The fictitious bioremediation project corruption case defendant of PT Chevron Pacific Indonesia (PT CPI) which also served as General Manager of South Sumatra Light PT CPI, Bachtiar Abdul Fatah filed review of Environmental Management Law. The case 18/PUU-XII/2014 was held on Thursday (13/3) at the Plenary Court.

Maqdir Ismail as Petitioner’s attorney in the trial that led by Constitutional Justice Muhammad Alim conveyed the main points of the petition. Maqdir has expressed the applicant feel disadvantaged by the enactment of Article 59 paragraph (4), Article 95 paragraph (1), and Article 102 of the Environmental Management Act.

Article 59 paragraph ( 4 ) of the Environment Management Act by the Applicant allow the competent authority does not / has not given permission to the party generating B3 waste (hazardous materials) to manage waste with specific reasons. Article 59 paragraph (4) of the Environment Management Act reads, "Management of B3 waste must obtain a permit from the minister, governor or regent / mayor in accordance with their authority. “Of Article 59 paragraph (4) is one of the chapters that ensnare Bachtiar not indicted have permission to perform bioremediation.

However, according to the Petitioner as submitted by Maqdir, the provision of Article 59 paragraph (4) is contrary to the provisions of Article 59 paragraph (1) of the Environment Management Act. An article 59 paragraph (1) requires any person who generates waste must perform B3 waste management generates. In other words, whether or not the permit, waste generators must treat waste produced there from B3 do not want to be subject to criminal sanctions.

"The existence of two contradictory norms have created a situation in which the B3 waste producers who do not have permission permit processing B3 for example due to the permit renewal is being taken care of in the relevant agencies, was forced to continue to manage the B3 waste because no criminal sanctions under Article 53 paragraph (1) in conjunction with Article 103 of the Law. But on the other hand because it does not yet have permission to process the B3 B3 waste producer is deemed to have violated the provisions of Article 59 paragraph (4) of the Act which requires a permit EE to treat waste B3," explained Maqdir.

On that occasion, Maqdir also delivered petition asking the Court stated that Article 59 paragraph (4) in conjunction with Article 102 of Law on Environment Management contrary to the 1945 Constitution and therefore must be canceled and declared no binding legal effect. However, if the Court is of the opinion that Article 102 others beg EE Act declared unconstitutional to the extent not understood that the conditional criminal offense within the meaning of Article 102 of Law EE can only be sanctioned if the administrative sanctions that have been imposed are not complied with or violations done more than once. ( Yusti Nurul Agustin / mh )