Constitutional Court: Mining Permits Must Not Erode Universities' Oversight Function

The Constitutional Court (MK) has issued a warning to universities obtaining priority mineral and coal mining permits (IUP) not to lose the control function of the academic community in safeguarding environmental sustainability in Indonesia. The warning is contained in Constitutional Court Decision Number: 160/PUU-XXIII/2025, which was petitioned by several individuals and two students challenging Law Number 2 of 2025 concerning the Fourth Amendment to Law Number 4 of 2009 on Mineral and Coal Mining (Minerba Law). The MK explained that the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia does not prohibit universities from engaging in profit-oriented activities, as this is intended to support operational costs that are not fully covered by the state. Nevertheless, the MK stressed that granting such permits must not sacrifice the independence of the academic community. ‘In this context, such involvement must remain within the framework of implementing the Tri Dharma of Higher Education, namely to strengthen the mission of education, research, and community service, rather than direct involvement as managers of mineral and coal businesses,’ said Constitutional Justice Enny Nurbaningsih in her legal considerations on Thursday (16/7). If a university is directly involved as a manager, it will lose its strategic position as an institution that upholds the nation’s morals. The MK also affirmed that the granting of IUPs must not become a trap for universities that results in weakened control and supervision of environmental sustainability. ‘Furthermore, in maintaining the spirit of university independence, it is important for the Court to remind that the opening of opportunities regulated in the a quo norms must not become a trap for universities that results in the paralysis of their role as one of the front-line guardians of environmental preservation,’ she stressed. The petitioners challenged the constitutionality of Articles 51, 60, and 75 concerning priority and auction rules for mining areas in the Minerba Law. The MK partially granted the petition. The articles under review contain provisions regarding the granting of mineral or coal mining permit areas to private entities through an auction or priority mechanism. The petitioners questioned the phrase ‘by way of priority’, which they considered open to misinterpretation. Following the MK’s ruling, the wording of these articles has been changed so that the phrase ‘by way of priority’ must be assessed through an objective, transparent, and accountable mechanism. Furthermore, the phrase must not be misinterpreted as a form of direct appointment.