja did not accept the government’s proposal regarding the transfer of authority to determine the rates of BPH Migas toll to the Ministry of Energy and Mineral Resources (ESDM).

“In essence, article 46 should not have been in the final manuscript because at the panja meeting it was decided that the article should revert to the rules of the existing Law,” Dini said.



[ad_2]