A judicial review hearing of Law No. 3 of 2020 on Mineral and Coal Mining (Minerba), Wednesday (1/19/2022). Photo by Humas MK.

---

Wednesday, January 19, 2022 | 23:28 WIB

JAKARTA, HUMAS MKRI - Sentralisasi dalam hal penguasaan sumber daya mineral dan batu bara bertentangan dengan asas subsidiaritas sehingga menyebabkan kerugian konstitusional bagi masyarakat lokal. Demikian disampaikan oleh I Gusti Agung Made Wardana dalam kapasitasnya sebagai Ahli Pemohon dalam sidang pengujian materiil Undang-Undang Nomor 3 Tahun 2020 tentang Perubahan Atas Undang-Undang Nomor 4 Tahun 2009 tentang Pertambangan Mineral dan Batubara (UU Minerba) dan Undang-Undang Nomor 11 Tahun 2020 Tentang Cipta Kerja (UU Cipta Kerja). Sidang Perkara Nomor 37/PUU-XIX/2021 ini digelar pada Rabu (19/1/2022) di Ruang Sidang Pleno Mahkamah Konstitusi (MK) secara virtual.

JAKARTA, Public Relations—Centralization of control over mineral and coal resources is contrary to the principle of subsidiarity, thus causing constitutional impairment for local communities, said I Gusti Agung Made Wardana as an expert for the Petitioners at a judicial review hearing of 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 on Wednesday, January 19, 2022. The sixth hearing for case No. 37/PUU-XIX/2021 took place virtually from the Court’s plenary courtroom.

Gusti yang juga menjabat sebagai Dosen Hukum Lingkungan Universitas Gadjah Mada, lebih lanjut mengatakan, melalui jaminan tidak diubahnya pemanfaatan ruang bagi wilayah usaha pertambangan yang telah ditetapkan berakibat tertutupnya ruang partisipasi masyarakat untuk terus memperjuangkan haknya atas ruang hidup yang baik dan sehat. Menurutnya, Pasal 162 UU Minerba telah menjadi instrumen pembungkaman pembela lingkungan hidup dalam hal ini masyarakat yang menolak tambang untuk terus berjuang dan membela lingkungan hidup yang baik dan sehat yang dilanggar oleh aktivitas pertambangan.

Gusti, who also teaches environmental law at Gadjah Mada University, further said that the guarantee that the determined use of space for mining business areas will not be changed has resulted in the elimination of community participation to fight for their rights to a good and healthy living space. Gusti believes Article 162 of the Minerba Law has become an instrument to silence environmental activists, who reject mining businesses and fight for and defend a good and healthy environment that has been violated by mining activities.

“Pasal 162 UU Pertambangan ini dapat digunakan sebagai upaya untuk kriminalisasi terhadap pembela hak asasi manusia yang terkena dampak pertambangan.  Selain itu, , pasal tersebut juga dapat menjadi instrumen intimidasi hukum,” papar Gusti  di hadapan Majelis Hakim Konstitusi yang dipimpin oleh Ketua MK Anwar Usman.

“Article 162 of the [Minerba] Law can be used to criminalize human rights activists who were affected by mining. In addition, this article can also be an instrument of legal intimidation,” he said before Chief Justice Anwar Usman and the other constitutional justices.

Also read:

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

Petitioners of Mineral and Coal Mining Law and Job Creation Law Revise Petition

Meanwhile, the other expert, Anugerah Rizki Akbari, said Article 162 of the Minerba Law prohibits anyone from obstructing mining business activities by IUP, IUPK, IPR, or SIPB holders who have met requirements. Violation of this provision can result in imprisonment of maximum one year or a fine of maximum 100 million rupiahs.

As educator and head of the Criminal Law Study Program of the Indonesia Jentera Law School (STH), he said that the legislatures intended to prohibit any disruption to mining business activities. However, he added, it comes down to settlement of right to land, as IUP or IUPK must meet requirements laid in Article 86f letter p and Article 136 paragraph (2) of the Minerba Law.

He also said Article 162 of the Minerba Law could result in unfair implementation because it does not follow criminal theory entirely and does not regard criminal law principles wholly.

Also read:

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

House Denies Reduction of Regional Govt Authority on Mining Business

Govt: Mineral and Coal Mining Law Amended to Rehabilitate Mining Sector

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.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-HOvX0v89G0 

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

Translation uploaded on 01/20/2022 11:16 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.

---