Law No. 4 of 2009 on Mineral and Coal Mining (Mining Law) filed for re-tested material to the Constitutional Court (MK) on Thursday (29/11) at the Plenary Court. An application which was registered with the Registrar of the Court was filed by 113/PUU-X/2012 number Hazil Ma’ruf.

Petitioners argue that their constitutional rights have been violated due to the enactment of Article 125 paragraph (2), Article 126 paragraph (1) and Article 127 Mining Law. According to Petitioner, the articles are contrary to Article 28, Article 28 and Article 33 of the 1945 Constitution. The applicant is a mining entrepreneur who has worked with PT Timah. "As long as the system is performed by the Applicant in PT. Tin is through the partnership. The results obtained by the Applicant, bought by PT Timah. But with the article a quo, the Ministry of Energy and Mineral Resources Ministry issued Regulation No. 28/2009 was revised by the Ministry of Energy Regulation No. 24/2012. The regulation prohibits PT Timah to the partnership. As a result, the enactment of the Ministry of Energy and Mineral Resources, the applicant even thousands of miners lost their jobs in BangkaBelitung," he said before the Constitutional Court, headed by Ahmad Fadlil Sumadi.

To the petition, the judges of the Constitutional Court consists of Harjono and  Anwar Usman suggest improvements petition to the applicant. Harjono reveals Petitioner strengthen constitutional petition and experienced. "Background describes your position and it is not yet visible. That seems to me to be seen in your application. Your position is with PT Timah is the working relationship or partnership relationship how? You have to explain, on the basis of existing contracts or licenses? Is there anything that you ask a quo article abolished? If abolished later because it affects how other miners?" he said.

In addition, Article 126 of the Mining Law, Harjono thinks the article is a chapter that actually makes applicant can do the job before. "Is not it because of Article 126, so that you can be like now? If no Section 126, PT Timah will even give this job to a subsidiary. Thus, the Petitioner must look, then construct in the petition, "he explained.

While Anwar requested that the applicant adjusts the arguments about constitutional rights suffered by the articles of the 1945 Constitution which serve as a touchstone. "You have to elaborate on that applicant can prove their argument. If this article is detrimental to you, and what this article is contrary to the acid test, "he said.

Constitutional judges give to the applicant within 14 days to make repairs. The next trial would be checking repair requests made by the applicant. (Lulu Anjarsari / mh/Yz.tr)