The judicial review hearing of Law No. 3 of 2020 on Mineral and Coal Mining and Law No. 11 of 2020 on Job Creation, Wednesday (3/9/2022). Photo by Humas MK/Ifa.

---

Wednesday, March 9, 2022 | 22:54 WIB

JAKARTA, Public Relations—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 (Minerba) and Law No. 11 of 2020 on Job Creation on Wednesday afternoon, March 9, 2022. The hearing for case No. 37/PUU-XIX/2021 presented the testimonies of the Petitioners’ witnesses.

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 

The first witness, Ali Fahmi, revealed that all legislation is under the jurisdiction of the central government, practically eliminating the authority of the regional (regency/provincial) government.

“Because [the authority] is taken away by the central [government]. It is very difficult for the community, especially in Central Hulu Sungai Regency and in South Kalimantan in general, to voice their aspirations. The one who understands the region is the community,” said the retired civil servant (PNS).

Fahmi believed there was no longer supervision by the regional government. All management is now controlled by the central government. He also revealed that the community had objected to the mining in Central Hulu Sungai Regency. Community members received visits by the company, where they were then assaulted and had to deal with the police.

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 

Next, fisherman and neighborhood chief Anggi Maisa revealed that there had been tin ore mining where he sailed. “We have voiced our rejection to the government, to the mining company, to the governor. However, the governor said he had no authority to revoke the mining license. He admitted to not ever expressing objections to mining in Bangka Belitung for fear of sanctions over Article 162 of the Job Creation Law.

“Because we fear of getting charged with Article 162, although we are highly dependent on the sea, given our livelihood as a fisherman, [Your Honors]. However, we cannot do anything due to Article 162. So, the community stays silent, fearful. We no longer have the courage to voice our objections because we fear the sanctions, [Your Honors]. We cannot voice objections anymore. We have done so at the tin [mining] company, but our appeal against mining in the fishing areas in Matras waters fell on deaf ears, [Your Honors],” he explained.

Also read:

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

Expert: Mineral and Coal Mining Law Criminalizes Human Rights Activists  

Meanwhile, Bengkulu WALHI (Indonesian Forum for Living Environment) executive director for 2021-2025 Abdullah Ibrahim Ritonga testified that in 2008–2010 there was iron sand mining on the west coast of Seluma Regency. However, it stopped due to massive backlash from the community, who voiced their objection to the regency and provincial governments.

“On November 2021, PT Faming Levto Bakti Abadi resumed iron sand mining in an area of 168 ha, with the length of the production operation area approximately 2,400 meters, leading 350 meters to the land and 350 meters to the sea. Then on December 18, 2021 the Bengkulu WALHI submitted a report to the Bengkulu Police regarding the alleged illegal activities iron sand mining by PT Faming Levto Bakti Abadi. In our report, we made several points,” Ritonga said.

Also read: Expert: Mining Control by Central Govt a Setback 

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. 

They also believe the removal of the phrase “and/or the regional government” in the provision of Article 4 paragraph (2) of the a quo law has degraded the local people’s dignity due to limited or lost chance of dignified participation in determining their future, and potentially stifled the initiative and creativity of regional governments and local communities, and weakened regional responsibilities in developing the regions and its people. In the end, it all depends on the attention and “gift” by the central government.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CGRRittRk2s 

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

Translation uploaded on 3/10/2022 20:03 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.

---