Petition filed by the Regent of East Kutai regency, Isran Noor decided not accepted by the Constitutional Court (MK), Tuesday (17 / 1). Petitioner of Dispute Authorities between State Institutions (SKLN) between the Government of East Kutai regency with the Minister of Energy and Mineral Resources in the conclusion considered it had no legal standing.

"Based on the assessment of facts and law as described above, the Court concluded; Court has the authority to adjudicate the petition a quo, the Petitioner has no legal status (legal standing) to file the petition a quo, Principal Petitioner’s petition is considered, "said Chief Justice of the Constitutional Court, Moh.Mahfud MD read the conclusion of the Court to direct that the case registered with No. 3/SKLN-IX/2011.

In this case the circuit court in 2011 and then, it is known that the Petitioners dispute regarding the determination of the mining area as set forth in Article 6 paragraph (1) letter e and Article 9 paragraph (2) Mining Law. Petitioner also consider zoning the mining business as defined in Article 14 paragraph (1) Mining Law harming it. And the last question the applicant regarding the provision authorized by law to establish coal regions such as business license provided for in article 17, paragraph (1) Mining Law.

Concretely, the applicant considers the management of natural resources in East Kutai regency should be done by the Government or the applicant for the welfare of the people, not by the Ministry of Energy and Mineral Resources.

However, Petitioner’s Application came to be raw. Because the Court in its legal considerations regard the division of authority between the Central and Local Government under article 18 paragraph (5) of the 1945 Constitution that the central government in handling the affairs of mineral and coal are clearly defined in the Act 4 of 2009. That is, the authority to take care of Mining has been granted to the Central Government under the Act. Thus, the Court argued that there is no constitutional authority in dispute as referred to Article 24C Paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution, Article 10 paragraph (1) letter b of the Constitutional Court Law, Article 3 paragraph (2) PMK 08/2006.

Court also considered that although the parties are state agencies named in the 1945 Constitution that qualifies as a subjectum litis (the subject of dispute), but which became objectum litis (object of dispute) of the petition a quo is not the authority granted by the 1945 Constitution. So in accordance with the provisions of Article 24C paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution, Article 10 paragraph (1) letter b Law Court, the Petitioner has stated no legal standing.

At the end of its legal considerations, the Court affirmed the Petitioner does not qualify even though the legal position, the Minister who is authorized by Article 17 paragraph (3) of the 1945 Constitution should pay attention to the aspirations of the local and regional communities as well as other laws and regulations related.

Based on all the legal considerations, the Court decided the petition can not be accepted. "Decision, passing, to declare the petition can not be accepted. Hence the decision was in the Consultative Meeting of nine Constitutional Court Justices, "said Mahfud. (Yusti Nurul Agustin/Yazid.tr)

Wednesday, January 18, 2012 | 11:09 WIB 155