Reviewing Act of Cooperative: Petition of the Petitioners Denied

Principal Petitioner Abdullah Sani and Husien Djunaidi after hearing the reading Decision of the case number 32/PUU-IX/2011 on reviewing Act No. 25 of 1992 concerning Cooperatives [Article 20 Paragraph (1) letter a and Article 37], on Thursday (28/7)

The Case No. 32/PUU-IX/2011 on reviewing Act no. 25 of 1992 concerning Cooperatives reviewed by Muhammad Suryani, Sani Abdullah, Husien Djunaidi, and Badriah. It rejected by the Constitutional Court (MK) in the Plenary Session on Thursday (28 / 7).

In the petition, the Petitioners filed the reviewing of two articles in the Act No. 25/1995 on Cooperatives of Article 20 paragraph (1) letter a and Article 37. Article 20 paragraphs (1) a letter stating, “Every member has the obligation: a. comply with the Statutes and Bylaws and the decisions that have been agreed in the Meeting of Members.”

Article 37 states, “Approval of the annual report, including the ratification of the annual calculation, an acceptance of accountability by the Executive Board Meeting of Members.” The article according to the Petitioners violated Article 27 paragraph (1), Article 28C Paragraph (2), and Article 28D subsections (1) of the 1945 Constitution.

Against the Petitioners’ argument regarding judicial review of Article 20 paragraph (1) letter a of Act 25/1992 which according to the Petitioners violated Article 27 paragraph (1), Article 28C Paragraph (2), and Article 28D Paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution, the Court believes that Article 27 paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution, which regulates the equality of all citizens before the law and government and an obligation to uphold the law and the government without any exception, not contrary to Article 27 paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution because the board is also members of the cooperative that has the same duties with other members. The Court did not find any relevance of Article 20 paragraph (1) letter a of Act 25/1992 to Article 28C Paragraph (2) of the 1945 Constitution, so it is not relevant for consideration.

As to Petitioners’ argument that Article 20 paragraph (1) letter a of Act 25/1992 is contradictory to Article 28D paragraph (1), 1945, the Court considered that also did not reveal any differences of interpretation that give rise to a fair legal uncertainty with respect to Article 20 paragraph (1) letter a of the Act 25/1992, as both members and administrators are equally obliged to obey the constitution / or decisions that have been agreed.

In the case of the review of Article 37 of Act 25/1992 which according to the Petitioners violated Article 27 paragraph (1), Article 28C Paragraph (2), and Article 28D Paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution because it seems to give legal privileges and immunities of officials cooperative, the Court argued that Article 37 of the Act is to regulate the mechanisms of accountability to all members of the cooperative board, which, if liability is accepted by the meeting of board members freed from its responsibility of the relevant financial year.

This, according to the Court, is a logical consequence of the accountability mechanisms that have been agreed and contained in the AD / ART, because meeting the members holds the highest authority in the cooperative. If it turns out there were criminal acts committed by officials / administrators, acceptance of accountability does not lead to the abolishment of criminal liability administrators / officials concerned. Thus, according to the Court, the Petitioners’ argument that Article 37 of Act 25/1992 is contradictory to Article 27 paragraph (1), Article 28C Paragraph (2), and Article 28D paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution is groundless under law. Based on these considerations, “the Court rejected the petition in its entirety,” said Mahfud MD. (Shohibul Umam/mh/Yazid.tr)

http://www.mahkamahkonstitusi.go.id/index.php?page=website_eng.BeritaInternalLengkap&id=5620

Read more »

Court Rejects Request the Deputy Chairman of the Parliament Kupang

Principal Petitioner, Anthon Melkianus Natun as Vice Chairman of the Parliament in Kupang district on reviewing Act No. 27/2009 on MPR, DPR, DPD and DPRD [Article 354 paragraph (2)]. In its verdict the court rejected the petition in its entirety because the petition is groundless arguments according to law, on Thursday (28 / 7)

Petition filed by the Vice Chairman of Regency Kupang Melkianus Natun Anthon stated rejected for entirely by the Constitutional Court (MK). The reading of the verdict was read by the Chairman of the Constitutional Court, Moh. Mahfud MD, assisted by eight judges constitution on Thursday (28 / 7), at the Plenary Court Room.

“Declare the Provisions, rejected the request provisional petition. In the Basic Petition, Rejecting the petition in its entirety, “said Mahfud when reading Decision No. 21/PUU-IX/2011 read it.

In the main petition, Petitioner argues that Article 354 paragraph (2) of Law 27/2009 are multiple interpretations that conflict with the principle of legal certainty and non-retroactive principle (prohibition of retroactive effect) and does not meet the principles of the formation of legislation. Court’s opinion read by Judge Ahmad Fadlil Sumadi states that Article 354 paragraph (2) of Act 27/2009 which stipulates that Parliament leaders from political parties in order of acquisition of seats in the regency / city, according to the Court’s intention is clear and light, can not be interpreted other.

“The Court considered that the provision did not violate the principle of legal certainty of fair and equal treatment before the law for the leadership of Parliament who has been designated as a leader who later due to the creation of the aspirations of the people are sovereign, should end his tenure as leader because of the order of seats of political parties being reduced. Legal certainty of the rules lies precisely on the proviso that if the sequence number of seats changed political party in connection with the regional division of the sovereign people’s aspirations, then the composition of the leadership positions should also change, “explained Fadlil.

The provisions of Article 354 paragraph (2) of Law 27/2009 is precisely in accordance with fair legal certainty, as well as equal treatment before the law. A quo provision, continued Fadlil mentioned that political parties before the regional division chair the order of acquisition is less than any other political party but then because of the acquisition sequence of area chair be more entitled to occupy leadership positions Parliament. ”Political parties are the order of acquisition Instead chair to be reduced and no longer had ranks the highest number of seats should be removed from office the leadership of Parliament. It is also consistent with the provisions of Article 28D paragraph (3) of the 1945 Constitution which gives every citizen equal opportunity in government, “he explained.

Meanwhile, the Petitioners’ argument that Article 354 paragraph (2) of Law 27/2009 is contradictory to Article 28I paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution which is a human right that can not be reduced under any circumstances, especially the right not to be prosecuted on the basis of applicable law subsided. According to the Court as expressed by Muhammad Alim, in the case of dismissal of the previous parliament leader because of majority of seats for regional expansion, the meaning of the words “not prosecuted on the basis of a retroactive law” is an absolute force in the field of criminal law because it contrary to the principle of legality. ”As for the relationship with the petition, the dismissal from office, not prosecuted on the basis of a retroactive law, but by changing the order of seats Political Parties petition because of the displacement seat parliament seats Political Parties Political Parties petition so that the applicant no longer occupies the highest order,” said Alim.

Alim added all the members of parliament, representing the voters who elected them. If the voters are sovereign is no longer included in the parent region, but has been included in the expansion area, then the legislators who remained in the area of the parent is not representing the voters who have included the expansion area. ”Thus, each regional division, and there is no transfer of Parliament seats to the area expansion would change the configuration of the sovereign voters to support a particular political party. Based on all the legal considerations described above, the Court believes the petition is groundless arguments according to law, “said Alim.

In such decisions, there are three constitutional judges who have a different opinion (dissenting opinion), namely the Constitutional Court Justice Maria Farida Indrati, Hamdan Zoelva, and Anwar Usman. All three claimed the Court should grant the petition to declare Article 354 paragraph (2) of Act No. 27/2009 was conditionally unconstitutional, which is unconstitutional to the extent not interpreted: “the composition of the leadership of parliament did not change despite a change in the composition of the number of seats each political party may result in the expansion area legislators from districts / cities which occurs after the determination of the leadership of regency / city carrier based on the results of the elections “. Of the various provisions, the legal guarantee of DPRD leadership tenure is five years and there is no mechanism to let him go in the middle of the term of office except under the provisions of Article 42 of Regulation 16/2010. 

Therefore, the reasons used to replace one of the leadership position Regency Kupang which is held by the applicant by reason of the number of seats was reduced HANURA Party after the transfer of some members of the local parliament of Sabu Raijua district legislators may result in the division is not fair to the applicant because it violates provisions of the reasons for the dismissal of parliament leaders in the middle term.

Hamdan expressed none of the legal mechanisms provided for in legislation to dismiss the head of parliament due to changes in the composition of the number of seats due to regional expansion, so the law must provide a guarantee for someone who has been appointed head of Parliament for a term of five years and can not be dismissed in term of office for no reason that it is set clearly. Mechanisms determine the leadership of Parliament is not a constitutional issue, but legal policy and political issues of law forming the Act.

“That is, whether the head of Parliament is determined based on the ratings of the seat of political parties or the rank number of seats in Parliament or election by the parliament just a way and purely political choice and not a constitutional issue. Therefore, in this case legal policy issues must not sacrifice the constitutional rights of citizens to obtain a fair legal certainty is guaranteed by the constitution in this case the right of a person who has been promoted to senior leadership positions during the five-year parliament that has been guaranteed by the laws that already exist previously. Therefore, to prevent violations of the principle of a fair legal certainty guaranteed by the constitution, then the interpretation of Article 354 paragraph (2) of Law 27/2009 is to be limited and affirmed by the Court, “Hamdan explained. (Lulu Anjarsari/mh/Yazid.tr)

 

http://www.mahkamahkonstitusi.go.id/index.php?page=website_eng.BeritaInternalLengkap&id=5619

Read more »

Halimah Agustina Kamil Gave Evidence on Judicial Review of Act of Marriage

Chairunnisa Jafizham, Halimah Agustina Kamil’s attorney, former wife of Bambang Trihatmodjo, were reading the petition at a hearing of the judicial Act No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, Wednesday (27 / 7)

Halimah Agustina Kamil’s petition, former wife of Bambang Trihatmodjo, held again at the Constitutional Court (MK), Wednesday (27/07/2011). The trial for case No. 38/PUU-IX/2011 about testing the constitutionality of the material of Law 1 / 1974 on Marriage (Marriage Act) is implemented by a Panel chaired by Ahmad Fadlil Sumadi, accompanied by Achmad Sodiki and Harjono.
Halimah who represented by her legal counsel Chairunnisa Jafizham declared, after making a deeper study of the proceedings preliminary review of Marriage Act, her client decided not to submit repair requests. “Judge Your Honor, after we did a study on the first trial, we assume that the repair, we did not do,” she said.
Furthermore, Halimah through Chairunnisa strengthen the arguments of the petition by submitting proof of P-1 through P-8. Evidence contains: Decision Central Jakarta Religious Court, the Jakarta High Court verdict, ruling the Supreme Court of Cassation, Judgement of Supreme Court Review, Letter of wedlock, ID card and family card, Act 1 / 1974 on Marriage, and the last letter of moving house. “Thus, for the evidence it deemed to have endorsed today,” said Ahmad Fadlil Sumadi tap with a hammer as he signs a one-time evidence approved.
In addition to the evidence, Halimah also filed six experts to be heard at the next session. Chairunnisa call an expert who will be presented by Shinta Nuriah Abdurrahman Wahid.
On Friday (07/08/2011) the Court has opened a preliminary judicial hearing Marriage Act filed by Halimah Agustina Kamil. Halimah testing out the provisions of the divorce terms set forth in Article 39 Paragraph (2) f of Marriage Act along the phrase “between husband and wife will not be able to get along as husband and wife” is contradictory to Article 28D Paragraph (1) and Article 28H Paragraph (2) of 45.
According to Halimah through her attorney, Chairunnisa, wives often take a sacrificed in quarrels and disputes. In fact, the fact that disputes and arguments most often caused by caused by her husband, for example a husband had an affair with another woman. (Annisa Anindya / Nur Rosihin Ana/mh/Yazid.tr)

http://www.mahkamahkonstitusi.go.id/index.php?page=website_eng.BeritaInternalLengkap&id=5616

Read more »

Salim Alkatiri Reviewed Final and Binding Decision of the Constitutional Court

Principal Petitioner, Salim Alkatiri was reading the plea at a hearing improvement of judicial review of Article 10 paragraph 1 letter a of Act No. 24 of 2003 regarding the Constitutional Court on Tuesday (26 / 7)

The review on Act No. 24/2003 on the Constitutional Court held again at Tuesday (07/26/2011). Assembly with the agenda of this petition were Ahmad Fadlil Sumadi as Chairman of the Panel, and were accompanied by Achmad Sodiki and Anwar Usman. The trial for this case Number 36/PUU-IX/2011 filed by Salim Alkatiri. The material was Article 10 paragraph 1 letter a, of Act No. 24/2003 governing authority of the Constitutional Court to adjudicate at the first and last decision is final.

In front of the panel of the Constitutional Court, Salim improve the legal standing of the Petitioner. ”The most important thing is to point 3, of the legal position of legal standing,” said Salim.

Salim feels aggrieved by the decision of the Court Number 224/PHPU.D VIII/2010 on Election Results Dispute Kab. South Buru pronounced December 31, 2010. In the ruling No. 224/PHPU.D VIII/2010, the Court declared the application partner Salim Alkatiri-La Ode Badwi unacceptable.

Constitutional Court’s decision is final and binding. This has become an obstacle for Salim to make an appeal, so that Salim could not qualify as candidates for the General Election South Buru because it had been a prisoner with a sentence of 2 years in prison. Salim argued that the Court alter its own decision, namely Decision Number 4/PUU-VII/2009, resulting in him can not follow the General Election South Buru.

Constitutional Court Decision No. 4/PUU-VII/2009, dated March 24, 2009 has defined the terms of the provisions of Article 58 f of Law 12/2008 regarding the requirements as a Regional Head and Deputy Head of the Region. Article 58 of Law 12/2008 points f 3 states, “honesty or openness about the background of her identity as an ex-convict”.

Salim admitted that he had revealed his identity as an ex-convict. ”We have expressed openly to the public in the newspaper Suara Maluku in Ambon, Maluku province,” said Salim.

According to him, the Court had violated the verdict Number 4/PUU-VII/2009.”Violate the Constitutional Court ruling that he created himself,” he continued. In fact, Salim added, the decision of Class I Ambon District Court to allow the couple Salim Alkatiri-La Ode Badwi South Buru following the General Election of 2010.(Nur Rosihin Ana/mh/Yazid.tr)

http://www.mahkamahkonstitusi.go.id/index.php?page=website_eng.BeritaInternalLengkap&id=5612

Read more »

Judicial Review on Act of Forestry: The Government Consider Petition Blurred

Petitioner’s attorney, Muhammad Ali Dharma Utama is listening to the statements of the Government in the trial testing of Article 4 Paragraph (2) letter b Act No. 41 of 1999 on Forestry, Tuesday (26 / 7)

Petitions are not obvious and obscure (obscuur libel) because Petitioner does not clearly describe the applicant’s legal position. It is delivered by the Government, represented by Prasetyo Agung Gunardo in response to the petition for judicial review of Article 4 Paragraph (2) letter b Act No. 41 of 1999 on Forestry, Maskur Anang bin Kemas Anang Muhammad reviewing the Act. Constitutional Court held a hearing to listen to statements of the Government and Parliament are registered with a number 34/PUU-IX/2011 on Tuesday (26 / 7).

“In the description, Petitioner did not explain its legal status as individuals or WN or a private legal entities considering Petitioner argues that as the owner of PT Jaya Mas Ricky. Petitioner did not explain his position and also does not explain his position within the company. Based on the above, then the position of the applicant is considered vague and does not meet the qualifications as required in Article 51 paragraph (1) of the Constitutional Court, “said Gunardo.

Furthermore, Gunardo explained that the construction of constitutional rights violations described Petitioner did not expressly unravel. Petitioner argues that the losses caused by the transition function of plantation land owned by the Petitioner by the Government through the Minister of Forestry. If it is true, continued Gunardo, the decision a quo in the domain authority of state administrative officials, so there is no causal link between the losses suffered by the applicant with the provisions petitioned for review. ”Based on the foregoing, it should be legal efforts undertaken by the applicant is through the judiciary, namely the Administrative Court or the Court,” he explained.

According Gunardo, specifically against the authority in Article 4 paragraph (2) letter b law is intended to accommodate the dynamics of development, both outside and in the forestry sector in the forestry sector itself. On the other hand, did not rule out the existence of certain zoning into the forest. Further regulation regarding certain zoning areas into forest land or forest to forest area is not stipulated in Government Regulation Number 44 Year 2004 on Forestry Planning.” The provisions of Article 4 paragraph (3) a quo law determines that the acquisition of forests by the state shall respect customary laws as long as it exists and its existence is recognized, and not contrary to national interests,” he said.

In addition, control of forest by the state, the Government also pay attention to the rights of existing soil. Petitioners’ argument against the existence of losses suffered due to custody pursuant to a general verdict of the judiciary, according to the Government is not the constitutional rights and / or authorities referred to Article 51 of the Constitutional Court Law, but linked to criminal acts committed by the applicant, that is by deliberately moving the others for destruction of property of others. ”Based on the above explanation, the Government asked His Excellency Chief Justice of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Indonesia to deliver a verdict stating that the applicant has no legal standing position or a clear legal standing. Reject the petition for judicial review petition in whole or at least claim petition is niet ontvankelijk verklaard or unacceptable, “he explained.

Panel of Judges, chaired by the Chief Court Moh Mahfud MD, accompanied by eight other judges’ constitution ratified 40 pieces of evidence. ”Then, the next hearing would be opened if the applicant was willing to call witnesses or experts. So you dated two slowest were already enrolled when presenting expert. If it does not register on 2 expert or witness, meaning assume this examination fairly, so schedule the next hearing is the pronunciation of the verdict. And for that if indeed the pronunciation of the verdict, then surely both the Government and the applicant, no later than December 9 convey the conclusions of the overall course of this trial, “explained Mahfud.

Through a lawyer, Muhammad Ali Dharma Utama, Petitioners argue that their constitutional rights violated due to the enactment of Article 4 Paragraph (2) letter b of the Forestry Law. According to Dharma Ali, a quo article is contrary to Article 27 Paragraph (1), Article 28C Paragraph (2), 28D Paragraph (3), and 28H Paragraph (4) of the 1945 Constitution. Article 4 Paragraph 92) of the Forestry Act states “(2) Forest control by the State referred to in paragraph (1) authorizes the government to: (b) determine the status of certain areas as forest area or forest area as non-forest area”. Petitioners argued the article to give freedom to the Minister of Forestry to determine the status of certain areas as forest or non-forest areas such as forest areas have been given an opportunity to the Minister of Forestry to break the law by manipulating and manipulate the soil to be over the functions that are outside the forest area are not yet a forest area. As happened in the estates applicant who is in agricultural cultivation area has been converted by the Minister of Forestry as a forest industry plants. (Lulu Anjarsari/mh/Yazid.tr)

http://www.mahkamahkonstitusi.go.id/index.php?page=website_eng.BeritaInternalLengkap&id=5611

Read more »

Fleeing the petition, Judicial Review Act Criminal Code and Law on Judicial Authority Not Received

Principal applicant and Aryanto Nugroho and Tjahjadi Nugroho, Commissioner and President Director of PT. Mutual Tlaga Jaya, Semarang, Central Java, while hearing the reading of the Decision Testing Book of the Law of Civil Law (Article 616, 617, 618, 619, 620, and 1918) and Law No. 4 Year 2004 regarding Judicial Power (Article 1, 23, 28 and 33). In Amar Decision of the Constitutional Court (MK) can not accept applications both on Monday (25 / 7) in the courtroom Plenary Court Building.

Jakarta, MKOnline - Tjahjadi and Aryanto Nugroho Nugroho, respectively as Commissioner and President Director of PT. Mutual Tlaga Jaya, Semarang, Central Java, should be tolerant, after the Constitutional Court (MK) can not accept applications both in hearing the pronunciation of the verdict on Monday (7/25/2011).

“To declare the petition is unacceptable,” said Chairman of the Plenary Session Judge Court, Moh. Mahfud MD when reading the ruling of the Judicial Review case 4/PUU-IX/2011 Book of Civil Law Act (Civil Code) and Act 4 / 2004 on Judicial Power.

Legal issues raised by Petitioner is about testing the material to the substance of Article 616, Article 617, Article 618, Article 619, Article 620 and Article 1918 Civil Code, Article 19 of Government Regulation (PP) 10/1961 on Land Registration; Article 1 Regulation of the Minister of Agrarian 14/1961 on Demand and Permit Transfer of Land Rights, Article 23 and Article 37 paragraph (1) PP 24/1997, Article 1, Section 23, Article 28 and Article 33 of Law 4 / 2004 on Judicial Power, against the 1945 Constitution.

Court in its opinion read by Judge Maria Farida Indrati, stating, Petitioner argues itself as a legal entity of public and private legal entities as well.” But the Court’s opinion that the applicant only qualifies as a private legal entity, as referred to in Article 51 paragraph (1) letter c of the Constitutional Court,” said Maria.

Application Fleeing

According to the Court, although the applicant qualifies as a private legal entity in the testing of the 1945 Act, but Petitioner did not explain the losses they experienced. Though the Court in a preliminary trial date of January 17, 2011 has checked the application and gives advice to Petitioner to improve and complete the application no later than 14 days. However, Petitioner did not fix the application, while improvements have exceeded the time limit.

Therefore, the Court examined the petition which had been registered without changes. The Court considered the substance of the petition blurred. ”Against the substance of the petition, the Court considered the petition obscure material (obscuur libel),” Maria continued.

Court declared no longer need to examine and consider the principal substance of the petition because the petition vague and qualified person as defined by Article 51 paragraph (1) and paragraph (2) the Constitutional Court Law. Thus, according to the Court, the Petitioner has no legal status (legal standing). (Nur Rosihin Ana /mh)

http://www.mahkamahkonstitusi.go.id/index.php?page=website_eng.BeritaInternalLengkap&id=5606

Read more »

SKLN Kab. East Kutai Vs Minister of Energy and Mineral Resources: Mining Experts Affirm Applicant is a Local Government Authority

Justices of the Constitutional Assembly of Experts are listening to testimony from the applicant Prof. Dr. Laica Marzuki (Professor of Law Faculty of Hasanuddin and former Constitutional Court judge) in the Session of the Dispute Authority of State Institutions (SKLN) between the Ministry of Energy and Mineral Resources (ESDM) and the Regional Government of East Kutai regency, on Thursday (21 / 7) in the Plenary Session of the House MK.

Jakarta, MKOnline - Four experts from the Petitioner delivered his statement before the Plenary Session of the case SKLN between the Ministry of Energy and the Government District. East Kutai, on Thursday (21 / 7). The four experts who delivered his statement, Prof. Dr. Laica Marzuki (Professor of Law Faculty of Hasanuddin and ex-Judge Court), Prof. Muchsan (Former Supreme Court Justice), Dr. Indra Butler (Lecturer Unpad FH), and Prof.. Mas’ud Said (Lecturer Faculty of Law University of Malang).
 
The trial was the case with Number 3/SKLN-IX/2011 chaired by the Chairman of the Constitutional Court (MK), Moh. Mahfud MD. Petitioner’s expert was given his first submit his statement, namely Laica Marzuki.
 
Ex-judge constitution deliver related interpretations of Article 1 paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution in conjunction with Article 18 paragraph (1) and subsection (5) the same law. In the articles stipulated that Indonesia is a unitary state is a republic and is divided into areas of the province. Further areas of the province is further divided into counties and cities whose governments are run with broad autonomy. However, government affairs governed by the laws into the affairs of the central government.
 
Further Laica said that the affairs of the central government according to the 1945 Constitution, namely the political affairs of foreign, defense, security, justice, monetary and national fiscal, and religion. ”Outside of the central government affairs, government affairs under the authority of other autonomous regions. This mining excluding central government affairs, “said Laica.
 
Laica also said Law. 4 in 2009 on Mineral and Coal has made local governments, especially local government district. East Kutai unable to perform its constitutional authority to regulate and manage their own affairs in the fields of energy and mineral resources.
 
“The mining of minerals and energy it ought to be a constitutional government or the provinces, kabipaten / town in casu the applicant District Government of East Kutai, East Kalimantan,” said Laica.
 
The same thing also expressed GMU Professors, Muhsan. Related to regional autonomy, Muhsan said that the local government, both provincial and regency / city that existed as an autonomous region has the broadest authority onotom too.”According to Prof. Mr. Durpsteen in his book ‘Administratiief Recht’, otonomo authority is empowered to take care of their own households which include the authority to regulate and manage its own human resources, financial manage their own authority, and authority to empower the community, “said Muhsan.
 
Furthermore, Muhsan said, according to Article 33 paragraph (2) and paragraph (3) of the 1945 Constitution, local government has the right to explore the sources of finance including managing the natural resources in the area of administration.However, after the advent of Law no. 4 of 1999 which clearly states the management of mining Mining under the authority of central government.
 
“Supposedly, an authority must be comprehensive both procedural and substantive. This means, the management authority that includes the mining licensing, zoning, or operation of mining activities is a local government authority, “said Muhsan. (Yusti Nurul Agustin / mh) 

http://www.mahkamahkonstitusi.go.id/index.php?page=website_eng.BeritaInternalLengkap&id=5600

Read more »