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.