Perkara nomor 5/Pdt/2018/Pn.Pbr merupakan bukti bahwa masih terdapat pelaku usaha tambang yang tidak melaksanakan reklamasi pasca tambang serta pemerintah yang belum melaksanakan pengawasan seperti apa yang diperintahkan perundang-undangan. PT Riau Bara Harum sebagai pemegang IUP dan IPPKH Kawasan Hutan Produksi Terbatas di Riau meninggalkan lahan pertambangan tanpa melakukan reklamasi pasca tambang membuat hakim pada putusan nomor 22/Pdt.G-LH/2016/Pn.Rgt memutus PT Riau Bara Harum dan Kementerian ESDM dengan putusan perbuatan melanggar hukum dan menghukum Kementerian ESDM untuk mereklamasi objek sengketa. Kementerian ESDM kemudian melakukan upaya banding ke Pengadilan Tinggi dengan perkara Nomor 5/Pdt/2018/Pt.PBR, yang mana Majelis Hakim Tinggi menguatkan Putusan Nomor 22/Pdt.G-LH/2016/PN.Rgt. Penelitian ini adalah penelitian hukum normatif, ini dilakukan agar mengetahui bagaimana pertimbangan hakim dan akibat hukum dari pertimbangan hakim dalam putusan Pengadilan Tinggi Nomor 5/PDT/2018/PN.PBR yang berfokus untuk menganalisis pada perbenturan tanggung jawab dalam mereklamasi atau mengawasi objek sengketa, serta, dapatkah perbuatan Tergugat II, Tergugat III, dan Tergugat IV yang dalam petitum penggugat disebutkan lalai dalam melakukan pengawasan apakah dapat digolongkan sebagai perbuatan melawan hukum. Pertimbangan hakim harus memperhatikan masing-masing kewenangan para pihak agar terwujud suatu kepastian hukum. pendekatan yang digunakan yaitu pendekatan perundang-undangan, kasus dan konseptual. Penelitian dilakukan dengan bahan hukum primer dan sekunder, pengumpulan bahan hukum menggunakan studi kepustakaan. Hasil penelitian diketahui bahwa pertimbangan hakim 1. Berdasarkan hasil analisis serta kajian kasus pada Putusan Nomor 5/PDT/2018/PT.PBR PT RBH telah memenuhi unsur- unsur agar dapat dikatakan sebagai PMH. Tetapi, pada pertimbangannya Majelis Hakim tidak menyebutkan bahwa Tergugat I juga bertanggungjawab atas reklamasi lubang bekas galian tambang tersebut. Adapula perbuatan yang dilakukan oeh Kementerian LHK bukanlah suatu Perbuatan Melawan Hukum, dapat diketahui bahwa kewajiban pengawasan didelegasikan kepada Gubernur melalui Peraturan Pemerintah Nomor 24/2010 tentang Penggunaan Kawasan Hutan dalam melakukan kegiatan monitoring dan evaluasi yang dimaksud dalam Pasal 19 ayat (1), Menteri melimpahkan pada pejabat yang dipilih atau gubernur. Sehingga tanggung jawab kewenangan berada pada Gubernur. Kementerian ESDM melakukan tindakan yaitu lalai dalam melakukan pengawasan reklamasi oleh Tergugat I sehingga Tergugat I meninggalkan 5 lubang bekas galian batubara yang berisi air dan di areal sekitarnya dalam keadaan gundul tanpa pepohonan serta tidak mengklaim kepada pihak bank untuk mencairkan bank garansi sehingga mengakibatkan bank garansi lewat tanggal jatuh tempo sehingga tidak bisa menunjuk pihak ketiga melaksanakan reklamasi pada objek sengketa. Dalam hal ini pemberi rekomendasi adalah Bupati Indragiri Hulu dan pemberi IUP kepada perusahaan tambang adalah Menteri ESDM sehingga yang berhak melakukan pengawasan adalah Menteri ESDM sebagai sesuai dengan Pasal 140 ayat (1) UU No. 4/2009 tentang Minerba, tanggung jawab Menteri ESDM sebagai pemberi IUP yaitu melakukan pengawasan terhadap pelaksanaan reklamasi.

Kata Kunci: reklamasi pasca tambang, pengawasan, pertambangan

Case number 5/Pdt/2018/Pn.Pbr is evidence that there are still companies that do not carry out post-mining reclamation, and the government does not carry out supervision in accordance with statutory regulations. PT Riau Bara Harum, as the holder of IUP and Borrow-to-Use Permits for Forest Areas (IPPKH). Limited Production Forest Areas in Riau, left the mining area without doing any post-mining reclamation, making the judge in Decision Number 22/Pdt.G-LH/2016/Pn.Rgt decide PT Riau Bara Harum and the Ministry of Energy and Mineral Resources have violated the law and punished the Ministry of Energy and Mineral Resources for reclamation of the object of dispute. The Ministry of Energy and Mineral Resources then made an appeal to the High Court with case number 5/Pdt/2018/Pt.PBR, in which the Panel of High Judges upheld Decision Number 22/Pdt.G- LH/2016/PN.Rgt. This research is a normative legal research, the approach used is the law, case and conception approach. The research was conducted with primary and secondary legal materials, and the collection of legal materials used literature study. The results of this study are to determine the judge's considerations and the legal consequences of the judge's considerations which focuses on analyzing the conflict of responsibilities in reclaiming or supervising the object of dispute, as well as whether the actions of Defendants II, Defendants III, and Defendants IV which in the plaintiff's petitum are stated to be negligent in carrying out supervision whether they can be filed as unlawful acts. The judge's considerations must pay attention to the authority of each party in order to create legal certainty. This research is a normative legal research, the approach used is the law, case and conception approach. The research was conducted with primary and secondary legal materials, and the collection of legal materials used literature study. The results of this study are to determine the judge's considerations and the legal consequences of the judge's considerations. The results of the research show that the judge's considerations 1. Based on the results of the analysis and case study in Decision Number 5/PDT/2018/PT.PBR, PT. RBH has fulfilled the elements so that it can be said to be unlawful. However, in their consideration, the Panel of Judges did not mention that Defendant I was also responsible for the reclamation of the former mine pit. In addition, the actions carried out by the Ministry of Environment and Forestry were not unlawful, it can be seen that the supervisory obligation was delegated to the Governor through Government Regulation Number 24/2010 concerning the Use of Forest Areas. In carrying out monitoring and evaluation activities referred to in Article 19 paragraph (1), the Minister delegated to elected officials or governors. so that the responsibility of authority lies with the governor. The Ministry of Energy and Mineral Resources took action, namely, because of the defendant's negligence in supervising reclamation, so that defendant I left five former coal excavation holes filled with water and the surrounding area in a state of bareness without trees and did not claim to the bank to withdraw the bank guarantee, resulting in the bank guarantee being overdue. due to the fact that it cannot appoint a third party to carry out the reclamation of the disputed object. In this case, the recommender is the Regent of Indragiri Hulu and the IUP grantor to the mining company is the Minister of Energy and Mineral Resources, so the party entitled to carry out supervision is the Minister of Energy and Mineral Resources. In accordance with Article 140, paragraph (1), of Law number 4/2009 concerning minerals and coal, it is the responsibility of the Minister of Energy and Mineral Resources as the IUP provider to supervise the implementation of reclamation.

Keywords: post-mining reclamation, supervision, coal mining