The Constitutional Court granted the petition of the petitioner in the trial of Act No. 4 Year 2009 on Mineral and Coal Mining filed Fatriansyah work and Fahrizan, two citizens of the Cape Village, District Muntok, West Bangka Regency, Province of the Pacific Islands on Monday (4/6) afternoon, at the Plenary Court courtroom . In a plenary session on Case No. 25/PUU-VIII/2010 chaired by the Chief Justice of the Constitutional Court, Moh. Mahfud MD, the Court stated that the subject of the petition of the Petitioners argued by law. "To grant the petition of the applicant for all," said Mahfud. 

There are two articles that were tested in this case, the Article 22 letters e and f, and Article 52 paragraph (1) Mining Law. To Article 22 letter e, the Court found the provisions of all the phrase "and / or" contrary to the constitution. Similarly with Article 52 paragraph (1), is also considered binding legal force throughout the phrase "with an area of at least 5,000 (five thousand) hectares and”. In his judgment, the Court argued, the provisions of the Mining Area People (WPR) in the Mining Law is a form of implementation of Article 33 of the 1945 Constitution which mandate to the state to get involved or take an active role in taking measures in order to honor (respect), protection, and fulfillment of economic rights and social citizenship. 

Therefore, according to the Court, as far as the criteria listed in Article 22 letter a to letter e, is not the norm because it contains a contradiction between the criteria with other criteria may be applied under the conditions of each region are different from each other, so the criteria listed in the letter a to letter e can be applied alternatively or cumulatively. However, continued the Court, if it is associated with the Article 22 letter f, it has the potential to obstruct the right of people to participate and meet the needs of the economy through mineral and coal mining activities, due to the fact that not all artisanal mining activities have been done at least 15 (fifteen ) years. 

Things like this happen to the applicant as people mining business in the Pacific Islands region at the time the petition was filed has not reached the 10 (ten) years of enjoying the mining business people.” To determine a mining activities have been done at least 15 (fifteen) years, would still need further evidence, both formal and material, while the Law 4/2009 expressly set of criteria and mechanisms to prove," said Court. Moreover, the Court continued, the Government and the Parliament, in his statement, did not explain the reasons of the logical-rational 15-year time limit for a period sufficient to determine the WPR. 

Moreover, in the absence of referral to the same criteria and mechanisms for each local government to determine that a mine site has been done at least 15 years or not, the Court would create legal uncertainty." Moreover, Article 22 letter f of Law 4/2009 also led to conflict in relation to the norms of Article 24 of Law 4/2009. Because Article 22 letter f give definite limits of 15, while Article 24 does not give a time limit, "said Court. In addition, Article 24 is potentially interpreted differently when it is associated with the Article 22 letter f.While on the test of Article 52 paragraph (1) Mining Law, the Court holds that the regulation of the People’s Mining Area (WPR), Region State Backup (WPN), and Mining Areas (WUP) is clear and unequivocal. The order of priority is to give priority to establish WPR first, then WPN, and last WUP. According to the Court, a minimum limit of 5000 hectares in the provision itself could potentially reduce or even eliminate the rights of employers in the mining sector that will carry out exploration and production operations in the WUP, not necessarily because WP will be available in an area of at least 5000 hectares of exploration if it has previously been established WPR and WPN." Instead, the provision of at least 5000 hectares can also be understood that in order for WUP can be determined, then the government should first define the boundaries of at least 5000 hectares. If this happens, it has the potential to eliminate or at least reduce the rights of the people in the mining business in the small / medium for the determination of 5000 hectares is also potentially reduce the WPR or WPN," the Court argued. 

Court considered that, even if the criteria of 5000 hectares is part of the legal policy of the open (opened legal policy), but uncertainty about the adequacy of land aspects that affect the carrying capacity of the environment is not set in the Mining Law, was even more obscure the significance of the area at least 5000 hectares of it, because it could be an area of 3000 hectares to 4000 hectares is sufficient to conduct exploration and production operations. “Without prejudice to the rights held by mining entrepreneurs who will operate in the WUP, Article 33 paragraph (3) of the 1945 Constitution mandates the state, in this case the Government, to master and use the earth, water, and natural riches contained therein for the greatest welfare of the people. That is, the people of Indonesia have been given the mandate to the state, in this case the Government, to be able to manage land, water, and natural riches contained therein for the greatest welfare of the people. "The verdict this time, the Court has previously considered several earlier decisions, including Decision No. Court. No 001-021-022/PUU-I/2003 and Court decisions no. 21-22/PUU-V/2007. (Dodi/mh/Yazid.tr)