The Petitioners’ legal counsel attending the Petition Revision Hearing of Case No. 160/PUU-XXIII/2025 on the material judicial review of Law No. 2 of 2025 on the Amendment to Law No. 4 of 2009 on the Mineral and Coal Mining, Monday (6/10/2025). Photo by MKRI/Bay.

---

Jakarta (MKRI) – Petitioners in Case No. 160/PUU-XXIII/2025 filed a revision to their judicial review of several articles in Law No. 2 of 2025 on the Fourth Amendment to Law No. 4 of 2009 on Mineral and Coal Mining (Minerba Law). The petition—initially submitted by five individuals, with two subsequently resigning and two new petitioners joining—continues to question articles in the Minerba Law that grant Mining Business Permits (IUP) on a priority basis to business entities, MSMEs, cooperatives, privately owned enterprises, and university interests.

The petitioners divided the issue into two clusters: the first focuses on granting priority IUPs/IUPKs to business entities, MSMEs, cooperatives, and businesses owned by religious organizations; the second concerns priority IUPs/IUPKs for private business entities related to university independence and excellence. “In total, there are 25 articles that we are challenging, Your Honors, but the issues are divided into those two clusters,” said A Fahrur Rozi, the petitioners’ counsel, during the revision hearing on Monday, October 6, 2025.

The petitioners are challenging Article 51 paragraphs (1), (3), (4), (5), (6); Article 51A paragraphs (1), (3), (5); Article 51B paragraphs (1), (2) letter (d); Article 60 paragraphs (1), (3), (4), (5), (6); Article 60A paragraphs (1), (2), (3), (5); Article 60B paragraphs (1), (2) letter (d); Article 75 paragraphs (3), (5), (7); and Article 75A paragraphs (1), (2), (3), (5)—arguing that these harm their right to equitable management of mining resources.

According to the petitioners, granting IUPs on a priority basis risks creating favoritism and clientelism in the licensing process. There are millions of MSMEs, cooperatives, religious organizations, and universities vying for IUPs, but only around 4,000 permits are available. Logically, the priority given fairly among such a vast pool of candidates is questionable, unless it is still done through a fair and prioritized auction mechanism.

The petition also argues that these articles cause harm by disregarding fundamental considerations in the priority-based permit-granting process. This omission not only results in legal uncertainty but also poses a threat to the sustainability of both human and natural ecosystems.

Also read:

Provisions on Priority-Based Mining Permits Challenged

They emphasize that prioritization cannot come at the cost of critical requirements such as administrative and managerial capacity, technical and environmental competence, and financial capability—all of which are indispensable in responsible mining practices. As a result, they argue, these provisions pave the way for mining activities that disregard the public interest. Instead of delivering benefits, the law generates legal uncertainty and endangers the livelihood of the wider community.

In their petitums, the Petitioners ask the Court to declare the term “priority” in the challenged articles unconstitutional and not legally binding unless interpreted to mean “auction with priority bidding.” They also seek to have particular articles interpreted to require specific prerequisites and considerations in granting priority permits. Furthermore, they request that the phrases “private enterprises” and “and/or global” in several provisions be declared unconstitutional and not legally binding.

The hearing was presided over by Justice Arief Hidayat, accompanied by Justices Anwar Usman and Enny Nurbaningsih. Before closing the hearing, Justice Arief stated that the proceedings would be reported to the Justices' Deliberation Meeting to decide on the continuation of the case.

Author         : Mimi Kartika
Editor          : Lulu Anjarsari P.
PR               : Raisa Ayuditha Marsaulina
Translator     : Rizky Kurnia Chaesario/Yuniar Widiastuti

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.

---