---

The attorneys of the petitioners of case No. 64 and 65/PUU-XVIII/2020 at the judicial review hearing of Law on Mineral and Coal Mining, Thursday (3/9) in the Plenary Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. Photo by Humas MK/Gani.

JAKARTA, Public Relations of the Constitutional Court—The Constitutional Court (MK) held a petition revision hearing of the material review of Law No. 3 of 2020 on the Amendment to Law No. 4 of 2009 on Mineral and Coal Mining on Thursday, September 3, 2020 in the Plenary Courtroom. The Court adjudicated cases No. 64/PUU-XVIII/2020 and 65/PUU-XVIII/2020.

At the hearing presided over by Constitutional Justice Suhartoyo, Tezar Yudhistira, the attorney of the Petitioners of case No. 64/PUU-XVIII/2020 said his client had revised the Court’s authorities in the petition and added in the legal standing the Petitioners’ activities, such as speaking at seminars and sharing their views on online media. He also submitted evidence P-11, consisting of their news articles. They also added Petitioner III, the Forum on Law and Constitutional Studies (FKHK). They challenge Article 169A of the Mineral and Coal Mining Law against Article 18A paragraph (2), Article 27 paragraph (1), and Article 33 paragraphs (2) and (3) of the 1945 Constitution.

The attorney of the Petitioner of case No. 65/PUU-XVIII/2020 said his client added the articles to review to include Article 4 paragraph (2), Article 7, Article 8, Article 17 paragraph (2), Article 21, Article 35 paragraph (1), Article 37, Article 40, Article 48 letters a and b, Article 67, Article 100 a, Article 122, Article 140, Article 151, Article 169B paragraph (5) letter g, Article 173B, and other articles that re interpreted as “to revoke or change the authority of the provincial government.” There was an additional petitioner: Bangka Belitung Islands Regional Legislative Council (DPRD).

Also read: Mineral and Coal Mining Law Challenged 

At the preliminary hearing on Tuesday, August 11, 2020, the Petitioners No. 64/PUU-XVIII/2020 argued that the implication of the a quo articles is in violation of Article 27 of the 1945 Constitution due to unequal treatment for holders of contracts of work (COW) and coal mining work agreements (PKP2B) as well as private enterprises in obtaining special mining business license (IUPK). In fact, the Petitioners consider COW and PKP2B holders to be in the same position as other private business entities as stipulated in Article 75 paragraph (4) of the Mineral and Coal Mining Law. 

According to them, the addition of the a quo articles in the Mineral and Coal Mining Law didn’t have clear legal reasoning because there is no legal reason for the legislators to amend the law to regulate the rights of COW and PKP2B holders and that the two types of contracts are for private business entities.

In addition, the a quo articles show the legislators’ impartiality towards the role (of state organs) through BUMN (SOEs) and BUMD (regional government-owned enterprises) that are prioritized in obtaining IUPK. However, COW and PKP2B holders are guaranteed an extension to IUPK as a continuation of operation contracts/agreements without having to follow the various mechanisms regulated in Article 75 of the Mineral and Coal Mining Law. The article, which prioritizes BUMN and BUMD in obtaining IUPK, has become a political law chosen by the legislators from the beginning. This means the a quo articles contradict Article 33 paragraph (2) of the 1945 Constitution.

In addition, the a quo articles granted the minister too broad an authority to guarantee the extension to IUPK to COW and PKP2B holders without involving the regional government as the party directly affected by the activities in the COW and PKP2B. Therefore, the a quo articles contradict Article 18A paragraph (2) of the 1945 Constitution.

Bangka Belitung Islands Governor Erzaldi Rosman as Petitioner of case No. 65/PUU-XVIII/2020 requested a material review of Article 4 paragraph (2), Article 6, Article 7, Article 8, Article 21, Article 48 letters a and b, Article 67, Article 173B, and the entire contents of the articles that revoke the authority of the provincial government and the governor in the Mineral and Coal Mining Law.

Through attorney Dharma Sutomo, he emphasized that the a quo articles contradict Article 18A of the 1945 Constitution, for not considering the characteristics of the regions and the principle of fairness and harmony. This directly eliminates the right to regional autonomy, particularly regarding energy and mineral resources.

Writer: Utami Argawati
Editor: Nur R.
PR: Tiara Agustina
Photographer: Gani

Translator: Yuniar Widiastuti (NL)

Translation uploaded on 9/4/2020 16:02 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.

---