Understanding Delegated Legislation in The Natural Resources Sector

The formation of statutory regulations is based on the authority to form. The formation of delegated regulations can originate from orders or authority. In the P3 Law, it is stated that delegated regulation is not only limited to (or “there is a space for delegated regulations other than “) Government Regulations, Presidential Regulations, and Regional Regulations, so it becomes hyper-regulation. This happens in laws and regulations in the field of natural resource management. This article aims to explain the condition of existing delegated regulation in the field of natural resources and its impact on the use of natural resources. The results of this research show that the position and types of delegated regulation in the field of natural resources are not only in the form of Presidential Regulations, Government Regulations, Ministerial Regulations, and Regional Regulations but also delegated legislation regulated in Article 8 of the P3 Law, which is not small in number The implications of delegated legislation can provide technically detailed implementing regulations down to the lowest level institutions/institutions. However, delegation not explicitly limited by the delegation criteria causes hyper-regulation by the executive agency through its functional authority. Apart from that, it opens space for unsynchronization between the substance of higher regulations and delegated regulations, thereby causing ineffective use of natural resources. This study recommends that changes be made to the Law on the Establishment of Laws and Regulations, especially concerning its hierarchy

Denying the accusation of plagiarism: power relations at play in dictating plagiarism as academic misconduct

In academia, plagiarism is considered detrimental to the advancement of sciences, and the plagiarists can be charged with sanctions. However, the plagiarism cases involving three rectors of universities in Indonesia stand out, as they could defend their stand for not committing academic misconduct despite evidence found. By analyzing the three rectors' cases, the present study aims to answer how power relations take a role in plagiarism discourse in Indonesia, particularly in determining what is considered academic misconduct and what is not. By employing critical discourse analysis, we found that when the accusation of plagiarism appears during rectorial elections, the accused could equivocate that the accusation was meant to undermine them as a political opponent. When the accused plagiarists win the election, they have more power to deny and tackle the accusations of plagiarism. The findings indicate that plagiarism issues can be politicized, in which by those in power it can be used as a tool to undermine their political opponents, whereas the accused plagiarists can claim that the actual problem is personal and not about plagiarism. It is also shown that in the real context, whether something is called plagiarism or not is subject to interpretation by those in power