The experts Petitioners, M. Laica Marzuki and Maruarar Siahaan, former constitutional judges in the Hearing Panel Case No.84/PHPU.D-IX/2011 about dispute over Election Result (PHPU) Regional Head of West Papua Province, at the Plenary Meeting Room on Friday (12 /8).

Constitutional Court (MK) again held Panel Session on Case No.84/PHPU.D-IX/2011 about dispute over Election Result (PHPU) Regional Head of West Papua Province, at the Plenary Meeting Room 2nd Floor on Friday (12 / 8). The trial led by Moh. Mahfud MD, accompanied by Maria Farida Indrati and Anwar Usman, respectively as members, scheduled for evidentiary hearing expert testimony.

On the occasion, there are some experts presented by the Applicant and Related Parties. The Petitioners presented experts M. Laica Marzuki and Maruarar Siahaan both of which are former constitutional judge. While the Related Party, presenting experts, including HAS Natabaya, a former constitutional judge.

M. Laica Marzuki, as the expert presented by the applicant, explained that Article 20 paragraph 1 letter a of Law No. 21 of 2001 regarding Special Autonomy for Papua Province, as amended by Government Regulation No.1 of 2008 which was then set into Law no. 35 in 2008, said that the Papuan People’s Assembly (MPR) has the duty and authority to give consideration and approval to the prospective governors and deputy governors nominated by the Papua People’s Representative Council (DPRP).

"So, after setting a prospect DPRP Governor and Deputy Governor shall propose them to the MRP to be given consideration and approval to be used as the basis for the Papuan People’s Representative Council to establish as a prospective Governor and Deputy Governor," explained Laica Marzuki.

Further Laica Marzuki relate to the provisions contained in Article 37 Paragraph (3) Government Regulation no. 54 of 2004 on the Papua People’s Assembly said that the consideration and approval of the MRP, notified in writing to the leadership of the DPRP no later than 7 days from the date of filing.

According to Laica, allegedly organizing the Regional Head Election of Governor and Deputy Governor of West Papua was in violation of the provisions of the Act. "Because the Commission of West Papua has the duty and authority DPRP West Papua Candidates will submit directly to the Governor and Deputy Governor to the West Papuan People’s Assembly," he explained.

Experts from the Related Party was HAS Natabaya explain the validity of the status of West Papua People’s Assembly. This explanation was in response to questions submitted by the Attorney Petitioner, Yance Salambau, related to the validity of West Papuan People’s Assembly.

According to Natabaya, West Papuan People’s Assembly is legally valid because it was issued by the institution that has the authority to do so. Natabaya acknowledge that MRP was only one, but with the development of a new province of West Papua, in accordance with Article 74 of Regulation 54 of 2004 on the Papuan People’s Assembly of the MRP formed in each province.

Article 74 reads, according to Natabaya reads, "in terms of division of Papua into new provinces formed the MRP, based in each provincial capital.” Therefore, with the Decree of the Minister of Home Affairs dated December 8, 2010 regarding the establishment of West Papua People’s Assembly, the establishment of the Assembly is legally valid," he explained.

Dispute over Election of West Papua province was filed by Candidate Governor and Deputy Governor No. Sort 1 Wahidin Puarada-Herman Sonatus Pelix Orisoe and Candidate No. 2 Dominggus Mandacan- Origenes Nauw, this will resume again on Monday (15 / 8), at 16.00 pm to hear the witnesses. (Shohibul Umam / mh/Yazid.tr)