No abstract

Law No. 4 of 2009 on Minerals and Coal constitutes the legal basis of mining business activities in Indonesia, in which case foreign companies shall be subject to the provisions of Law Number 13 Year 2016 regarding Patents in the context of holders of mining patents. The provisions of Article 20 paragraph (1) of Law Number 13 Year 2016 regarding Patent states that the Patent holder is obliged to make products or use the process in Indonesia. In the perspective of mining products the process is mandatory in Indonesia, the provision is aimed at patent holders not only to import mining products but they should be able to invest by making mining companies in Indonesia, so that ultimately can occur the absorption of In donesian workforce in the field of mining business. This is in line with the provisions of Article 20 paragraph (2) stating making the product or using the process referred to in paragraph (1) shall support the transfer of technology, the absorption of investment and / or the provision of employment. However, such provision if trace d is contrary to the principle of non-discrimination set forth in the terms of the Trade-Related As pect Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPs) that Indonesia has ratified as Law no. 7 of 1994 on Ratification of Agreement Establishing The World Trade Organization, Article 27 paragraph (1) of the TRIPS Agreement states that a Patent shall be available and patents are enjoyed without discrimination in respect of where it is found, in technology and whether the product is imported or produced locally, The conventional conflict in the perspective of a mining company lies with the subject of patent holders and / or foreign mining companies holding patents in Indonesia shall establish a mining factory in Indonesia that produces a patent product registered in its name in Indonesia, if a mining plant is not present in Indonesia the mining patent is not recognized in Indonesia.

The problems described in this study is law enforcement against bottled drinking water business actors not equipped with marketing permits to maintain food security and what factors are obstacles to law enforcement against bottled drinking water business operators that are not equipped with marketing permits in order to maintain food safety.              This type of research is normative legal research that is moved from the absence of legal norms or legal principles. The absence of legal norms in this study is contained in the provisions of Law No. 8 of 1999 concerning Consumer Protection which does not explicitly regulate bottled drinking water business actors that are not equipped with a marketing authorization to maintain food safety. This study uses a statutory approach and a case approach.              The conclusion of this study is the law enforcement against bottled drinking water business actors that are not equipped with a marketing permit to maintain food security, namely by confiscating and destroying bottled drinking water without a distribution permit in maintaining food security based on statutory regulations namely Law Number 18 Year 2012 concerning Food, besides that, administrative sanctions are also given, namely warning letters and statements to bottled water companies that have not yet completed distribution licenses. Inhibiting factors in law enforcement against bottled drinking water business actors that are not equipped with marketing permits to maintain food safety are bottled drinking water companies that are unwilling to be inspected, implementation of supervision conducted by the Central Agency for Drug and Food Supervision, lack of supervisory personnel from the Food and Drug Supervisor, consumers do not understand the rights and obligations as consumers and retailers or retailers of bottled drinking water products are less responsible for their obligations. Keywords  :  Business actors in bottled drinking water, consumer protection, distribution permit.

The authority to grant permits to venture capital companies has a dualism of authority. The Financial Services Authority and the Ministry of Finance both have the authority to give licenses to venture capital companies. It can be seen that there are overlaps or conflicts of authority in this case institutional or legal institutions are authorized to give permission to venture capital companies. A norm of conflict over the authority of granting permission to venture capital companies, namely the Minister of Finance Regulation No. 18 / PMK.010 / 2012 concerning Venture Capital Companies (VCC) in Article 11 paragraph (1) VCCs are established in the form of limited liability companies or cooperatives, Article 12 paragraph (1) Legal entities as referred to Article 11 paragraph (1) the which carry out activities as VCC must first obtain a business permit from the Minister. Whereas the Financial Services Authority (FSA) Regulation No. 34 / POJK.05 / 2015 Concerning Business Licensing and Institutional Venture Capital Companies, in article 3 Paragraph (1) Every party conducting business activities for VCC or Sharia VCC must obtain a business license from the FSA. On the one hand the Ministry of Finance has the authority to issue a Venture Capital Company permit, but on the other hand the Financial Services Authority is also authorized to issue a Venture Capital Company permit. It is understandable that the position of state institutions and / or institutions of the Ministry of Finance with the Financial Services Authority is equal, in this case the same law was born, namely Law Number 39 of 2008 concerning the State Ministry and Law No. 21 of 2011 concerning Institutions Financial Services Authority.

No abstract