JAKARTA, INDONESIA — The Constitutional Court has held the second hearing in the judicial review trial against the Law on Mineral and Coal (UU Minerba/Law No.3/2020) amid activists’ concerns that the law will silence those affected by the mining projects and ignore the environmental damage caused by the extraction industry.
The second hearing—which resumed on 23 August—focused on the revision of the petition the court’s panel of judges requested on the first trial two weeks ago.
“There are technical matters like they requested us to trim the size of the page. Also, we have clarified the legal standing meaning we clarified again who the plaintiffs are” Ms Lasma Nathalia, one of the lawyers representing the plaintiffs said in a release TOC received on 24 August.
The activist added that the plaintiffs filed for a judicial review over numerous articles related to criminalization, working contracts, and other issues.
Several articles in Law No.3/2020 trigger controversy
- Article 4 Paragraph 2
The law’s Chapter 4 Article 2—that grants the central government the authority to issue a mining permit—has sparked strong criticism from activists.
Such a procedure can complicate the efforts of local residents affected by mining projects to file their objections.
“Just imagine that most of the affected residents live in Sumatera and Kalimantan as well as Papua. Just imagine if they have to spare their time, energy and budget to travel to Jakarta to lodge complaints,” the activist from the Bandung Legal Aid Institute (LBH Bandung) told TOC in a phone interview on 24 August.
Ms Lasma argued that Article 4 will deprive the rights of local residents to self-determination and public participation because they have to face a long, complicated process to voice their aspirations.
The old law—Law No.4/2009—also granted regional governments the authority to issue mining permits.
- Article 162
Also, Article 162 in Law no.3/2020—that jails and imposes sanctions on those who are considered obstructing mining works—is prone to abuse of power as mining companies and the government can criminalize anyone who is against the mining work.
Ms Nur Aini, a local resident from Banyuwangi, East Java told journalists in the doorstop session after the first judicial review trial on 9 August that pro-mining groups threatened to burn her house because she and other residents are opposing the gold mining in Mount Tumpang Pitu and Salakan.
“I am not against the government and the state. I am defending my country. Mount Tumpang Pitu is the fortress of Java Island. It is a shield for fishermen, it protects us from cyclones, water reservoirs. If the area is converted to a mining area, where are we going? We only want a better living. We are seeking independence and peace” she said.
- Article 169A
Article 169A—which guarantees the extension of holders of coal working contract (PKP2B) and contract of work without the bidding process—also poses problems as the government seems to ignore the impact of the mining contracts on the environment and the life of the affected residents.
“This part shows that the government is in favour of corporations. Why? There is no evaluation of the contracts and the government does not pay attention to what those companies with the contracts have done to the environment,” Ms Lasma said.
In the previous mining law, every time the contract expires, the mining area must be returned to the state and there were evaluations of the contracts.
What are the next steps?
Ms Lasma hoped that there will be hearing sessions with lawmakers and other related ministries regarding the controversial mining law.
“Panel of judges at the Constitutional Court must grant our wishes as this law matters most to the future of Indonesians, not only to those who live near mining areas but also the fate of Indonesia’s downstream extractive sector,” Ms Lasma wrapped up the interview.
TOC has yet to receive the information on the date of the possible third hearing in the coming weeks.