Papua Governor, Barnabas Suebu, returning to his chair after giving information in the next session of the review of Act on Papua’s Special Autonomy Status in the Constitutional Court.

Jakarta, MKOnline – The Constitutional Court held a session to review Act Number 21 of 2001 aboyut Papua’s Special Autonomy Status (Act on Papua’s Special Autonomy Status) pleaded by Ramsees Ohee and Yonas Alfons Nusi, Thursday (15/10), in the Panel Court Room of the Constitutional Court (The Court). The session on the case registered with Number 116/PUU-VII/2009 was scheduled to hear information from the Government, The Parliament, Papua’s Governor, witnesses and experts from the Petitioners.

In the trial, the Petitioner presented Ibnu Tricahyo as an expert. He explained that the Papua’s native had their rights to participate actively in the development of Papua’s Province through Papua’s People Parliament (DPRP). “The 11 seats quota in the DPRP should be given to the Papua’s customary natives, but they are taken by political parties,” explained Ibnu.

According to Ibnu, even though several members of the DPRP from political parties were also Papua’s natives; they were not purely articulating people’s aspiration, they were still a representation of political parties because they were elected from political parties,” stated Ibnu.

The role of Papua’s Natives in the development could only be done through DPRP. “If it is only through Papua’s People Assembly (MRP) as mentioned in Article 5 of Act on Papua’s Special Autonomy Status, Papua’s Natives could not participate actively in the development of Papua’s Province. Only through DPRP, Papua’s Natives could carry out their strategic functions in the development of the province,” explained Ibnu.

Meanwhile, the Government represented by Director of Litigation Department of Law and Human Rights, Qomaruddin explained that the Petitioners only presented their assumptions. “In their Petition, the Petitioners were only imagining. In reality, the Petitioners were still involved in every development program conducted by the Government of Papua Province,” said Qomaruddin.

Qomaruddin revealed that actually the Act provided special rights to Papua’s customary natives. “The special rights can be noticed in the Government’s effort to secure the rights of Papua’s customery Natives through the forming of Papua’s People Assembly (MRP),” revealed Qomaruddin.

Therefore, Qomaruddin considered the Petitioners did not meet the qualification (to have a case at the Court). Meanwhile, the session was also attended by Papua’s Governor, Barnabas Suaebu as a Related Party.

In his explanation, Barnabas explained that at the moment Article 6 paragraph (2) of Act on Papua’s Special Autonomy Status was no longer relevant to be put into practice. “For the last 8 years, the 11-seat quota for Papua’s Natives were occupied by political parties elected through the election,” explained Barnabas.

According to Barnabas, the Article mentioned was actually drafted to prevent extinction of Papua’s Natives in the Government. “therefore, the 11-seat quota was provided in the DPRP. We have also fought to the Election Commission through MRP,” explained Barnabas.

In their Petition, the Petitioners demanded the Court to change the Article 6 paragraph (2) so long as the phrase “…based on legislation’ mentioned. The Petitioners stated that the existence of the mentioned phrase in Article 6 of paragraph (2) of Act Number 21 of 2001 was absolutely obsecure, bias, multi-interpreted and conflict potential. That was due to the fact that not a single legislation arranging the inauguration of members of the DPRP. (Lulu A./YDJ tr.)