---

Applicant’s Attorney Himawan Estu Bagiju delivered petition points in preliminary session of Geothermal Act, on Wednesday (24/2) in Panel Session Room, the Constitutional Court Buidling. Photo PR/Ganie

 

 

 

East Java Governor Soekarwo sues geothermal management provisions in Act No. 21 Year 2014 of Geothermal (UU Panas Bumi) and Act No. 23 Year 2014 of Regional Governance (UU Pemda). Representing by Applicant’s Attorney Himawan Estu Bagijo, the Applicant delivered petition points in preliminary session of Case No. 11/PUU-XIV/2016, on Wednesday (24/2) in Panel Session Room, the Constitutional Court Building. The Applicant considered detrimental by Article 5 (1) letter b, Article 6 (1) letter c, and Article 23 (2) Act of Geothermal and CC Appendix number 4 on Renewable Energy Sub-Affairs in Act of Regional Governance.

Article 5 (1) letter b Act of Geothermal stated, “(1) Geothermal management as referred in Article 4 (2) is conducted on: b. Geothermal for indirect utilization which located in entire Indonesia, including production forest area, protected forest area, conservation, and marine areas.”

Article 6 (1) letter c Act a quo stated, “(1) Government’s authority in geothermal management as referred in Article 5 (1) includes: c. Geothermal utilization permit.”

Article 23 (2) Act a quo stated,”Geothermal utilization permit as referred in paragraph (1) is issued by Minister to business entity based on Operation Area negotiation.” (“Izin Panas Bumi sebagaimana dimaksud pada ayat (1) diberikan oleh Menteri kepada Badan Usaha berdasarkan hasil penawaran Wilayah Kerja.”) 

Himawan explained that the Applicant as regional government had authority to manage geothermal mining in East Java areas, as stipulated in Act No. 27/2007 of Coastal Areas and Islands Management (UU Pengelolaan Wilayah Pesisir & Pulau).

The potential of geothermal energy in East Java reached ±1.296.8 MWe, according to the Applicant. However, the Applicant argued that Article 5 (1) letter b, Article 6(1) letter c, CC Appendix number 4 Renewable Energy Sub Affairs in Act No. 23/2014 and Article 23 (2) Act 21/2014 hampered his right to manage geothermal potential, because the provisions provided authority to central government.

“According to the Applicant, the provisions are contrary to regional autonomy principle which authorized to regional government, as stipulated in Article 18 (2) and (5) the 1945 Constitution. Accountability, efficiency, and externality principles shall be implemented in geothermal management authority division,” said Himawan to Justice Panel led by Deputy Chief Anwar Usman.

The Applicant argued that regional government was ‘closer’ to manage and utilize geothermal, therefore he assessed the provisions reviewed were contrary to accountability principle.

Moreover, the Applicant argued that government who gain benefit for geothermal utilization was regional government, therefore the provisions reviewed was contrary to efficiency principle.

Regarding Applicant’s arguments, Constitutional Justice Maria Farida Indrati assessed the petition was well systemized. Maria advised the Applicant to describe his constitutional loss as regional head in detail. “Moreover, the Applicant should elaborate further on his constitutional loss,” said Maria.  

Meanwhile, Constitutional Justice Aswanto said that the Applicant was in hurry in citing Act of the Constitutional Court (UU MK). The Applicant cited the old Act, rather than the prevailed Act. “The Applicant should elaborate petition arguments (posita, ed.),” said Aswanto. (Nano Tresna Arfana/lul/Prasetyo Adi N) 

---