NGOs lash out at court over anti-environment ruling
NGOs lash out at court over anti-environment ruling
The Jakarta Post, Jakarta
Environmental organizations have slammed the recent
Constitutional Court verdict allowing mining companies to
continue operations in protected forests, saying it set a bad
precedent and would create more environmental destruction.
In a joint statement, the NGOs which lost the court battle
said the judges were inconsistent in their stance on
environmental issues.
"On one hand, the verdict said open pit mining would create an
environmental catastrophe, yet on the other it exempted the
mining companies (from the law protecting forests)," Siti
Maimunah from the Network for Mining Advocacy (Jatam) said.
If the judges were consistent, they would have revoked the
2004 law because it risked harming the people, which was against
the 1945 Constitution, the groups said.
"But the court opted to compromise," they said.
The Constitutional Court ruled on Thursday the government's
decision to allow 13 mining companies to resume their operations
in protected forests had not violated the Constitution.
The 13 firms are PT Freeport Indonesia, PT Karimun Granite, PT
INCO, PT Indominco Mandiri, PT Aneka Tambang (Bahubulu), PT Aneka
Tambang (Buli), PT Natarang Mining, PT Nusa Halmahera Mineral, PT
Pelsart Tambang Kencana, PT Interex Sacra Raya, PT Weda Bay
Nickel, PT Gag Nikel, and PT Sorikmas Mining.
The panel of judges voted unanimously for the enactment of Law
No. 19/2004 revising Law No. 41/1999 on forestry that banned open
mining in protected forests. The 2004 forestry law took effect
after the House of Representatives endorsed a government
regulation in lieu of law that allowed the mining companies to
operate in protected forests.
A verdict from the court is final and binding.
Former president Megawati Soekarnoputri issued the first
regulation in lieu of a law permitting the mining, citing
emergency conditions.
However, the environmental groups said the way the judges
viewed the verdict showed they did not believe an emergency
situation was in place.
"The judges recommended that the President thoroughly
deliberate the conditions before issuing the regulation in lieu
of a law, which implies that the judges actually saw the issuance
of the controversial regulation lacked a sense of emergency, said
Chalid Muhammad from the Indonesian Forum for Environment
(Walhi).
Chalid said the court ruling would encourage the government to
issue more controversial regulations in lieu of laws under the
guise of a state of emergency.