The mineral and coal mining sector has once again come under the spotlight following the enactment of Law No. 2 of 2025 on the Fourth Amendment to Law No. 4 of 2009 on Mineral and Coal Mining. One of the key issues that emerged during discussions on this revision is the extent to which opportunities for public participation are truly accommodated, both in the legislative process itself and in the resulting permitting mechanisms.
Not a Condition for Approval, but Part of the Environmental Requirements
It must be made clear from the outset: the consent of the local community is not a formal requirement in and of itself for the issuance of a mining business permit. However, public participation remains an integral part of meeting environmental requirements—one of several types of requirements that IUP holders must fulfill, particularly during the production phase, as stipulated in Government Regulation No. 96 of 2021 on the Implementation of Mineral and Coal Mining Business Activities in conjunction with Government Regulation No. 22 of 2021 on the Implementation of Environmental Protection and Management (PP 22/2021).
Under Government Regulation No. 22 of 2021, any business plan or activity that has an impact on the environment—including mining activities—must have one of the following three types of environmental documents, depending on the level of impact:
EIA (Environmental Impact Assessment) — for business plans or activities that have a significant impact on the environment;
UKL-UPL (Environmental Management and Monitoring Measures) — for activities that do not have a significant impact but still require management and monitoring; or
SPPL (Statement of Commitment to Environmental Management and Monitoring) — for small-scale activities that do not meet the criteria for mandatory UKL-UPL.
For the metallic minerals and energy mining sectors, where the licensed area exceeds 200 hectares, the Environmental Impact Assessment (Amdal) requirement applies as a prerequisite before a Mining Business License (IUP) for the production phase can be issued.
Entry Points for Public Participation in the Permitting Process
This is where genuine public participation, as governed by positive law, comes into play—at least in three respects:
First, regarding the designation of mining areas themselves. The Mining and Energy Law stipulates that the designation of these areas must be carried out in an integrated manner, taking into account input from relevant government agencies and affected communities, as well as considering ecological, economic, human rights, sociocultural, and environmental perspectives.
Second, in the process of preparing an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA), Government Regulation No. 22 of 2021 requires the business operator to involve the communities directly affected through two mechanisms: public notice of the business plan or activity, and public consultation. Affected communities are given the opportunity to submit suggestions, opinions, and feedback within a specified timeframe following the announcement. This engagement is not limited to residents within the EIA study area but may also include environmental advocates, academics, and supporting non-governmental organizations. The goal is clear: to ensure that the public receives adequate information, can express their views, and can influence the recommendations regarding the feasibility or non-feasibility of a business plan.
Third, in the UKL-UPL process for activities not subject to an Environmental Impact Assessment (Amdal), the public still has the right to submit suggestions and comments through the environmental document information system.
The Tension Between the Normative Framework and the Practice of Centralization
The issue is that the participatory framework described above—which relies largely on the EIA process and environmental consultations—coexists with a trend toward the centralization of licensing authority following the revision of the Mining Law. Authority that was previously partly in the hands of local governments has now shifted to the central government, so that local governments can no longer suspend or revoke mining permits even in the event of conflicts with communities or environmental damage. This raises the question: to what extent can participation in the EIA preparation phase—which generally occurs only once at the outset—replace the function of ongoing oversight that was previously the responsibility of local governments, which are relatively closer to the affected communities?
In addition, the revision of the Mineral and Coal Law also introduces new provisions that, in principle, bring mining activities closer to surrounding communities through mandatory community strengthening and empowerment programs for holders of IUPs and IUPKs, the implementation of which requires consultation with the relevant minister, local governments, and local communities. Priority for Mining Business Permit (IUP) areas is also directed toward cooperatives, MSMEs, and business entities affiliated with religious organizations as a means of ensuring equitable distribution of the economic benefits of mining.
Substantive Review and Constitutional Legitimacy
The provisions of this revised Mining Law were also subject to a constitutional review by the Constitutional Court. In Decision No. 184/PUU-XXIII/2025, six citizens filed a petition challenging provisions in the amended Mining Law, although the Constitutional Court ultimately ruled that the petition regarding one of the challenged articles was inadmissible.
This article is for informational and educational purposes only and is not intended to constitute an opinion, advice, or legal opinion regarding a specific case or issue. To obtain legal analysis and guidance tailored to your specific circumstances, please contact our legal professionals through the channels available on this website.
