Speaker of Bangka Belitung Parliament, Ismeriadi, when giving information as Petitionersâ Expert in the review of Act on Mineral Mining held by the Constitutional Court, Wednesday (9/3) at the Plenary Courtroom of the Constitutional Court.
Jakarta, MKOnline - People in Bangka Belitung had been hindered by the enactment of Act No. 4 of 2009 about Mineral and Coal Mining (Act on Mining). That was expressed by the Speaker of Bangka Belitung Parliament, Ismeriadi, when he gave information as a Petitioners’ expert in the review of Act on Mining held by the Constitutional Court (The Court) on Wednesday (9/3), at The Court’s Plenary room.
This session held by The Court was for three cases at the same time, they are case No. 25/PUU-VIII/2010, 30/PUU-VIII/2010 and 32/PUU-VIII/2010. The three cases were filed by several legal entities and individual citizens among others are the Indonesian Forum for Environment (WALHI), Union of Indonesian Legal and Human Rights Aid (PBHI), Association of Indonesian Tin Entrepreneur (APTI), Association of Indonesian People’s Mining (ASTRADA) of Bangka Belitung Province and many others.
“People of Bangka Belitung, don’t you ever dream of taking advantage of the natural resources coming from their own land with the existence of this kind of law. There is an inequality in having a license due to the enactment of this Act on Mining,” emphasized Ismeriadi when giving information about the difference in the license given to PT Timah by the Government.
According to Ismeriadi, PT Timah had a license which would expire in year 2027, meanwhile the common license issued by the Bangka Belitung Regional Government, whether the Governor, Mayors until Regents, only lasted until 2013. Then, Ismeriadi also considered that the maximum limitation of 25 meters as a criteria to determine the area for public mining as irrational. “Public mining only uses simple tools, which is a hoe, Your Honor, Is 25 meter depth possible to be reached? This is an irrational regulation,” he exclaimed.
Meanwhile, another Petitioners’ Expert, I Nyoman Nurjaya, stated that as a legal norm, Act on Mining should have paid attention to several principles among others the principle of natural resources management, principle of justice, also principle of democracy. “In natural resources management principle, there are several other principles, namely cautiousness, licensing, supervising, also evaluating and monitoring. What happens in the field is usually until the stage of the issuing the license, then the Government gives total authority to the entrepreneurs without supervision also evaluation and monitoring,” he pointed out.
The Government in this session also presented their Experts, namely Simon Sembiring and David Silalahi. In his explanation, Simon stated that the Act on Mining contained a stipulation on conservation as evidence that the Government protected the non-renewable natural resources like coal. “That this Act contains conservation element is proven by the existence of area limitation. Not to mention the change from a contract to a license. This Act strengthens the Government’s role as a regulator that guarantees people’s right due to mining activities,” he explained.
Then, another Expert from the Government, Daud Silalahi demanded the Petitioner not to see the Act separately. According to Daud, that would eliminate the meaning of the Act. “Act on Mineral Mining has to be seen as a whole. This Act should not be considered and interpreted by articles and do not separate in sections. The forefront of this Act is the Analysis on Environmental Impacts (AMDAL). That should not be forgotten,” he reminded.
The Petitioners in their lawsuit made an objection to the enactment of Article 6 paragraph (1) in conjunction with Article 9 paragraph (2), Article 10 huruf b, Article 22 huruf f, Article 38, Article 52 paragraph (1), Article 55 paragraph (1), Article 58 paragraph 91), Article 61 paragraph (1), Article 75 paragraph (4), Article 172, dan Article 173 paragraph (2). According to the Petitioners, the articles a quo had damaged their constitutional rights as guaranteed by the 1945 Constitution (Lulu Anjarsari/mh/YDJ)
Wednesday, March 09, 2011 | 17:48 WIB 152