Ada Pertanyaan? Hubungi Kami 
2026 Hak Cipta Milik Hukumonline.com
Produk Pilihan
Ada Pertanyaan? Hubungi Kami Agus Sahbani, Robert Sidauruk
The Constitutional Court is continuing its deliberations on the judicial review of Articles 102 and 103 of Law No. 4 of 2009on Mineral and Coal Mining (Mining Law). The judicial review itself was filed by the Indonesian Association of Mineral Entrepreneur (Apemindo) and a number of mining companies.
During the proceedings on Wednesday, the Government, represented by Mualimin Abdi, Director General of Laws and Regulations at the Ministry of Law and Human Rights, refuted the Applicant’s argument that Government has wrongly constructed the Articles in question as a prohibition on the export of mining products.
Mr. Abdi explained that the articles in question only mandated mining businesses to process and purify their production domestically in Indonesia. This requirement is known as the value-added policy (kebijakan nilai tambah).
While the Mining Law does not explicitly provide for a mineral export ban, Mr. Abdi admitted that the Government has issued a policy package to prohibit mineral and coal exports in form of ore and raw material.
Mr. Abdi added, however, that this policy package, which was issued under government and ministerial level regulations, cannot be categorized as a full ban on the exports as argued by the Applicant.
“Mining businesses may still export their products after it has been processed and purified in Indonesia,” said Mr. Abdi.
In regard to export ban under Minister of Energy and Mineral Resources (ESDM) Regulation No. 1 of 2014(Regulation), the Government asserted that there is no single provision stating that the Ministerial Regulation is derived from Articles 102 and 103 of Mining Law.
Hence, if the Applicant believes that there is a contradiction between the Ministerial Regulation with the Mining Law, such notion cannot be heard before the Constitutional Court.
“In fact, there is no government or ministerial regulations that prohibit the export of mineral and coal that are derived from Articles 102 and 103 of the Mining Law,” Mr. Abdi said.
Mr. Abdi also refuted the Applicant’s concern regarding massive layoffs due to the mineral export ban. He asserted that such consequences would not areise if mining companies had a strong commitment to implement the value-added policy, for example by establishing their own smelters.
“Based on these reasons, we request the court to dismiss all of the Applicant’s petitions,” concluded Mr. Abdi.
(hot/kc)
Agus Sahbani, Robert Sidauruk
The Constitutional Court is continuing its deliberations on the judicial review of Articles 102 and 103 of Law No. 4 of 2009on Mineral and Coal Mining (Mining Law). The judicial review itself was filed by the Indonesian Association of Mineral Entrepreneur (Apemindo) and a number of mining companies.
During the proceedings on Wednesday, the Government, represented by Mualimin Abdi, Director General of Laws and Regulations at the Ministry of Law and Human Rights, refuted the Applicant’s argument that Government has wrongly constructed the Articles in question as a prohibition on the export of mining products.
Mr. Abdi explained that the articles in question only mandated mining businesses to process and purify their production domestically in Indonesia. This requirement is known as the value-added policy (kebijakan nilai tambah).
While the Mining Law does not explicitly provide for a mineral export ban, Mr. Abdi admitted that the Government has issued a policy package to prohibit mineral and coal exports in form of ore and raw material.
Mr. Abdi added, however, that this policy package, which was issued under government and ministerial level regulations, cannot be categorized as a full ban on the exports as argued by the Applicant.
“Mining businesses may still export their products after it has been processed and purified in Indonesia,” said Mr. Abdi.
In regard to export ban under Minister of Energy and Mineral Resources (ESDM) Regulation No. 1 of 2014(Regulation), the Government asserted that there is no single provision stating that the Ministerial Regulation is derived from Articles 102 and 103 of Mining Law.
Hence, if the Applicant believes that there is a contradiction between the Ministerial Regulation with the Mining Law, such notion cannot be heard before the Constitutional Court.
“In fact, there is no government or ministerial regulations that prohibit the export of mineral and coal that are derived from Articles 102 and 103 of the Mining Law,” Mr. Abdi said.
Mr. Abdi also refuted the Applicant’s concern regarding massive layoffs due to the mineral export ban. He asserted that such consequences would not areise if mining companies had a strong commitment to implement the value-added policy, for example by establishing their own smelters.
“Based on these reasons, we request the court to dismiss all of the Applicant’s petitions,” concluded Mr. Abdi.
(hot/kc)