The Constitutional Court (MK) has affirmed that the method of\ngranting priority for mining business permit areas (WIUP) under the\nMinerba Law must be based on clear parameters to ensure mineral and coal\nmanagement aligns with Article 33 paragraph (3) of the 1945\nConstitution. This affirmation was contained in the ruling for case\nnumber 160\/PUU-XXIII\/2025, which reviewed the phrase \u2018by auction\u2019 or \u2018by\npriority\u2019 for granting WIUP for metallic minerals and coal to business\nentities, cooperatives, sole proprietorships, small and medium\nenterprises, or business entities owned by religious organisations.<\/p>\n
Constitutional Justice Enny Nurbaningsih stated that, driven by the\nspirit of equitable prosperity for all Indonesians, the government\u2019s\naffirmative policy of granting such priority must only be given with\nclear parameters. She noted that these clear parameters must involve an\nobjective, transparent, and accountable assessment process so that the\ngranting of priority is not simply understood as a direct appointment.\n\u2018Furthermore, a clear commitment is needed, especially to avoid\nenvironmental damage in the management of mineral and coal mining,\u2019 she\nsaid.<\/p>\n
In its considerations, the Court stated that the method of granting\nWIUP priority in the norms of Article 51 and Article 60 of the Minerba\nLaw did not clearly specify how the government determines the granting\nof priority. Consequently, the Court assessed that there was room for\nbroad and potentially subjective assessment in exercising discretion to\ndetermine which institutions, bodies, or entities would receive the\nWIUP. The Court held that the auction and priority methods cannot be\napplied simultaneously because one method necessarily negates the other.\n\u2018A competitive and procedurally fair auction cannot be achieved if there\nare parties who should be participating in the auction but instead\nobtain a priority route or are outside the auction,\u2019 Justice Enny\nstated.<\/p>\n
She further emphasised that even with the priority route, not all\npermit applicants can be guaranteed to obtain a WIUP due to limited\nmining areas. The absence of clear parameters in granting WIUP via the\npriority route, as argued by the petitioners, means there is no\nguarantee that granting WIUP will have a positive impact on welfare or\nprosperity. The Court reasoned that a proper selection process should be\nconducted for the priority WIUP route to ensure justice and equal\ntreatment for all applicants, as not all applicants have the same level\nof ability or capacity to compete in the mining business.<\/p>\n
The Court also stressed that affirmative policies in the form of\ngranting priority must remain within the spirit of Article 33 paragraph\n(3) of the 1945 Constitution, implemented through periodic evaluation.\nIf the execution of a priority permit is proven to violate licensing\nprinciples and causes loss or environmental damage, the permit must be\nreviewed or revoked. In its ruling, the panel of judges partially\ngranted the petition and declared the phrase \u2018by way of granting\npriority\u2019 in Article 51 paragraph (1) and Article 60 paragraph (1) of\nthe Minerba Law unconstitutional, unless interpreted as \u2018by way of\ngranting priority which can be given with clear parameters through an\nobjective, transparent, and accountable assessment process so that the\ngranting of priority is not simply understood as a direct\nappointment\u2019.<\/p>", "url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/constitutional-court-rules-mining-permit-priorities-must-have-clear-parameters-1784220769", "image": "" }, "sponsor": "Okusi Associates", "sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com" }