The constitutional justices entering the courtroom for the judicial review hearing of Law No. 3 of 2020 on Mineral and Coal Mining (Minerba), Monday (11/8/2021). Photo by Humas MK/Ilham W.M.

---

Monday, November 8, 2021 | 21:26 WIB

JAKARTA, Public Relations—The House of Representatives (DPR) denied Law No. 3 of 2020 on the Amendment to Law No. 4 of 2009 on Mineral and Coal Mining (Minerba) and Law No. 11 of 2020 on Job Creation reduced the authority of the regional government on mining business permits. Arteria Dahlan said on behalf of the House that the a quo law regulates the regional government’s authority through delegation from the central government in granting business permits such as Business Identification Number or permit standard certificate following statutory laws and regulations.

“The elucidation to Article 35 paragraph (4) of Law No. 3 of 2020 stipulates that the delegation of business permits by the central government to the provincial government is based on the principles of effectiveness, efficiency, accountability, and externality in the administration of government affairs, including in the provision of [small-scale mining permit (IPR)] and [rock mining license (SIPB)]. Therefore, the House believes that it is false if the Petitioners argue that the provision of the a quo article has reduced and eliminated the regional government’s authority,” Arteria explained in response to case No. 37/PUU-XIX/2021.

Also read: Regional Government’s Role in Mineral and Coal Mining Law Questioned

In his testimony, he also refuted the Petitioners’ argument that the elimination of the regional government’s authority in mineral and coal control had harmed the Petitioners, who argued that it had hindered them and led to higher costs.

“Various problems in mineral and coal management have been the reason for the importance of optimizing the central government’s comprehensive control of mineral and coal. Basically, mineral and coal management is a cross-regional issue, so there are many aspects to be considered. So, of course it cannot only focus on issues of one party’s interests, such as the authority of private legal entities and NGOs as argued by the Petitioners,” Arteria stressed at the virtual hearing on Monday, November 8, 2021.

Also read: Petitioners of Mineral and Coal Mining Law and Job Creation Law Revise Petition

Reason for Changes

Arteria also explained a number of reasons that led the Government and the House to finally agree to amend Law No. 4 of 2009. First, there are still problems in mineral and coal management based on Law No. 4 of 2009, such as discrepancy of mining business licenses (IUPs) data between the central and regional governments.

“Since Law No. 23 of 2014 was passed, there has been a significant increase in the number of IUPs without data synchronization between the central and regional governments, so the formulation of policies and the implementation of IUP arrangements are not on target and became a problem. Under these conditions, the regional governments’ obligation to report and safeguard mining businesses to the central government will not work,” he explained.

In addition, he added, the regional governments did not allocate sufficient funds for mining investigation and research. In fact, referring to Article 11 of Law No. 3 of 2020, the regional government must carry out mining investigation and research in order to prepare mining areas.

Arteria said that many mining conflicts between IUP holders and the community could not be resolved properly, even though the idea is that the regional government should have a better understanding of the socio-economic aspects of the community. However, in fact, there are endless problems.

He also revealed that many mining licenses have been granted without strategic life studies, thus leading to environmental damage. New AMDAL documents are lifted off other AMDAL documents that do not describe the real conditions. There are rarely any attempts to impose sanctions on companies that violate environmental permit requirements. “Problems occur due to lack of regional government supervision regarding issuance of AMDAL,” he said.

Also read: Govt Requests Hearing on Mineral and Coal Mining Law and Job Creation Law Be Postponed

The case No. 37/PUU-XIX/2021 was filed by four petitioners—the Indonesian Forum for Living Environment (WALHI), the East Kalimantan Mining Advocacy Network (JATAM Kaltim), Nurul Aini, and farmer and fisherman Yaman (Petitioners I-IV).

The Petitioners challenge the provisions of the Minerba Law and the Job Creation Law: Article 4 paragraph (2), Article 7, Article 8, Article 11, Article 17 paragraph (2), Article 21, Article 35 paragraph (1), Article 37, Article 40 paragraphs (5) and (7), Article 48 letters a and b, Article 67, Article 72, Article 73, Article 93, Article 105, Article 113, Article 118, Article 119, Article 121, Article 122, Article 123, Article 140, Article 142, Article 151, Article 169C letter g, Article 173B, and Article 173C of the Minerba Law. They believe the articles to be multi-interpretive and harmful to their constitutional rights. therefore, they requested that the Court repeal those articles.

Writer        : Utami Argawati
Editor        : Lulu Anjarsari P.
PR            : Andhini S. F.
Translator  : Yuniar Widiastuti (NL)

Translation uploaded on 11/9/2021 10:06 WIB

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

---