PT Bara Energi Makmur Wins Landmark Case to Regain Mining License, Court Cites Procedural Breach by BKPM
Main Takeaways
|
JAKARTA, Investortrust.id — The Jakarta State Administrative Court has ruled in favor of PT Bara Energi Makmur, a coal mining company controlled by India’s Emmsons Group, ordering the restoration of its production operation mining license after finding that the 2022 revocation by the Minister of Investment and Downstreaming and Head of the Investment Coordinating Board, or BKPM, breached established legal procedures.
The decision, announced on Wednesday, Aug 6, 2025, under case number 171/G/2025/PTUN.JKT annulled BKPM’s revocation letter No. 20220405-01-50067 dated April 5, 2022, which had withdrawn the original license granted to PT Bara Energi Makmur (PT BEM) on Aug 24, 2009. The court ordered BKPM to revoke its own cancellation decision and reinstate the license, while also imposing Rp 361,000 in court costs on the agency.
The three-judge panel concluded that the revocation process violated Indonesia’s general principles of good governance, known as AUPB, particularly the principles of legal certainty and due care. It found that BKPM failed to prove any urgent violations that would have justified skipping the legally mandated sequence of warnings and administrative sanctions before license termination.
Company Argues Late Discovery and Procedural Breach
PT BEM, incorporated in May 2006 and represented in the proceedings by Director Anil Kumar Monga, argued that its new management only became aware of the revocation on March 6, 2025, after checking the government’s OSS (Online Single Submission) licensing system. The lawsuit, filed on May 15, 2025, was therefore within the statutory 90-day filing period. The company said it had previously submitted a formal objection and an administrative appeal to the President, which went unanswered. Under Indonesian law, such silence is deemed acceptance of the objection.
The company contended that the revocation was carried out without any prior notification or warning, contravening Article 151 of Law No. 4/2009 on Mineral and Coal Mining and Article 185 of Government Regulation No. 96/2021. It emphasized that it had invested approximately $30 million (Rp 500 billion) in pre-mining preparations, permit payments, non-tax state revenue, infrastructure, land and jetty purchases, and workforce operations.
PT BEM also stressed its commitment to build a coal gasification facility, generate local employment, increase state revenue, expand infrastructure, and providing free education and healthcare to communities around the mine site. The company argued that BKPM’s decision disregarded these contributions and commitments and failed to meet the standards of transparency, legal certainty, and procedural propriety.
BKPM Cites the Presidential Directive and Inactivity
BKPM, represented by its legal counsel, countered that the lawsuit was time-barred because the revocation occurred in April 2022 and the company was deemed to have been aware of it at that time. The agency maintained that the revocation was a direct follow-up to a presidential directive and the Energy and Mineral Resources Ministry’s evaluation, which concluded that PT BEM was non-operational and had failed to submit its annual Work Plan and Budget (RKAB).
Citing Article 188 of Government Regulation No. 96/2021 and Article 100 of Energy Ministry Regulation No. 7/2020, BKPM argued it had the authority to revoke a mining license outright, without staged administrative sanctions, in cases of certain violations. The agency said PT BEM’s inactivity met these criteria, justifying an immediate revocation.
Court Rejects Procedural Defense
The court rejected BKPM’s argument on the lawsuit’s timeliness, agreeing with the plaintiff that the filing period began when the company’s new director learned of the revocation in March 2025. The judges further ruled that even though BKPM held delegated authority to issue and revoke licenses, it failed to follow the legal steps set out in the governing regulations.
The panel found no evidence that PT BEM had committed any of the violations that allow for direct revocation without prior warnings, suspension, or staged sanctions. These include serious criminal conduct, significant environmental damage, or bankruptcy. Without such grounds, the court ruled, the revocation lacked a lawful basis and was executed in a manner that was rushed, incomplete, and harmful to the company’s acquired legal rights.
The judges concluded that the issuance of the revocation breached both the principle of due care and the principle of legal certainty within AUPB. They stressed that government agencies must act on complete and accurate information and respect the legal rights conferred by earlier valid decisions.
Legal Counsel Hails Decision as Investor Signal
Sururudin, PT BEM’s legal counsel, welcomed the ruling, saying it reaffirmed that Indonesia still offers justice and legal certainty to investors. “This decision sends a positive signal to foreign investors doing business in Indonesia. The state continues to guarantee a conducive investment climate,” he told Investortrust.id on Tuesday, Aug 12, 2025. He called on the Minister of Investment and Downstreaming and BKPM to promptly comply with the ruling and reinstate the company’s license.
The court’s decision not only restores PT BEM’s license but also sets a precedent for how administrative authority should be exercised in Indonesia’s mining sector. It highlights that even delegated powers must be executed in strict accordance with legal provisions and governance principles.
The case also serves as a reminder that sudden administrative sanctions without procedural safeguards can undermine investor confidence, particularly in capital-intensive sectors such as mining. By reaffirming the need for transparency, procedural compliance, and fairness, the ruling could influence how future license disputes are handled.
Promo!
Analyze stocks quickly and easily with InvestingPro — enjoy an exclusive discount for Investortrust readers. Click here to access the offer.