The Constitutional Court (Mahkamah Konstitusi (MK)) stated the petition of case 31/PUU-V/2007 was unaccepted (niet ontvankelijk verklaard). It is because the Petitioners could not show their capacity to legally represent as a customary law society and the Petitioners could not specifically proof that there was a constitutional loss caused by the legalization of Act No. 31/2007 about the Forming of Tual City in Maluku Province (Tual City Act).

The verdict reading session, Wednesday (6/18), in MKs Building, revealed that Abdul Hamid Rahayaan, Gasim Renuat, and Abdul Gani Refra (the Petitioners) could not prove that they were the legal representation of the customary law society. “Beside that, the Petitioners could not prove specifically that there was a constitutional loss caused by the legalization of the Act,” a Constitutional Justice I Dewa Gede Palguna, read the Legal Ground of the Verdict.

The Petitioners filed Tual City Act to be reviewed because they thought that legalization of the Act had caused a constitutional loss on them. Tual City Act had divided South East Maluku Regency to South East Maluku Regency and Tual City. The Petitioners also considered that they represented the damaged customary law society by the split of customary law society and customary law territory.

In a session before, Wednesday (2/20), legal standing of the Petitioners who stated that they were Head of United Customary Law Society in fact got a complain. The witness H.N. Renuat who had sworn said that Gasim Renuat was only a Village Head Official. H.N. Renuat also stated that Abdul Hamid Rahayaan was not the Head of of Pata Siwa customary law society in Key South Maluku.

Then, in the same session, Vice Head of South Maluku Provincial Parliament, H. Mahmud Muhamad Tamher, also stated that 2 customary leading figures (the Petitioners) who acted on behalf 9 customary leading figures were not representative. Governor of Maluku also stated that the formatting of Tual City had been supported by the customary leaders, as mentioned in Letter No. 05/Prov/IV/2005 on March 11 2005.

Beside it, on the Petitioner s legal standing explanation, the Governor of Maluku said that each unit of customary law society was merged in to any ratschap (customary law territory) and was not hierarchies as said by the Petitioners.

To H.N. Renuat s resistance, as well as to the explanation told by the Governor of Maluku as Related Party, the Petitioners did not bring a complain. So that, MK though, the explanations brought by H.N Renuat and the Governor were true, so the Petitioners did not have a capacity to act on behalf the united customary law society.

Linked to the constitutional loss, sure it was related to traditional rights of the customary law society. MK said, the substance and the boundary of sea territory should be confirmed, because there were many rules about sea territory valid.

So that, the Petitioners should be able to prove the traditional rights specifically. The Petitioners should prove whether the traditional right as a right to control sea territory or to take some advantages of the sea resources either.

Existence, characterize, and scope of the traditional right should be proven specially and specifically either as the Petitioner s right , not the right of another united customary law society, of provincial government, nor of the center government on sea territory.  In the sessions it also showed that The Petitioners could not prove specifically their traditional right and the constitutional loss caused by the validity of Tual City Act. “So that the Petitioners in a quo petition do not fulfill Article 51 Paragraph (1) point b MK Act, so the petition should be stated as unacceptable,” the Chief Justice, Jimly Ashhiddiqie stated. (Luthfi Widagdo Eddyono/ Kencana Suluh Hikmah )