---

 

The government assumes the Petitioner in case Number 3/SKLN-IX/2011 has no legal standing. Because, the Petitioner, which in this case is the regent of East Kutai Regency Isran Noor, not included in state institutions whose authorities are stipulated in the Constitution of 1945. Thus expressed by the representatives of the Government, Edi Prasojo from the Ministry of Energy and Mineral Resources at the hearing the Respondent and Listening Specification Expert, on Thursday (22 / 9) at the Plenary Court courtroom.

According to Edi, Petitioner is not included in the parties may submit case authority dispute of state institutions, especially in Article 2 paragraph (1) of the Constitutional Court. Where, the provision states, state agencies that may be the Petitioner or Respondent in the matter of constitutional authority dispute of state institutions are: a. House of Representatives (DPR); b. Regional Representatives Council (DPD); c. People’s Consultative Assembly (MPR); d. President; e. State Audit Board (BPK); f. Regional Government (Pemda); or g. other state institutions whose authorities are granted by the 1945 Constitution.

Edi argues, the Petitioners also fail to qualify as local government, as referred to in that provision. "Because there is no definition in conformity with the legislation," he said.

In addition, according to him, the petition does not meet the formal requirements.” Because of the substance in question is the authority of the Respondent Petitioner in Mining Act," he said. As the Respondent in this case is the President of Indonesia cq Minister of Energy and Mineral Resources.

To note, in this case question the applicant about three things. Namely first, regarding the determination of the mining area as set forth in Article 6 paragraph (1) letter e and Article 9 paragraph (2) Mining Law. Secondly, regarding the determination of mining areas as defined in Article 14 paragraph (1) Mining Law. Third, the granting of authority by the Act to establish a mineral business license such as territory provided for in article 17, paragraph (1) Mining Law.

While responding to the principal case, the Government argues, there is no problem of authority in this case. Therefore, the authority has been clearly stipulated in Law No. 4 / 2009 on Mineral and Coal.

"That determination is the authority of the Government of the mining area in the management of mineral and coal mining carried out after coordination with local governments and in consultation with the House of Representatives of Indonesia," he explained. Thus, he argues, in practice, these rules also have to accommodate the interests of local governments.

The government’s view has also been strengthened by two experts who presented the Government on the same occasion. They are Syahrir and Tatang Sabarudin.

In expert testimony, they held that the authority of the Central Government through the provisions of the Mining Law, as questioned by the Petitioner is correct. In fact, these rules also provide legal certainty and effective management of the mines are scattered in several regions in Indonesia.

How urgent rule mining area was conducted by the State, by the central government," said Syahrir. "The interests that are local can be seen in its entirety before the end for the prosperity and interests of the people."

In fact, he considered, if there is no ‘interference’ of the Central Government in the management of the mining area of the adverse effects that would appear more likely to happen. "It would be trapped arrogance Local Government," he said.

Tatang added that the Mining Law has also provided ample space to the public, especially people (entrepreneurs mine) small. "Law is already providing space of presence of artisan mining areas," he added. He also confirmed that in practice the determination of the mining area has involved local government and the House of Representatives. (Dodi / mh/Yazid.tr)

 

---