---

Petition filed by 9 mining companies to challenge Act 4/2009 about ore and coal (Minerba Act) was turned down by Constitutional Court, as the verdict recited by Chief Justice Hamdan Zoelva, Wednesday (12/3).

The Plaintiffs suggested Article 102 and Article 103 Minerba Act has implied legal uncertainty and unfair due to its arbitrary provision.

To the suggestion, the Court declared that ore and coal belong to the state, thus it is state’s responsibility to manage its lucrative resources in order to signify people’s prosperity. According to the Court, management by state can be done through legislation, DPR and President, or their each own ruling, minister or government regulation. .

“State’s sovereignty over ore and coal means a state is in full control to manage its resources as determined by the constitution, for the people’s prosperity,” said Justice Ahmad Fadlil.

Article 102 and Article 103 Minerba Act has constituted Mining Management holder (IUP) and Special Mining Management Holder (IUPK) to plant domestic smelter, this is intended to ensure industrial raw material domestic availability and environment sustainability. The provision also aims to bolster domestic capability in mining industry.  

In accordance to export ban, the Court sees the regulation is in line to constitution and is President’s competency to lead state function accomplishment.

Aside from it, the substance to boost value-added of ore is required and it must be complied domestically.

Therefore, if Government in its regulation adjudicates raw ore export ban, it is logical if smelter being plant in raw ore-producer area (domestic).    

According to Court, potential loss encountered by the Plaintiffs is more like their own fault in abandoning provision of Article 102 and 103 Minerba Act. Article 102 and 103 Minerba Act are intended to protect natural resources to be utilized at best for the prosperity of the people as determined by the 1945 Constitution.   

According to the court, the ruling of Minerba Act is corresponding to Article 33 1945 Constitution.

Argumentation which says export ban will only lead to massive termination was also nixed by the Court. The Court opted that termination is considered backfire due to their ignorance to the provision of Article 102 and 103 Minerba Act. Nonetheless, prior to the permit request such conditions are already been set and no reason for the corporations to disregard the ruling.

Therefore, in the consideration, the Court said that there is no problem concerning the ruling of the Article. Considering conflicting arguments the Plaintiffs tried to suggest, the Court decided to scrap the petition. (Ilham/kun)

---