Wednesday, March 12, 2014, | 14:34 WIB

JAKARTA, – The People’s Coalition for Mining Sovereignty registered an intervention suit for the Minerba Law Material Application Requested by the Indonesian Mineral Entrepreneurs Association (Apemindo) at the Constitutional Court (MK).

Chairman of the Indonesian Human Rights Committee for Social Justice (IHSC), Gunawan, when confirmed by, Wednesday (03/12/2014) explained that there were several reasons for his party to file the intervention.

First, Law No. 4 of 2009 concerning Mineral and Coal Mining (Minerba) expressly prohibits the export of raw minerals and strictly requires the construction of smelters.

“Mining is a capital-intensive, high-tech, and full of risk business. Then only strong companies can advance in mining. Therefore, it is not reasonable if companies refuse to build smelters, “said Gunawan.

Secondly, continued Gunawan, mining renegotiations should have been completed a year after the Minerba Act was enacted. Meanwhile, the construction of a smelter is carried out no later than 5 years after the Minerba Act is enacted.

In fact, instead of carrying out the mandate of the Minerba Law, mining companies reject several Minerba Law points. Delay in renegotiation was considered as a form of government uncertainty towards mining entrepreneurs.

“The third reason, processing, and refining of mining products, as well as the construction of a smelter factory, will increase state revenue from the mining sector,” Gunawan added.

For this reason, last Tuesday (11/3/2014), the People’s Coalition for Mining Sovereignty which consisted of several non-governmental organizations such as the IHSC, IGJ, PWYP, FITRA, and others registered an intervention suit to the constitutional court.

Meanwhile, separately contacted by Ladjiman Damanik, Executive Director of the Indonesian Mineral Entrepreneurs Association (Apemindo) acknowledged articles 102 and 103 of the mineral and coal mining were anxious for mining entrepreneurs.

To, Wednesday, he argued, the two articles only mentioned the obligation to increase added value, and not to ban exports. “There contains an obligation to increase mineral and coal added value. There is no prohibition on the export of ore as in Article 5 paragraph 2. It only controls exports and production. Not prohibited,” said Ladjiman.