Reviewing materials for Mineral and Coal Mining Act filed by Johan Murod, Zuristyo Firmadata, Nico Plamonia, and Johardi, after two years, finally decided by the Constitutional Court (MK). The Applicant is a tin mining entrepreneur who is members of the Association of Tin Indonesia (APTI) and the Regional People’s Association mining (Astrada) Pacific Islands Province Islands. Matter of Law Number 4 Year 2009 on mineral and coal mining are tested, namely Article 22 letter f, Article 38, Article 52 paragraph (1), Article 55 paragraph (1), Article 58 paragraph (1), Article 61 paragraph (1), Article 75 paragraph (4), Article 172 and Article 173 paragraph (2). Stated in the ruling of the Court granted in part the petition. 

"To grant the petition of the Petitioner for the most part," said Chairman of the Plenary Court Justice Moh. Mahfud MD in the courtroom with the verdict pronounced Number 30/PUU-VIII/2010 agenda, Monday (06/04/2012) at the Plenary Meeting Room Floor. 2 The Court building. Court then stated the test of Article 22 letter f, Article 52 paragraph (1), Article 169 letters a, and Article 173 paragraph (2) Mining Law is not acceptable. As for the Article 55 paragraph (1) along the phrase "with an area of at least 500 (five hundred) hectares and", Article 61 paragraph (1) along the phrase "with an area of at least 5,000 (five thousand) hectares and", the Court stated that the phrase contrary to the 1945 Constitution and has no binding legal force. 

The Court also stated the phrase "by auction" in Article 51, Article 60 and Article 75 paragraph (4) Mining Law against the 1945 Constitution and has no binding legal effect throughout the auction conducted by equating interpreted participants of WIUP and WIUPK auction in terms of administrative capacity / management, technical, environmental, and financial resources to different objects to be auctioned. Court in its opinion stated, the provisions of Article 22 letter a to letter e Mining Law may be applied cumulatively or alternatively in accordance with the conditions of each area of establishment refers to the mechanism provided for in Article 21 and Article 23 of Mining Law and its explanation. 

Therefore, taking into account Indonesia’s geographical condition, the norm has been appropriate and not contrary to the 1945, so the argument of the petition has not been proven according to law. Similarly, Petitioners’ argument regarding the provisions of Article 38 letter a Mining Law, the Court found Petitioner not legally proven. The petitioners in their petition argues the phrase "by auction" in Article 51, Article 60 and Article 75 paragraph (4) Mining Law has weakened the position and competitiveness of the applicant as a small / medium enterprises to entrepreneurs / owners of big capital and foreign capital owners . Court’s opinion, to provide legal certainty and business opportunity fair in mining, according to the Court, the phrase "by auction" in Article 51, Article 60 and Article 75 paragraph (4) of Law 4/2009 against the 1945 Constitution be interpreted along the auction done by equating among the participants of WIUP and WIUPK auction in terms of the ability of administrative / management, technical, environmental, and financial resources to different objects to be auctioned. 

Then the Petitioners’ argument regarding the establishment of a minimum area of the mining operating license (WIUP) Exploration set forth in Article 55 paragraph (1) and Article 61 paragraph (1) Mining Law harms the constitutional rights of the mining entrepreneurs of small and medium enterprises. Court argued that the broad limits of at least 500 hectares and 5,000 hectares will reduce or even eliminate the rights of employers in the mining sector that will carry out exploration and production operations in the WIUP. Because it is not necessarily available in a wide area of exploration WIUP minimum of 500 and 5,000 acres, especially if you have previously set WPR and WPN. As for Petitioner’s argument on judicial review of Article 172 Mining Law, the Court argued, the arguments of the Petitioners are not proven according to law. The Petitioners argue the constitutionality of Article 169 and Article 173 letters a paragraph (2) Mining Law, but not filed in a petition, so the argument of the petition was dismissed by the Court. (Rosihin Nur Ana / mh/Yazid.tr)