Left to Right, Harjono, Achmad Sodiki, and Akil Mochtar paying attention to the explanation of Seram area map on the monitor in the review of Act on Area Expansion of Seram Regency, Wednesday (11/11), at The Court Panel Room. (Doc. CCRI/Denny Feishal)

---

Jakarta - MKOnline, The Constitutional Court (The Court) held a judicial review of Act Number 40 of 2003 about the Forming of Eastern Seram Regency, Western Seram Regency and Aru Islands in Maluku Province (Act on Seram), Tuesday (11/11),at The Court Panel Roiom. The session on Case Number 123/PUU-VII/2009 was scheduled for examining improved Petition.

This case was filed by Abdullah Tuasikal as a Regent of Central Maluku, Azis Matulete as the Speaker of Ccentral Maluku Regional House of Representatives, Muhammad Umarella and RC Nikijuluw as Vice Speaker of Central Maluku Regional House of Representatives, Herskop Adam Maatoke, Simon Wasia, Chrestian Waeleruny, Fredrik Kasale, Halidjah Polanunu, Abdul Muthalib Ely, Ali Ely and Abdullah Laitupa with Chaidir Arief, et al as their Legal Counsel.

The Petitioner supported their arguments in their file according to the advices given by the Panel Board of Justices in the previous session. The Petitioners argued that Article 7 paragraph (4) and the explanation of Article 7 paragraph (4) did not uphold the principle of legal culture. "There is no strict border that it confuses the people," Chaidir pointed out.

After the Petitioner handed in the revision they had made, Chairman of the Panel Board, Achmad Sodiki, demanded the Petitioners to explain further about the border of the area which became the subject of their claim. "Which border that becomes the Petitioners’ claim? It has not been explained by the Petitioners in the revision," he noticed.

Responding to that, The Petitioner explained that there were four villages mentioned. "Those four villages are Sanahu, Wasia, Sapaloni, and Sahulau which are located in Amahay District. The four villages should have been included as parts of Central Maluku Regency, instead of Western Seram as it occurs now," explained Chaidir.

The border of the area should have been Tala River, continued Chaidir, now it was changed to Mala River. "We have directly seen the actual border. It turns out that what is shown on the map is not like where the border should be. Tala River which should be the border is missing in the administrative map drawn by Act Number 40 of 2003," he explained.

Constitution Justice M. Akil Mochtar reminded the Petitioner that the regulations of the area in Act on Seram were put in Article 3, Article 4, and Article 5. "Meanwhile in Article 7 paragraph (4) only regulates the border in administrative map which may only be an illustration and thus it may not be accurate," he said.

Akil emphasized that an administrative map did not have a binding power. "An administrative map is only an illustration, otherwise Article 5 of the Act would not be needed," he mentioned.

Therefore, Chairman of the Panel Board of Justice Achmad Sodiki demanded the Petitioners to complete their evidence with borders of the area including the map before the Act Number 40 of 2003 was enacted. In this session, Sodiki also legalized 45 evidence submitted by the Petitioners. (Lulu A./YDJ tr.)

---