Principal Petitioner, John Ibo accompanied by Counsel Bambang Widjojanto in the Decision Reading session for the Review of Act No. 35 of 2008 on the Stipulation of Government Regulation No. 1 of 2008 on the Second Amendment of Act No. 21 of 2001 about Special Autonomy for Papua Province (Act on Papua Special Autonomy), Wednesday (2/3)
Jakarta, MKOnline - The Constitutional Court (The Court) held a plenary session for the Decision Reading of the Review of Act No. 35 of 2008 about the Stipulation of Government Regulation No. 1 of 2008 on the Second Amendment of Act No. 21 of 2001 about Special Autonomy for Papua Province (Act on Papua Special Autonomy), Wednesday (2/3). In today’s session, The Court decided to reject Petitioner’s Petition in its entirety.
The Petition was filed by John Ibo, as the Speaker of Papua Regional Parliament (DPR) for 2009-2014 period and Yoseph Yohan, Roberth Melianus Nauw and Jimmy Demianus Ijie in their capacity as DPR Papua Speakers for 2008-2014 period. The Petitioners during the session were accompanied by their counsels, Bambang Widjojanto and associates.
In the legal consideration, The Court’s opinion read by the Chief Justice of The Court, Moh. Mahfud MD, that no convincing evidence had been found to ensure that the governor election in Papua province was a special treatment for Papua province which is different from other provinces in Indonesia. The Governor election of DPR Papua, as arranged by Article 7 paragraph (1) letter a of Act 21/2001 did not meet the criteria for specialties attached to the mentioned region. It was because, Papua Province did not meet the criteria to be announced as a special province.
Governor election in Papua Province, according to The Court, was conducted as other provinces in Indonesia did. “Governor Election by the DPR Papua (Article 7 paragraph (1) letter a of Act No. 21/2001), also the procedure of the election which has to be arranged in Special Regional Regulation (Perdasus) (Article 11 paragraph (3) of Act 21/2001) is alongside with the election mechanism by the Regional Parliament which is applied in other region in Indonesia as arranged in Act 22/1999 which was still in action at that time,” announced Mahfud as he read the decision.
There were still some differences in the Governor Election in Papua compared to other region in Indonesia. The differences or specialties in the election lied on the candidates had to be Papua origin and had a consideration and approval from Board of Papuan People (MRP).
Then there was a change in the way of governor election in Papua to be directly chosen as mentioned in Act 35/2008. Within that Act, it was indeed pictured about the change to be directly chosen by people, but The Court considered the deletion of Article 7 paragraph (1) letter a of Act 21/2001 based on Article I number 2 of Act 35/2008 (the petition) was not in contrary to the 1945 Constitution.
Furthermore, The Court considered the ratio legis on the forming of Article 7 paragraph (1) letter a of the Act could be understood, because the governor election by the DPRP or directly by the people was a choice in the legal policy of the Legislators which was not in contrary to the Constitution. Similarly, without evaluation prior to the implementation of Papua’s special autonomy before the amendment of Act 21/2001 as mandated by the Act a quo, did not automatically cause the norm in Article 1 number 2 of Act 35/2008 which deleted Article 7 paragraph (1) letter a of Act 21/2001 to be against the 1945 Constitution,” explained Mahfud.
In the last consideration, The Court stated that the petitions did not have enough constitutional reasons to announce Article 1 number 2 of Act 35/2008 which deleted Article 7 paragraph (1) letter a of Act 21/2001 to violate the Constitution.
Finally, in the verdict, The Court stated to reject the Petitioners’ petition in its entirety. (Yusti Nurul Agustin/mh/YDJ)
Thursday, March 03, 2011 | 10:13 WIB 269