The Constitutional Court (MK) held a hearing test Act (Act) No. 21/2001 on Special Autonomy - Case No. 102/PUU-X/2012 - in Plenary Court, Monday (21/1). However, on the occasion of Petitioner Paulus Augustinus Kafiar or his attorney was not present so the hearing was postponed a second time.

 ‘Twice the hearing was not attended by the applicant," said Deputy Chief Justice Ahmad Sodiki agenda while chairing a briefing session with the Government, the Parliament, and the witness / experts from the Applicant. However, further Sodiki, Constitutional Assembly that the Government has been consulted in this trial enough to give a written statement.

Responding to the explanation of the Constitutional Assembly, representatives from the Mualimin Abdi said that the government is actually already written and ready to be read in court. However, the administrative procedures of the two ministries, both the Ministry of Interior and the Ministry of Justice and Human Rights have not been completed.

"The written statement was read actually ready, but awaiting administrative procedures signer of both the Minister that get power from the president," said Mualimin, accompanied by Arief Fakhrullah Zidan as the representative of the Ministry of Justice and Human Rights.

Then, Sodiki explained to the government that could include administrative procedures prior pending the upcoming trial. "I’ll set the schedule to come, so the applicant can attend. Because I had not attended court twice Petitioner," explained Sodiki ahead to end the trial.

The applicant in this case to question the terms "least degree educated or equivalent" in Article 12 of Law No. c. 21/2001 on special autonomy. According to the applicant, the provisions are included deviance of constitutional rights when participating in the realization of political rights.

It thus caused, continued Petitioner, Act 32/2004 on Regional Government, and the 1945 Constitution, the president has set as low education is high school or regional head and deputy regional head in this case the governor and deputy governor stipulated in Law no. 32/2004, Article 58, as low high school educated.

"Therefore, the article is very discriminatory and restrict the rights of the Petitioner," said Abel as the applicant’s attorney before the Constitutional Court. "The provisions contained in this article is not a quo should be maintained," said Habel.

In the petition, Petitioner pleaded to the Court that Article 12 of Act 21/2001 on Special Autonomy for Papua is contrary to Article 28D paragraph (1) and Paragraph (3) of the 1945 Constitution, and has no binding. (Shohibul Umam / mh)