<![CDATA[ABSTRAKTerdapat kesenjangan dalam pemaknaan Precautionary Principle antara sebelum dan sesudah Putusan MK Nomor 18/PUU-XII/2014. Sebelum putusan tersebut, Precautionary Principle diartikan sebagai prinsip yang mewajibkan adanya pembuktian ilmiah atas kegiatan usaha terhadap lingkungan. Sedangkan pasca Putusan MK a quo, pembuktian ilmiah ini menjadi hal yang tidak mutlak diperlukan, karena putusan tersebut menganggap bahwa setiap pelaku usaha yang sedang melakukan perpanjangan izin pengelolaan limbah, dianggap telah memiliki izin meskipun izinnya belum keluar. Padahal, izin pengelolaan limbah adalah elemen penting guna menjaga kelestarian lingkungan sehingga diperlukan konsep perizinan yang rumit, ilmiah, serta berdasarkan pertimbangan yang matang. Selain itu, pasca putusan ini, bagi setiap pelaku usaha yang sedang melakukan proses perpanjangan Izin Pengelolaan Limbah, tidak dapat dipidana apabila dalam kenyataan ditemukan pelanggaran izin. Penelitian ini berusaha untuk merumuskan bentuk pemaknaan baru mengenai Precautionary Principle Pasca Putusan MK a quo. Penelitian ini adalah penelitian yuridis normatif, dengan menggunakan pendekatan perundang-undangan dan pendekatan konsep. Kata kunci: limbah b3; mahkamah konstitusi; precautionary principle.ABSTRACTThere is a gap in the meaning of the Precautionary Principle before and after the Constitutional Court Decision Number 18/PUU-XII/2014. Prior to this decision, the Precautionary Principle was defined as a principle that requires scientific evidence of business activities towards the environment. Meanwhile, after the decision, scientific evidence is not absolutely necessary. The decision considers that every business actor who is currently extending a waste management permit is deemed to have had a permit even though the permit has not been issued. In fact, a waste management permit is an important element in protecting the environment. So that, a licensing concept that is complex, scientific, and based on careful considerations is required. In addition, after this decision, any business actor who is in the process of extending the Waste Management Permit, cannot be punished if in fact there is a permit violation. This study seeks to formulate a new form of meaning regarding the Precautionary Principle after the MK decision. This research is a normative juridical study, using a statutory approach and a conceptual approach.Keywords: hazardous waste; constitutional court; precautionary principle. ]]>
Copyrights © 2021
