![\"\"](\"https:\/\/bitra.or.id\/2012\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/12\/uu-desa_uu-no-11-cipta-kerja-tentang-desa.jpg\")
TRIBUN-MEDAN.com, MEDAN \u2013 The North Sumatran Civil Society Advocacy Network (JAMSU) assessed that the implementation of the Village Law in North Sumatra was hampered by vertical and horizontal implementing regulations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
“JAMSU’s normative study found disharmony and disharmony between the Village Law and its implementing regulations, both vertically and horizontally (sectoral),” said Iswan Kaputra, Deputy Director of Indonesian Rural Skills Development (BITRA) North Sumatra, Grand Antares Hotel Medan, Tuesday (30 \/11\/2021),<\/p>\n\n\n\n
This was conveyed by him while attending the National Seminar on Opportunities and Challenges of Law Number 11 of 2020 concerning Job Creation on the Implementation of Law Number 6 of 2014 concerning Villages.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
It is said that JAMSU has paid attention to the Village Law since at least 2015. This is because it realizes that the Village Law is relevant for village progress.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Therefore, it focuses on the extent to which aspects of its implementation. So far, there are at least 4 results of joint studies on villages.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
One of the highlights is the issue of village authority, the unsynchronization of various Government Regulations (PP), including Government Regulation Number 47 of 2015 amendments to Government Regulation Number 43 of 2014 concerning Implementing Regulations of Law No. 6 of 2014 concerning Villages.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Basically, all the results of the research carried out illustrate that there are still many problems in the implementation of the Village Law.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
This problem has not been answered, then Law No. 11 of 2020 concerning Job Creation (UU CK) appears.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The law, which is synonymous with a number of controversies, has received critical attention and rejection from various elements of civil society, including academics, labor organizations, environmental and human rights organizations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
As a result, there were dozens of Government Regulations (PP) which were also ratified in 2021.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The reason is that if observed in the Academic Paper of the Job Creation Bill, there are at least 11 clusters included in the material content of this law, including: Simplification of Licensing, Investment Requirements, Employment, Ease of Doing Business, Empowerment and Protection of MSMEs, Research and Innovation Support, Government Administration, Imposition of Sanctions, Land Acquisition, Ease of Investment and Government Projects, and Special Economic Zones.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Thus, after being stipulated and ratified into the Job Creation Act, then there is a mandate to follow up in its implementation through a Government Regulation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
“And the village is one aspect that faces direct consequences from this new regulation. There are at least 7 PPs issued after the CK Law, according to the results of observations, JAMSU intersects with villages,” he said.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
PP Number 11 of 2021 concerning Village-Owned Enterprises (BUM Desa) directly changes the juridical position of the Village Law.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
In addition, there are 6 (six) other government regulations that have an indirect impact on the material content of the Village Law, namely: PP Number 6 of 2021 concerning the Implementation of Regional Business Licensing, PP Number 18 of 2021 concerning Management Rights, Land Rights, Flats Units and Land Registration, PP Number 19 of 2021 concerning the Implementation of Land Procurement for Development in the Public Interest, PP Number 20 of 2021 concerning Control of Abandoned Areas and Land, PP Number 22 of 2021 concerning Implementation of Environmental Protection and Management and PP Number 23 of 2021 concerning Forestry Management.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Although the material content does not provide a direct mandate for changes to the Village Law, in its implementation it is based on the sectoral arrangements in question.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The implementation of the Village Law must still be synchronized with the PP derived from the Job Creation Law.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
“Therefore, in general, this law is held hostage to the operational aspects and unilateral government policies,” he said.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
For example, in terms of village development, it seems that the government is still more focused on physical development projects than the development of Human Resources (HR).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
In addition, technical regulations that have not accommodated the initial spirit of independence as the idea of the birth of this law.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Even the technical implementation regulations actually reduce and distort the implementation of the Village law into very technical matters such as absorption of village funds, infrastructure projects and administrative reports.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
“As a result, the Village law deals with technocratic regimes and sectoral regimes,” he concluded<\/p>\n\n\n\n