Rudy Rudy, I Ketut Dharma Putra Yoga, Robi Cahyadi Kurniawan, Aristoteles Aristoteles, Chaidir Ali, Ryzal Perdana


Indonesia's legislative development has been characterized by hyperlegislation and, in some cases, a lack of coordination. As a result, Indonesia is incorporating an Omnibus Law method into its legislative system in an effort to increase legislative efficiency. President Jokowi launched this initiative in early 2020, when he included two Omnibus Law draughts, which were enacted as Law No. 11 of 2020 on Job Creation, and as Law No. 7 of 2021 on Harmonization of Tax Regulations in his National Legislation Program. However, there is some debate over the Omnibus Law's incorporation into the Indonesian legislation system, as it is based on common law, whereas the Indonesian legal system is based on civil law. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to examine how the concept of the Omnibus Law is integrated into the Indonesian legal system. Methods: This study, conducted by adopting a normative research method with a conceptual approach, found that it is possible to integrate the Omnibus Law legislative method into the Indonesian legal system. Results: Our findings suggest that Indonesia's legislative system should consider special provisions for the Omnibus Law method, which may be challenged in a preview system and may even fall under the doctrine of non-delegation. This system will ensure law coherence and legal certainty in the application of the Omnibus Law, as well as the efficacy of legislation development and the quality of the Omnibus Law's draft. Such an idea could only be implemented through legislative amendments, as required by Law No. 12 of 2011 on Legislation Making and the 1945 Constitution. Conclusion: The method of legislation development used in the Omnibus Law could be considered a viable option as long as the methods used to draught the law are consistent with the principles outlined in Law No. 12 of 2011 on Legislation Making. However, the implementation of the Omnibus Law has made insufficient progress due to the extensive use of delegated authority, which results in the emergence of 493 Government Regulations, trapping Indonesia in a coordination failure state or even overregulation. Therefore, the Omnibus Law should be drafted or enacted explicitly as a law without delegated norms or provisions. Thus, efficiency in the legislative process may be achieved.


Omnibus law, civil law, common law, legal system, legislation, Indonesia

Texto completo:

PDF (English)


Adams, J. (1994). Economy as Instituted Process: Change, Transformation, and Progress. Journal of Economic Issues, 28(2), 331–355.

Al Amaren, E. M., Hamad, A. M. A., Al Mashhour, O. F., & Al Mashni, M. I. (2020). An introduction to the legal research method: To clear the blurred image on how students understand the method of the legal science research. International Journal of Multidisciplinary Sciences and Advanced Technology, 1(9), 50–55.

Arinanto, S. (2019). Reviving omnibus law: Legal option for better coherence. The Jakarta Post.

Aswindo, M., Ras, A. R., Simon, A. J., & Hanita, M. (2021). Omnibus Law on Job Creation and Resilience Prospects of Indonesian Migrant Workers. Journal of Social and Political Sciences, 4(4).

Aulianisa, S. S. (2019, October). Menakar Kompabilitas Transplantasi Omnibus Law dalam Konteks Peraturan Perundang-undangan dengan Sistem Hukum Indonesia. Konferensi Ilmiah Pemikiran Kritis Dan Strategi Pembaruan Hukum, Badan Penelitian Dan Pengembangan Hukum Dan HAM.

Bar-Siman-Tov, I. (2015). Mending the legislative process – the preliminaries. The Theory and Practice of Legislation, 3(3), 245–256.

Bar-Siman-Tov, I. (2021). An Introduction to the Comparative and Multidisciplinary Study of Omnibus Legislation (pp. 1–31).

Bhat, P. I. (2019). Idea and methods of legal research. Oxford University Press.

Buana, M. S. (2017, November). Menakar Konsep Omnibus Law dan Consolidation Law untuk Harmonisasi Peraturan Perundang-undangan Indonesia: Pendekatan Perbandingan Hukum Tata Negara. Konferensi Nasional Hukum Tata Negara Ke 4: Penataan Regulasi Di Indonesia.

Cormacain, R. (2015). Burrows and Carter Statute Law in New Zealand. The Theory and Practice of Legislation, 3(3), 373–377.

Duncan, J., Punch, R., Gauntlett, M., & Talbot-Stokes, R. (2020). Missing the mark or scoring a goal? Achieving non-discrimination for students with disability in primary and secondary education in Australia: A scoping review. Australian Journal of Education, 64(1), 54–72.

Fitryantica, A. (2019). Harmonisasi Peraturan Perundang-Undangan Indonesia melalui Konsep Omnibus Law. Gema Keadilan, 6(3).

Fogg, K. W. (2019). Making an Indonesian National Hero for Lombok. Indonesia and the Malay World, 47(137), 1–22.

Fogg, K. W. (2020). Indonesian socialism of the 1950s: from ideology to rhetoric. Third World Quarterly, 42(3), 465–482.

Frankenberg, G. (2010). Constitutional transfer: The IKEA theory revisited. International Journal of Constitutional Law, 8(3), 563–579.

Gislain, J.-J. (2003). L’institution des relations industrielles : le cadre analytique de J. R. Commons. Économie et Institutions, 2, 11–59.

Gluck, A. R. (2021). Unorthodox lawmaking and legislative complexity in American statutory interpretation. In Comparative Multidisciplinary Perspectives on Omnibus Legislation (pp. 195–225). Springer.

Halim, Y., Sudewo, F., & Justian, J. (2019). Transformative-Participatory Legal Research Method for Harmonizing The Existence of The Living Law in Indonesia. Jurnal Media Hukum, 26(2), 146–157.

Harahap, H., Sihombing, B. F., & Hamid, A. (2020). Impact of the Omnibus Law/Job Creation Act in Indonesia. International Journal of Scientific Research and Management, 8(`10), 266–281.

Herlambang, S., Leitner, H., Tjung, L. J., Sheppard, E., & Anguelov, D. (2019). Jakarta’s great land transformation: Hybrid neoliberalisation and informality. Urban Studies, 56(4), 627–648.

Hildebrandt, M. (2018). Law as computation in the era of artificial legal intelligence: Speaking law to the power of statistics. University of Toronto Law Journal, 68(supplement 1), 12–35.

Indrati, S. M. F. (2007). Ilmu Perundang-Undangan. Kanisius.

Krutz, G. S. (2021). Omnibus Legislating in the U.S. Congress (pp. 35–51).

Merryman, J. H., & Pérez-Perdomo, R. (2018). The Civil Law Tradition. Stanford University Press.

Meßerschmidt, K. (2021). Omnibus Legislation in Germany: A Widespread Yet Understudied Lawmaking Practice (pp. 115–137).

Ministry of Law and Human Rights. (2022). Data Peraturan Perundang-Undangan. Direktorat Jenderal Peraturan Perundang-Undangan.

Mor, G., & Jasper, A. (2019). Parliamentary arbitrage and the case for regulatory policy in parliament. The Theory and Practice of Legislation, 7(3), 283–305.

Morel, S. (2010). Employment and Economic Insecurity: A Commonsian Perspective. Studies in Social Justice, 3(2), 213–230.

Mucciaroni, G., & Quirk, P. J. (2010). Rhetoric and Reality: Going beyond Discourse Ethics in Assessing Legislative Deliberation. Legisprudence, 4(1), 35–52.

Nightingale, R. L. (2016). How to Trim a Christmas Tree: Beyond Severability and Inseverability for Omnibus Statutes. The Yale Law Journal, 125(6), 1672–1743.

Pradipto, R. (2020, March). Ketika Perbaikan Kelembagaan Dilupakan: Catatan terhadap Naskah Akademik Omnibus Law Cipta Kerja. Universitas Gajah Mada.

Prahmana, R. C. I., Hartanto, D., Kusumaningtyas, D. A., Ali, R. M., & Muchlas. (2021). Community radio-based blended learning model: A promising learning model in remote area during pandemic era. Heliyon, 7(7), e07511.

Prasetyo, D. E. (2020). Overdelegasi Kuasa Legislasi Presiden.

Putra, A. (2020). Penerapan Omnibus Law dalam upaya reformasi regulasi (The implementation of Omnibus Law as a means of regulatory reform). Jurnal Legislasi Indonesia, 17(1), 1.

Qurbani, I. D., & Zuhdi, M. R. (2020). Analysis of the Energy and Mineral Source Regulation in the Formulation of Job Creation Law (Omnibus Law). Administrative and Environmental Law Review, 1(2), 83.

Riyanto, B. (2020, January). Omnibus Law sebagai Solusi Penyelesaian Permasalahan Hukum dan Peran Notaris dalam Mendukung Reformasi Regulasi. Badan Pembinaan Hukum Nasional.

Rochman, S., Wardiono, K., & Dimyati, K. (2019). The Ontology of Legal Science: Hans Kelsen’s Proposal of the ‘Pure Theory of Law.’ PADJADJARAN Jurnal Ilmu Hukum (Journal of Law), 5(3), 543–557.

Roznai, Y., & Volach, L. (2018). Law reform in Israel. The Theory and Practice of Legislation, 6(2), 291–320.

Setiadi, W. (2021). Regulatory Reform in Support of Indonesia Advancement. I T A L I E N I S C H, 11(1), 180–189.

Setiawan, A., Saputra, H. A., & Fridayani, H. D. (2021). Political communication and public sphere democracy (An analysis: The hastags usage of rejection the Omnibus Law 2020 on Twitter. Profetik: Jurnal Komunikasi, 14(1), 51.

Setiawati, D., Praja, C. B. E., Hakim, H. A., & Boy, M. B. (2021). Indonesian Model Foreign Direct Investment (Omnibus Law): Learning from China.

Shubhan, M. H. (2020). Legal Protection of Solvent Companies from Bankruptcy Abuse in Indonesian Legal System. Academic Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies, 9(2), 142.

Stefanus, H. (2018). Law and politics of constitutional courts: Indonesia and the search for judicial heroes. Routledge.

Taekema, S. (2018). Theoretical and Normative Frameworks for Legal Research: Putting Theory into Practice. Law and Method.

Tetley, W. (2000). Mixed Jurisdictions: Common Law v. Civil Law(Codified and Uncodified). Louisiana Law Review, 60(3).

Turner, M., Prasojo, E., & Sumarwono, R. (2019). The challenge of reforming big bureaucracy in Indonesia. Policy Studies, 1–19.

Voermans, W. (2015). To measure is to know: The quantification of regulation. The Theory and Practice of Legislation, 3(1), 91–111.

Yeung, K. (2018). Algorithmic regulation: A critical interrogation. Regulation & Governance, 12(4), 505–523.



  • Não há apontamentos.

Revista Relações Internacionais do Mundo Atual e-ISSN: 2316-2880

Rua Chile, 1678, Rebouças, Curitiba/PR (Brasil). CEP 80.220-181

Licença Creative Commons

Este obra está licenciado com uma Licença Creative Commons Atribuição-NãoComercial 4.0 Internacional.