---

Constitutional Justices Suhartoyo, Arief Hidayat, and Enny Nurbaningsih in the judicial review hearing of Law No. 3 of 2020 on the Amendment to Law No. 4 of 2009 on Mineral and Coal Mining, Tuesday (25/8) in the Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. Photo by Humas MK/Ifa.

JAKARTA, Public Relations of the Constitutional Court—The Constitutional Court (MK) held another judicial review hearing of Law No. 3 of 2020 on the Amendment to Law No. 4 of 2009 on Mineral and Coal Mining on Tuesday, August 25, 2020. The hearing had been scheduled to examine three cases on mineral and coal mining: No. 58/PUU-XVIII/2020, No. 59/PUU-XVIII/2020, and No. 60/PUU-XVIII/2020.

At the hearing led by Constitutional Justice Suhartoyo, Petitioner of case No. 58/PUU-XVIII/2020 Bahrul Ilmi Yakup conveyed the change to the petition’s structure, from five to four components, following the justices’ advice. He had also revised typos in the petition, added an explanation on the Court’s authorities, and detailed the constitutional losses of Petitioners I-VII. He also revised the argument and the explanation of the subject of the petition and added some theories following the justices’ advice at the preliminary hearing.

Attorney Victor Santoso Tandiasa stated that the case No. 59/PUU-XVIII/2020 added another petitioner: a legal consultant on environment and mining Arif Zulkifli.

The Petitioners of case No. 60/PUU-XVIII/2020 revised their legal standing and added an elaboration of the posita. “First, we added the Constitutional Court Decision No. 92/PUU X/2012 on the authority of the DPD in the discussion of bills, following the justices’ advice. Second, we added a request for the delay of the enactment of Law No. 3 of 2020, Your Honors, in our revised petition on page 37 numbers 100 through 103,” said attorney Ikhwan Fahrojih.

Also read: Court Adjudicates Three Cases on Mineral and Coal Mining 

In petition No. 58/PUU-XVIII/2020 filed by Bahrul Ilmi Yakup and six other petitioners, the Petitioners argued that Article 35 paragraph (1) of the Mineral and Coal Mining Law gives the central government the sole authority to issue mining business permits, which negates the provincial or regency/city’s territorial and functional autonomy. Therefore, it violates Article 18 paragraphs (1) and (2) of the 1945 Constitution. Article 18 paragraph (5) of the 1945 Constitution and Article 9 paragraph (2) of the Regional Government Law regulate the authorities of the central government, including the issuance of mining business permits. They also argued that the provision of Article 35 paragraph (4) of the Mineral and Coal Mining Law is similarly unconstitutional, mutatis mutandis, as Article 35 paragraph (1).

The Petitioner of case No. 59/PUU-XVIII/2020 stressed that the Mineral and Coal Mining Law regulates the relationship between the central and regional government as well as the exploration of natural resources. This means that the discussion of the Mineral and Coal Mining bill requires the involvement of the Regional Representatives Council (DPD) following the constitutional mandate, as the people has entrusted the DPD to represent regional interests in the formation of the law.

The Petitioners of case No. 60/PUU-XVIII/2020 claimed that their constitutional rights had been violated because the Mineral and Coal Mining bill was discussed exclusively and privately without transparency as stipulated by existing laws and regulations. The discussion of the bill didn’t involve the DPD when it has the authority mandated by the Constitution in discussing bills relating to the relationship between the central and regional government as well as the exploration of natural resources and other economic resources.

Writer: Utami Argawati
Editor: Nur R.
PR: Lambang T. S.
Translator: Yuniar Widiastuti (NL)

Translation uploaded on 9/1/2020 15:55 WIB

Disclaimer: The original version of the news is in Indonesian. In case where any differences occur between the English and the Indonesian version, the Indonesian version will prevail.

---