The Relevant Party’s witnesses (left and center) at a judicial review hearing of the Law on the Management of Coastal Zone and Small Islands, Monday (1/15/2024). Photo by MKRI/Bayu.
JAKARTA (MKRI) — The Constitutional Court (MK) held another material judicial review hearing of Law No. 27 of 2007 on the Management of Coastal Zones and Small Islands in conjunction with Law No. 1 of 2014 on the Amendment to Law No. 27 of 2007 on the Management of Coastal Zones and Small Islands (Coastal Management/PWP3K Law) on Monday, January 15, 2024 in the plenary courtroom. At the hearing for case No. 35/PUU-XXI/2023, Relevant Party Idris and others presented two witnesses, Dekarno dan Hasraman.
At the hearing presided over by Chief Justice Suhartoyo and seven other constitutional justices, Dekarno revealed the condition of the people in Mosolo Village of Konawe Islands Regency, who earn their livelihood from farms and fisheries. They rely on cloves, cashew nuts, and nutmeg harvests to meet their needs, including on their children’s high education in Kendari, Makassar, and Yogyakarta. He also revealed that he went to a law faculty in one of the universities in Yogyakarta.
Mosolo community’s livelihoods were upset by the emergence of mining company Bumi Konawe Mini (PT BKM) in the village, where he had lived since birth, in 2008. “The company’s emergence created an issue in the community, who wholeheartedly rejected it. In around August 2008, the people went on a massive protest until the company left the village. I witnessed residents gathering at Mr. Firman, my grandfather’s, house when I was in ninth grade,” he recounted.
In 2018, he continued, PT Gema Kreasi Perdana (PT GKP) came to Sukarela Jaya Village in Southeast Wawonii Subdistrict. The company was not welcomed by the villagers. Then, on March 3, 2022, it trespassed on a land owned by Mrs. Saharia and La Dani in the village and evicted them the day after.
Dekarno stressed that the company’s emergence has created a rift among Mosolo residents, who used to have a strong bond with each other. They used to cooperate, given that they share kinship. PT GKP’s existence has led to a social conflict that has disrupted family relationships where siblings fight, parents and children are at odds with and do not acknowledge one another, and spouses divorce—pro-mining husbands want to sell their lands while their wives want to keep them from falling to the company’s hands.
“The people who are against PT GKP, when they hold a wedding party or when misfortune such as death befalls them, no longer visit each other. They no longer help each other, and that happens to this day. What’s worse, people who refuse mining are accused of being troublemakers and rioters, accused of obstructing mining activities. In fact, the people who reject it are only defending their clove plants so they wouldn’t get evicted because these clove plants have been providing life for them for decades,” Dekarno emphasized.
People’s Livelihoods Jeopardized
Next, Hasraman said that the closeness of the Roko-roko Village community began to be disturbed when mining companies started to enter in around 2018-2019. Not only PT GKP tried to enter Wawonii Island, but also other companies such as PT Derawan Berjaya Mining and PT Bumi Konawe Mining.
“Initially, the community strongly rejected mining activities there, including [myself] and the Petitioner’s witnesses, Marlion and Mr. Abarudin. The main reason… was mainly because mining activities would displace the community’s plantations, which are their main livelihoods, and would pollute or damage marine habitats and interfere with the fishermen’s fishing activities,” he explained.
He said that the community believes that mining will threaten long-term sources of income such as cashew, clove, coconut, and nutmeg harvests. The people of Roko-roko Village are well aware that only agricultural products are sustainable both now and in the future.
“The people always consider future impacts. If there is mining on the mountains of Roko-roko Village, their livelihoods’ sustainability will be threatened, especially community springs located directly below the location to be used as a mining area. Therefore, the community rejects mining activities,” he added.
Despite the people’s rejection, PT GKP continues approaching them to get permission to mine in Konawe Islands Regency, Southeast Sulawesi Province, especially in Roko-roko Village. It continues influencing the community and even threaten and scare off those who defend their plantations.
Hasraman also revealed that PT GKP has invited several members of the community, including witness Marlion, to conduct a comparative study to see mining activities in Obi, North Maluku. Upon their return from North Maluku, they were assigned by PT GKP to persuade other members of the community to join the company with tempting offers, ranging from offers of salaries, ranks, and purchase of plantations at high prices.
Also read:
Provisions on Ban on Mineral Mining in Coasts and Isles Challenged
PT Gema Kreasi Perdana Revises Petition on Mineral Mining in Coasts and Isles
Provisions on Management of Small Islands Serve to Protect and Conserve
Customary Community’s Rights in Coastal and Small Island Areas
Govt Has Good Control over Small-Island Mining
Legal Politics of Coastal and Small Islands Management
Mining in Wawonii Island Damage Social Harmony and Cohesion
The case No. 35/PUU-XXI/2023 on the judicial review of Article 23 paragraph (2) and Article 35 letter k of the PWP3K Law was filed by PT Gema Kreasi Perdana, represented by executive director Rasnius Pasaribu. The Petitioner is a limited liability company (PT) with a mining business permit for small islands. It feels its constitutional rights had been violated by the enactment of Article 23 paragraph (2) and Article 35 letter k of the Coastal Management Law, which the Supreme Court interpreted as an unconditional ban on mining activities in small islands, while the Petitioner has a valid permit by the mining authority to mine nickel in the area. Its permit has undergone changes from the initial permit No. 26 of 2007, issued prior to the enactment of Law No. 27 of 2007.
The Petitioner asserted that if Article 23 paragraph (2) and Article 35 letter k of Law No. 1 of 2014 be interpreted as an unconditional ban on mining activities, all spatial planning for coastal zones and small islands regulated in regional regulations would conflict with the a quo Law and must be revised. As a consequence, all activities by mining companies in those areas must be ceased. This would be detrimental to those companies, including the Petitioner, who had paid their dues to the state.
Author : Utami Argawati
Editor : Nur R.
PR : Tiara Agustina
Translator : Yuniar Widiastuti (NL)
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.
Monday, January 15, 2024 | 16:55 WIB 181