Mineral Indonesian Employers Association (Apemindo) as the applicant revising petition Act No. 4 of 2009 on Mineral and Coal, Article 102 and Article 103 in the second trial in the Plenary, the Constitutional Court Building, Jakarta, Monday (24/2 / 2014).

In the revision, Refly Harun as the attorney applicant confirms the existence of inconsistent changes in the level of government, especially the Ministry of Energy Mineral Resources (ESDM). Inconsistent government demonstrated in the level of implementation of Article 102 and Article 103 of the Mining Law. The second section is defined by the government as a ban on the export of seeds (raw material) directly. The ban imposed since January 12, 2014. However, the government assessed the applicant’s interpretation is contrary to several articles in the 1945 Constitution.

According to Refly, the provisions of Regulation No. 23 Year 2010 45 pts in Article 84 paragraph (3) on the Implementation of Mineral and Coal Enterprises First real IUP holder reads IUPK production operations and production operations can export minerals or coal produced after the requirement for coal and minerals in the country as meant in paragraph (1).

"The essence of the government regulations do not actually prohibit the export, but the latest government regulation No. 1 In 2014 at point 59, for example, it says that the holder of IUP production operations referred to in point 2 that the addition of conducting metal and mineral processing activities may have to sell a certain amount. Thus, one can perform the export, it’s just a certain amount, then a certain amount of it elaborated again in the regulation of the Minister of Energy and Mineral Resources which resulted in there that may not sell, there is not," he said.

In other words, the Government Regulation No. 23 of 2010 does not prohibit the export of raw seeds, while the regulation of the Minister of Energy and Mineral Resources No. 7 of 2012 prohibits a total of three months from the candy was published. Then the change say there should export origin then meet certain conditions. Subsequent changes, i.e. Regulation No. 1 2014 should not be exported after 5 years, but after protests be exported to certain conditions.

“Your Majesty, there are policy changes that are not consistent in the level of government regulation in the level of regulation and then the Minister. The fact on the ground, now this happens then the resulting export ban losses that we add in the legal standing of the Applicant,” said Refly.

The applicant also showed evidence of policy changes that are not consistent in the level of government and EMR in interpreting article. Because of this interpretation, Refly said, this happens when a ban on exports that cause harm. One was a detriment to the applicant who has been attached as evidence. Therefore, the applicant requested the Court to interpret the articles that were tested.

Regarding the authority of the Court in interpreting the Act, the applicant relied on the earlier decision of the Court. When there is uncertainty in the law, the Court can interpret. This Court stated in its decision No. 110, 111, 112, and 113/PUU-VII/2009 at point 64 which clearly stated that the Court also has stated the authority to apply and interpret the law.

In addition, although the applicant on regulations under the Act, Refly asserted problems related regulations under the Act may be constitutional issues if repeated application and exhausted. "We view this is no longer a problem in the regulations under the law , but the constitutional issue, namely the legal uncertainty concerning the interpretation of Article 102 and Article 103 which we questioned," he said. (Lulu Hanifa / mh)