Natural wealth does not guarantee the welfare of its inhabitants. This case occurred in Papua, the easternmost region of Indonesia, which won the title of the poorest province from 2017 to 2021. Freeport McMoRan, an American mining corporation operating since 1967, failed to present a positive impact on the welfare of the Papuan people despite having dredged a lot of money from Grasberg, one of the largest reserves of gold and copper in the world. This paper reviews the portrait of abject poverty in Papua and analyzes its problems with the rights and justice approach. In conclusion, this paper finds that poverty for the Papuan people is very complicated because it is related to the historical roots of colonialism, capitalism, and armed conflicts. The special autonomy granted by the Indonesian government for twenty years has not been able to provide for people's welfare due to violent conflicts, human rights violations, natural destruction, and corruption. The Indonesian government is obliged to realize justice in the economic, political, and cultural dimensions for the welfare of the Papuan people.

The present article concentrates on the potential links between financial law, water management and water protection in a wider sense. The special focus of the paper is the ownership and property issues of waters. Taking these issues into consideration the author presents that the regulation of water ownership belongs to several aspects of financial law, such as the issue of the ownership of water into national assets-state and municipal property, water regulation, financial issues of water management, rules of water utilization, or it is precisely the regulation of water use charges, whether in the form of fines (groundwater fines, sewage penalties) or contributions (water supply charges). The author draws the attention to the need of regulation-simplification and more integrated solutions in connection with the topic.

Several Indonesian State-Owned Enterprises (SOEs) have had very high debts recently. Several reasons, such as government assignment projects, the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic, and corrupt management behaviour, have caused the increase in liability. There is a fierce debate among academics and legal scholars regarding whether the SOE’s debt is state debt. A state company is an independent legal entity separate from the state and obtains capital from separated state assets. Besides, the state, as the majority shareholder, assigns SOEs to projects that support government programs even though they are not profitable. In addition, several SOEs often receive State Equity Participation to survive bankruptcy caused by running out of capital or large debts. This paper will analyse the country's debt status from the perspective of public finance by taking the case of Indonesia. Moreover, it will explore the theoretical and empirical aspects of SOE’s debt from a state finance point of view. This study will use doctrinal legal research to interrogate the law as it is and should be. Although this research concludes that SOEs' finances are a state financial regime, the supervision of SOEs is not Government Judgment Rules but Business Judgment Rules. SOE's debt is the responsibility of SOE as a corporate legal entity. In the case of Indonesia, the government often rescues SOEs that have failed to pay their debts through State Equity Participation and/or privatisation while maintaining most state ownership shares, for instance, Garuda Indonesia, a national airline. Finally, state accountability for SOE's debt only occurs indirectly because of the financial separation between the state and companies. The Indonesian government saved Garuda Indonesia's finances to protect national assets and continue to control vital businesses. However, the state must also reform the management of SOEs so as not to harm state finances by upholding good corporate governance and preventing fraud and corruption.

Privatization is a crucial issue for third-world countries such as Indonesia. In the electricity sector, which is the lifeblood of the community, the involvement of the private sector is a crucial concern. Two judicial reviews of the electricity law in 2003 and 2015 proved the significant issue of privatization in electricity. This study analyzes how the state regulates the privatization policy of the electricity sector in Indonesia. This study, a normative or doctrinal legal research model, explores electricity regulations and doctrines such as Laws Number 20 of 2002 and Number 30 of 2009, Law Number 11 of 2020 on Job Creation, and two decisions of the Constitutional Court number 001-021-022/PUU-I/2003 and 111/PUU-XIII/2015. In conclusion, this study explains that Indonesia allows the privatization of the electricity sector throughout the role of private companies is still under state control. Privatization, which is a reduction in the role of the state and an increase in the role of the private sector, has been well implemented by state-owned enterprises, including the electricity sector. Both decisions of the Constitutional Court emphasize the strong role of the state and become the majority in controlling the electricity business, but do not reject the role of the private sector. Furthermore, state-owned enterprises have a top priority as a provider of electricity for the community.