---

The Constitutional Court (MK) reviewed the Act no. 4/2009 on Mineral and Coal Mining, Article 125 paragraph (2), Article 126 paragraph (1) and paragraph (2) and Article 127, which was filed by Hazil Maruf. At trial representatives of the Government and Parliament delivered opening statements.

 

Government represented by the Director General of Mineral and Coal, Ministry of Economy of Mineral Resources (ESDM), Thamrin Sihite said that the Constitutional Court judges need to consider the legal status or the legal standing of the applicant. "The government has asked the Constitutional Court judges to consider and assess whether the applicant has no legal standing or as determined by the Law Court and Constitutional Court decisions earlier," pleaded Sihite.

 

Sihite also responded to Petitioners\' argument that states Article 125 paragraph (2) Mining Law throughout the phrase \'classification and qualifications set by the minister\' is contradictory and discriminatory. Sihite also explained that the description of the classification and qualifications in those terms had been arranged in a clear and detailed in the Minister of Energy and Mineral Resources No. 28/2009 on the implementation of the Mining Services Business and amendments to the Regulation of the Minister of Energy and Mineral Resources No. 24 of 2012. "The definition of the classification set out in Article 1 No. 18 Candy EMR. 24 In 2012, the mining services sector classification by category consulting, planning, implementing, and testing equipment. Then an explanation of the phrase qualifications set out in article 1 paragraph No. 19 Candy EMR. 24 In 2012, the mining services business classification based on the level of financial capability of the company and also in Article 14 of Regulation of the Minister of ESDM No. 24/2012," explained Sihite.

 

With the description in terms of qualifications and classification of Regulation of the Minister No 24/2012 above, Sihite states, Petitioners\' argument that states the two phrases is no explanation to be incorrect and unproven. Sihite also denied that the Mining Law cartels discriminatory and natural resource products without thinking of the people around. Sihite said the allegation was unfounded because the applicant an explanation of it is also stipulated in the other Minister.

 

At the end of the explanation, the Government through Sihite asks the Court to declare the applicant has no legal standing, rejecting the petition, receive information from the Government, saying the articles were tested Petitioner does not conflict with the 1945 Constitution.

 

While the representatives of the Parliament, namely Harry Witjaksono, member of Commission III of the House of Representatives expressed concern when the Mining Law was removed, especially the articles filed by the Petitioner. Harry insists that the implementation of the legislation in the mining services sector will be difficult to implement when the Mining Law abolished. Because the absence of norms governing the mining business entity form may create legal uncertainty and stakeholders in the field of mineral and coal mining to interpret certain provisions vary. "If Article 125 paragraph (2) and Article 126 paragraph (1) and (2) and Article 127 Mining Law eliminated the implementation of this law in the field of mining will be difficult because of the absence of norms governing the shape and mining enterprises lack of clarity regarding the qualification and classification mining services business. This situation would cause legal uncertainty and create stakeholders in the field of mineral and coal mining variously interprets the classification and qualification," said Harry.

 

At the end of the explanation, Harry representing the House of Representatives asked the Constitutional Court to declare the articles filed by the Petitioner did not conflict with the 1945 Constitution. (Yusti Nurul Agustin / mh)

---