Ada Pertanyaan? Hubungi Kami 
2026 Hak Cipta Milik Hukumonline.com
Produk Pilihan
Ada Pertanyaan? Hubungi Kami Agus Sahbani, Robert Sidauruk
The battle between mining companies and the Government over the mineral export ban remains a highly contentious issue, despite the recent policy package issued by the Government providing some leniency for mining companies to export certain mineral products.
The Indonesian Association of Mineral Entrepreneurs (Apemindo) and a number of mining companies have now moved the fight to a new battleground, the Constitutional Court, where they have filed a judicial review petition against Articles 102 and 103 of Law No. 4 of 2009 on Mining (Mining Law).
Initial proceedings commenced with a preliminary hearing on the petition on Tuesday. The Constitutional Court has arranged a panel, chaired by Justice Justice Ahmad Fadlil Sumadi, to hear the arguments from Apemindo and other mining companies regarding Articles 102 and 103.
As the Applicant, Apemindo and other mining companies are arguing that the Articles in question, which are the legal basis for the recent policy package on the mineral export ban, have put their businesses in jeopardy.
Further, they are also arguing that these articles do not explicitly prohibit mineral exports. These articles, they say, only require mining companies to domestically process and purify minerals.
The Applicant contends that the Government has misinterpreted Articles 102 and 103 of the Mining Law and has unlawfully used these articles as a basis to restrict raw material and ore exports .
“The Government has construed both of the Articles as a prohibition to export raw mineral materials and ore, which has caused losses to mining companies and left no option other than to terminate a number of workers to keep their businesses operational,” said Refly Harun, the Applicant’s attorney, during the preliminary hearing.
Refly further explained that in his view Articles 102 and 103 of the Mining Law only regulate domestic processing and purifying. However, the Government has over zealously interpreted these Articles to extend to an export ban and issued Minister of Energy and Mineral Resources (ESDM) Regulation No. 1 of 2014.
“If it was intended to ban mineral exports, such policy should be clearly stated in the Mining Law,” added Refly.
During the preliminary hearing, Justice Maria Farida Indrati questioned the Applicant’s intention to lodge the judicial review petition with the Constitutional Court. She suggested the Applicant file the petition with the Supreme Court, if their intention is to review ESDM Regulation No. 1 of 2014, as the Constitutional Court only has jurisdiction to review laws that conflict with the 1945 Constitution.
“If the main issue is the export ban policy which covered by Minister ESDM Regulation No. 1 of 2014, the Applicant should bring the matter to the Supreme Court,” said Justice Maria Farida.
Justice Ahmad Fadlil Sumadi, the Chairman of the panel, advised the Applicant to elaborate and emphasize the aspects of the petition that relate to a contradiction between the Articles in question and the 1945 Constitution. In addition, he also ordered the Applicant to revise their petition if they wish their case to be heard.
“The Applicant is granted 14 days to revise their judicial review petition,” was the conclusion reached by Justice Sumadi.
(hot/kc)
The battle between mining companies and the Government over the mineral export ban remains a highly contentious issue, despite the recent policy package issued by the Government providing some leniency for mining companies to export certain mineral products.
The Indonesian Association of Mineral Entrepreneurs (Apemindo) and a number of mining companies have now moved the fight to a new battleground, the Constitutional Court, where they have filed a judicial review petition against Articles 102 and 103 of Law No. 4 of 2009 on Mining (Mining Law).
Initial proceedings commenced with a preliminary hearing on the petition on Tuesday. The Constitutional Court has arranged a panel, chaired by Justice Justice Ahmad Fadlil Sumadi, to hear the arguments from Apemindo and other mining companies regarding Articles 102 and 103.
As the Applicant, Apemindo and other mining companies are arguing that the Articles in question, which are the legal basis for the recent policy package on the mineral export ban, have put their businesses in jeopardy.
Further, they are also arguing that these articles do not explicitly prohibit mineral exports. These articles, they say, only require mining companies to domestically process and purify minerals.
The Applicant contends that the Government has misinterpreted Articles 102 and 103 of the Mining Law and has unlawfully used these articles as a basis to restrict raw material and ore exports .
“The Government has construed both of the Articles as a prohibition to export raw mineral materials and ore, which has caused losses to mining companies and left no option other than to terminate a number of workers to keep their businesses operational,” said Refly Harun, the Applicant’s attorney, during the preliminary hearing.
Refly further explained that in his view Articles 102 and 103 of the Mining Law only regulate domestic processing and purifying. However, the Government has over zealously interpreted these Articles to extend to an export ban and issued Minister of Energy and Mineral Resources (ESDM) Regulation No. 1 of 2014.
“If it was intended to ban mineral exports, such policy should be clearly stated in the Mining Law,” added Refly.
During the preliminary hearing, Justice Maria Farida Indrati questioned the Applicant’s intention to lodge the judicial review petition with the Constitutional Court. She suggested the Applicant file the petition with the Supreme Court, if their intention is to review ESDM Regulation No. 1 of 2014, as the Constitutional Court only has jurisdiction to review laws that conflict with the 1945 Constitution.
“If the main issue is the export ban policy which covered by Minister ESDM Regulation No. 1 of 2014, the Applicant should bring the matter to the Supreme Court,” said Justice Maria Farida.
Justice Ahmad Fadlil Sumadi, the Chairman of the panel, advised the Applicant to elaborate and emphasize the aspects of the petition that relate to a contradiction between the Articles in question and the 1945 Constitution. In addition, he also ordered the Applicant to revise their petition if they wish their case to be heard.
“The Applicant is granted 14 days to revise their judicial review petition,” was the conclusion reached by Justice Sumadi.
(hot/kc)
Agus Sahbani, Robert Sidauruk
The battle between mining companies and the Government over the mineral export ban remains a highly contentious issue, despite the recent policy package issued by the Government providing some leniency for mining companies to export certain mineral products.
The Indonesian Association of Mineral Entrepreneurs (Apemindo) and a number of mining companies have now moved the fight to a new battleground, the Constitutional Court, where they have filed a judicial review petition against Articles 102 and 103 of Law No. 4 of 2009 on Mining (Mining Law).
Initial proceedings commenced with a preliminary hearing on the petition on Tuesday. The Constitutional Court has arranged a panel, chaired by Justice Justice Ahmad Fadlil Sumadi, to hear the arguments from Apemindo and other mining companies regarding Articles 102 and 103.
As the Applicant, Apemindo and other mining companies are arguing that the Articles in question, which are the legal basis for the recent policy package on the mineral export ban, have put their businesses in jeopardy.
Further, they are also arguing that these articles do not explicitly prohibit mineral exports. These articles, they say, only require mining companies to domestically process and purify minerals.
The Applicant contends that the Government has misinterpreted Articles 102 and 103 of the Mining Law and has unlawfully used these articles as a basis to restrict raw material and ore exports .
“The Government has construed both of the Articles as a prohibition to export raw mineral materials and ore, which has caused losses to mining companies and left no option other than to terminate a number of workers to keep their businesses operational,” said Refly Harun, the Applicant’s attorney, during the preliminary hearing.
Refly further explained that in his view Articles 102 and 103 of the Mining Law only regulate domestic processing and purifying. However, the Government has over zealously interpreted these Articles to extend to an export ban and issued Minister of Energy and Mineral Resources (ESDM) Regulation No. 1 of 2014.
“If it was intended to ban mineral exports, such policy should be clearly stated in the Mining Law,” added Refly.
During the preliminary hearing, Justice Maria Farida Indrati questioned the Applicant’s intention to lodge the judicial review petition with the Constitutional Court. She suggested the Applicant file the petition with the Supreme Court, if their intention is to review ESDM Regulation No. 1 of 2014, as the Constitutional Court only has jurisdiction to review laws that conflict with the 1945 Constitution.
“If the main issue is the export ban policy which covered by Minister ESDM Regulation No. 1 of 2014, the Applicant should bring the matter to the Supreme Court,” said Justice Maria Farida.
Justice Ahmad Fadlil Sumadi, the Chairman of the panel, advised the Applicant to elaborate and emphasize the aspects of the petition that relate to a contradiction between the Articles in question and the 1945 Constitution. In addition, he also ordered the Applicant to revise their petition if they wish their case to be heard.
“The Applicant is granted 14 days to revise their judicial review petition,” was the conclusion reached by Justice Sumadi.
(hot/kc)
The battle between mining companies and the Government over the mineral export ban remains a highly contentious issue, despite the recent policy package issued by the Government providing some leniency for mining companies to export certain mineral products.
The Indonesian Association of Mineral Entrepreneurs (Apemindo) and a number of mining companies have now moved the fight to a new battleground, the Constitutional Court, where they have filed a judicial review petition against Articles 102 and 103 of Law No. 4 of 2009 on Mining (Mining Law).
Initial proceedings commenced with a preliminary hearing on the petition on Tuesday. The Constitutional Court has arranged a panel, chaired by Justice Justice Ahmad Fadlil Sumadi, to hear the arguments from Apemindo and other mining companies regarding Articles 102 and 103.
As the Applicant, Apemindo and other mining companies are arguing that the Articles in question, which are the legal basis for the recent policy package on the mineral export ban, have put their businesses in jeopardy.
Further, they are also arguing that these articles do not explicitly prohibit mineral exports. These articles, they say, only require mining companies to domestically process and purify minerals.
The Applicant contends that the Government has misinterpreted Articles 102 and 103 of the Mining Law and has unlawfully used these articles as a basis to restrict raw material and ore exports .
“The Government has construed both of the Articles as a prohibition to export raw mineral materials and ore, which has caused losses to mining companies and left no option other than to terminate a number of workers to keep their businesses operational,” said Refly Harun, the Applicant’s attorney, during the preliminary hearing.
Refly further explained that in his view Articles 102 and 103 of the Mining Law only regulate domestic processing and purifying. However, the Government has over zealously interpreted these Articles to extend to an export ban and issued Minister of Energy and Mineral Resources (ESDM) Regulation No. 1 of 2014.
“If it was intended to ban mineral exports, such policy should be clearly stated in the Mining Law,” added Refly.
During the preliminary hearing, Justice Maria Farida Indrati questioned the Applicant’s intention to lodge the judicial review petition with the Constitutional Court. She suggested the Applicant file the petition with the Supreme Court, if their intention is to review ESDM Regulation No. 1 of 2014, as the Constitutional Court only has jurisdiction to review laws that conflict with the 1945 Constitution.
“If the main issue is the export ban policy which covered by Minister ESDM Regulation No. 1 of 2014, the Applicant should bring the matter to the Supreme Court,” said Justice Maria Farida.
Justice Ahmad Fadlil Sumadi, the Chairman of the panel, advised the Applicant to elaborate and emphasize the aspects of the petition that relate to a contradiction between the Articles in question and the 1945 Constitution. In addition, he also ordered the Applicant to revise their petition if they wish their case to be heard.
“The Applicant is granted 14 days to revise their judicial review petition,” was the conclusion reached by Justice Sumadi.
(hot/kc)