The area expansion of Banggai Islands Regency which was considered by the Petitioners to cause problems underwent the second trial today, Monday (3/3) at the Panel Court Room, 4th floor of the Constitutional Court Building with the agenda of examining the revision of the Petition. The Petition registered under No. 4/PUU-VI/2008 was filed by a Head of Banggai Customary People and several other individuals.

In the revision, through their Legal Counsel, Arifin Musa, S.H., the Petitioners considered Article 11 of Act No. 51 Year 1999 on the Forming of Morowali Regency, Buol Regency and Banggai Islands Regency violated Article 18B Paragraph (2) and Article 32 Paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution. Besides that, the Article was also considered by the Petitioners to have caused many losses. The existence of Article 11 of Act a quo stating that the Capital of Banggai Islands Regency was Banggai City was contradictory to Article 10 stating that the Capital of Banggai Islands Regency was Salakan City and therefore it had caused a double interpretation and law uncertainty on the location of the capital city that confused the people.

Besides that, according to the Petitioners, the movement of the capital city was also considered to cause some losses from the tradition aspect because historically the center of Banggai tradition and customs were located in Banggai City which used to be the Capital before the existence of Act No. 51 Year 1999. The Petitioners considered that the stipulation for the movement of the capital city to Salakan not only did it cause some losses but it also meant that the Government did not respect the decision of the Banggai Customary People and therefore was against the Banggai Islands Customary People’s aspiration.

In relation to that, the Petitioners pleaded the Constitution Justice Panel Board to state that Article 11 of Act No. 51 Year 1999 violated the 1945 Constitution and therefore did not have a binding legal power.

Responding to the Petition, Constitution Justice I Dewa Gede Palguna, who felt that the Petitioners had not depicted clearly the inconstitutionality problem between appointing a capital city and the constitutional rights of the people in the Petition, questioned the same thing. “You may say that it violates this article or that, but the most important thing is the argumentation, the explanation,” exclaimed Palguna.

According to Palguna, the Petitioners needed to differenciate between the contradictory of an Act and the 1945 Constitution and the contradictory of an Act and People’s wish. “Is it a judicial review problem or a legislative review?” asked Palguna rhetorically.

Speaking in the same tone, Constitution Justice Harjono felt that the Petitioners need to reconsider the Petition. “If (we are) talking about an act contradictory to another act, it is not a problem of constitutionality, it should not be filed to the Constitutional Court,” he added.

Constitutional Court H. Harjono, the Chairman of the Constitution Justice Panel Board, also questioned the relationship between the movement of the Capital of Banggai Islands Regency and the existence of Banggai customs. “Just because the Capital of Banggai is not in Banggai, you consider that as not respecting customs?” asked Harjono.

Meanwhile Constitution Justice Abdul Mukhtie Fadjar when giving his advice to the Petitioners, gave a solution that the Petitioners could take in order to settle the problem on the movement of the capital city. “The movement of the capital city is a common phenomenon. There is a legal procedure the can be taken. (The movement – ed.) can be recommended again, if the Regional Parliament and the Government agree to move the capital city to another place.” He explained.

Constitution Justice Mukthie Fadjar also doubted the Petitioners’ argument that considered the movement of the capital city would damaged the existing customs. According to Mukhtie, Javanese people in Jakarta could still do their tradition without any interference. The Constitution Justice Mukthie Fadjar also reminded that in a national framework, not all wishes should be granted for a greater importance. 

Before closing the trial, Constitution Justice Harjono said that the Panel Board would bring the case to the Constitution Justice Deliberation Plenary Meeting because the Panel Board did not have the authority to make any decisions. [Yogi Djatnika]