{
    "success": true,
    "data": {
        "id": 1865794,
        "msgid": "constitutional-court-rules-mining-permits-for-mass-organisations-cannot-be-directly-appointed-1784289126",
        "date": "2026-07-17 17:50:05",
        "title": "Constitutional Court Rules Mining Permits for Mass Organisations Cannot Be Directly Appointed",
        "author": "",
        "source": "CNBC",
        "tags": "",
        "topic": "Legal",
        "summary": "Indonesia's Constitutional Court has ruled that the 'priority offering' mechanism for mining permits to religious mass organisations and SMEs cannot be interpreted as direct appointment. The court mandated that any such priority must be based on clear parameters through an objective, transparent, and accountable assessment process. The decision aims to prevent legal uncertainty and ensure the management of mineral and coal resources maximises public prosperity.",
        "content": "<p>The Constitutional Court (MK) has prohibited the granting of Mining\nBusiness Permits (IUP) to religious mass organisations (ormas) or MSMEs\nif conducted through direct appointment. This follows a legal challenge\nagainst the phrase \u2018by way of priority offering\u2019 for IUPs to religious\nmass organisations, universities, and cooperatives, as stipulated in\nArticle 51 (1) and Article 60 (1) of Law Number 2 of 2025 concerning the\nFourth Amendment to Law Number 4 of 2009 on Mineral and Coal Mining\nagainst the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia.<\/p>\n<p>Article 51 (1) of Law No.\u00a02\/2025 states: \u2018WIUP for metallic minerals\nshall be granted to Business Entities, cooperatives, individual\ncompanies, small and medium enterprises, or business entities owned by\nreligious mass organisations by way of auction or by way of priority\noffering.\u2019 Article 60 (1) contains a similar provision for coal mining\nWIUP.<\/p>\n<p>The MK\u2019s decision is contained in Constitutional Court Ruling Number\n160\/PUU-XXIII\/2025. The petitioners, including private business actors,\nan MSME operator, a lecturer, a student, and a student forum chairman,\nargued that the \u2018priority offering\u2019 mechanism created legal uncertainty\nand injustice, preventing the maximum utilisation of mineral and coal\nresources for public prosperity. They claimed this violated the\nconstitutional mandate requiring natural resources to be managed for the\nbroadest benefit of the people.<\/p>\n<p>In its ruling, the MK declared that the phrase \u2018by way of priority\noffering\u2019 in the relevant articles is conditionally unconstitutional\nunless it is interpreted to mean that such priority can only be granted\nbased on clear parameters through an objective, transparent, and\naccountable assessment process. The court stressed that the mechanism\nmust not be misunderstood as an act of direct appointment that\ndisregards applicable selection standards.<\/p>",
        "url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/constitutional-court-rules-mining-permits-for-mass-organisations-cannot-be-directly-appointed-1784289126",
        "image": ""
    },
    "sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
    "sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}