Stepanus Febyan Babaro (Petitioner) delivering the key points of the judicial review petition of Law No. 2 of 2025 on Mineral and Coal Mining, Wednesday (9/10/2025). Photo by MKRI/Panji.
JAKARTA (MKRI) — Businessman Stepanus Febyan Babaro has filed a material judicial review petition of Article 51B paragraph (1) and Article 60B paragraph (1) of Law No. 2 of 2025 on the Fourth Amendment to Law No. 4 of 2009 on Mineral and Coal Mining to the Constitutional Court (MK). The preliminary hearing for case No. 157/PUU-XXIII/2025 was chaired by Constitutional Justice Arief Hidayat on Wednesday, September 10, 2025.
Article 51B of the Mineral and Coal Mining Law (UU Minerba) stipulates, “The WIUP (Mining Business Permit Area) for mineral commodities for the purpose of downstream processing may be granted to BUMN (State-Owned Enterprises) and Private Enterprises on a priority basis.” Article 60B of the same law provides, “The WIUP for coal for the purpose of downstream processing may be granted to BUMN (State-Owned Enterprises) and Private Enterprises on a priority basis.”
On the basis of these provisions, the Petitioner argued that such regulation could potentially allow preferential treatment for state-owned (BUMN) and regionally-owned enterprises (BUMD) in obtaining WIUPs on a priority basis. This, in his view, infringes upon his constitutional rights guaranteed under Article 28D paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution. Should he, at some point, engage in the mining business, he would face obstacles as WIUPs would be prioritized for BUMNs/BUMDs. Consequently, the contested norms also create the risk of impeding his business prospects by denying equal access in the licensing process.
He argued that the provision of “priority” without clear parameters leaves room for subjective interpretation and potential abuse of authority by licensing officials. This contravenes the principles of a state based on law, which demand transparency, accountability, and the protection of citizens’ rights. Proper governance requires transparency, accountability, and participation. Yet, by granting priority exclusively to BUMNs/BUMDs, the regulation risks undermining transparency and shutting out private sector participation in licensing. As a result, the constitutional right of citizens to obtain equal opportunity in the management of natural resources is unfairly obstructed.
Furthermore, prioritizing BUMNs/BUMDs also imposes restrictions on private and foreign companies, thereby weakening national competitiveness in terms of technology, management, and capital. In fact, synergy between the State and the private sector is essential to strengthening the energy and mining sectors in the era of globalization. In practice, BUMNs and BUMDs often enjoy privileged access to WIUPs, yet their operations have at times generated environmental and social problems. This demonstrates that granting priority to BUMNs/BUMDs does not automatically ensure the attainment of public welfare.
“To grant the Petitioner’s petition in its entirety; to declare Article 51B paragraph (1) and Article 60B paragraph (1) of Law No. 2 of 2025 on the Fourth Amendment to Law No. 4 of 2009 on Mineral and Coal Mining unconstitutional and without binding legal force; to order the publication of this decision in the State Gazette of the Republic of Indonesia as is proper. Alternatively, should the panel of constitutional justices hold a different opinion, the Petitioner respectfully requests a decision that is just and equitable (ex aequo et bono),” said Babaro reading out the petitums before the panel of justices.
Norms under Review
In response, Constitutional Justice Enny Nurbaningsih advised clarification regarding the precise scope of the challenged norms. “Is the provision being reviewed in its entirety, or only the word ‘priority’? This must be clarified. And as for the legal standing here, [the Petitioner] is claimed to be an individual citizen. What are the specific requirements for demonstrating constitutional harm? This regulation grants priority to BUMNs and BUMDs, but also to the private sector. So what exactly is being sought?” she stressed.
Meanwhile, Constitutional Justice Anwar Usman emphasized the need for the Petitioner to elaborate his claim of harm. “As for the petitums, it is currently only stated in this single sentence—revise it so that it is set out clearly,” he advised.
Constitutional Justice Arief Hidayat added that the Petitioner should carefully consider the ultimate objective of this review. “To whom is the license being sought to be given? To the private sector or to cooperatives? The Petitioner must place this correctly: is it truly the article as a whole that is being challenged, or is it merely the removal of the word ‘priority’? And is the legal basis for review properly established?” he asked.
At the end of the hearing, Justice Arief announced that the Petitioner would have 14 days to revise the petition, which must be submitted no later than Tuesday, September 23, 2025 at 12:00 WIB to the Registrar’s Office. The Court will then schedule the second hearing to hear the revisions to the petition.
Author : Sri Pujiati
Editor : Lulu Anjarsari P.
PR : Raisa Ayuditha M.
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.
Wednesday, September 10, 2025 | 13:56 WIB 185