Narantuya, officer of the Constitutional Court of Mongolia said, ”S. Ganbaatar’s petition is being discussed and Constitutional member Amarsaikhan extended the period to give a reply to Ganbaatar.”

“This means that this article is still being discussed at the constitutional court. Thus, it is not possible to give any information about the desputied issues,” she told MonInfo Monday.

The movement gave the petition about the new Mineral Resources law to the Constitutional Court on October 23.

Ganbaatar explained his basis how the new Mineral Resources Law broke the constitution, “On 5.1 of article 5, ‘Mineral resources, which are being under the natural formation and under the earth’s surface in Mongolia, are property of the State’.”

“The meaning of the Mongolian version of this article of law is understandable. But why did the parliament members add the words ‘natural formation’ which goes against the constitution?”

Article 6 of the constitution states, “The land, its subsoil, forests, water, fauna and flora and other natural resources in Mongolia shall belong exclusively to the people and be under state protection”

Article 6.2 of the constitution states, “The land, except that given to the citizens of Mongolia for private possession, as well as the subsoil with its mineral wealth, forest, water resources and game shall be the property of the state.”

“’Natural formation,’ is understood that all natural resources are state and Mongolian people’s property if it is under the earth in its natural state. But if it is extracted from the earth it is not the Mongolian people’s and state’s property, according to the law,” Ganbaatar said.

5.4 states that the State may participate up to 50 percent jointly with a private legal person in the exploitation of a mineral deposit of the strategic importance where State funded exploration was used to determine an agreement on exploitation of the deposit considering the amount of investment made by the State.

“All big deposits in Mongolia found before 1990 were found by explorations with state funds. But after 1990 the big deposits, in particularly Oyu tolgoi, have all been found with private funds,” Ganbaatar said.

“The big fault of this article is that the state may participate up to 50 percent and may own jointly when the state invests monetarily. This means that the state buys its property with its own money in order to jointly own it with a mining company. But even it is possible even 0 percent will be owned by the state. Why should the state pay money to own its own property?”

Article 5.5 of the new mineral resources law states, “The state may own up to 34 percent of the share of an investment to be made by a license holder in a mineral deposit of strategic importance where proven reserves were determined through funding sources other than the State budget. The percentage of the State share shall be determined by an agreement on exploitation of the deposit considering the amount of investment made by the State.”

However, the law does not define any clear mechanisms for how the state would participate and invest in strategic deposits found with private funds.

“According to the law on courts any individual or any organization can put a request to determine and clarify any article of any law and under the request the Supreme Court will make an explanation, however the supreme court has not yet taken any requests about the new Mineral resources law,” a Supreme Court spokeswoman, speaking on condition of anonymity, told MonInfo Monday.

The first article of the Constitutional Court states: “The Constitutional Court is the body which has the full powers to exert supreme supervision over implementing of the Constitution, to make judgments on its provisions, and to make decisions on constitutional disputes, and is the guarantor that the Constitution will be strictly observed.”

Officials at the Constitutional Court said a timeline for discussion and decision has not yet been determined.

Image: a drill in the South Gobi. Copyright Luke Distelhorst