Judicial review trial on special autonomy for Papua Province was held in Constitutional Court (MK) Monday (12/1). In the preliminary trial, the Plaintiff objected Article 6 verse (2) Act 21/2001 which adjudicates Papua Provincial Legislative Council (DPRP) consists of chosen member and inaugurated based on Law.  

Paskalis Netep, delivered his revision as advised by the Panel of Justices in the previous trial. According to Paskalis, he is not just objecting law against Constitution, but also norm implementation as stipulated in Article 6 verse (2) Act 21/2001.

“We have accepted your revision, for the written evidences are P-1 to P-14, correct? We will take it to Plenum to proceed the petition,” said Justice Muhammad Alim.

The Plaintiff objected a quo provision which determines Papua DPRP membership. The provision is considered ambiguous.

“If one of the norms being implemented revered to elected and inaugurated, this will affect the usage of DPRD term whose duties and authorities are determined in Article 7 Act 21/2001,” Paskalis said.

Inaugurate phrase may be reckoned from phrase chosen, that means DPRP legislative members may only be using Papua DPRD term instead as constituted in Article 101 Act 23/2014 about regional government.

According to mentioned things, Plaintiff asked the Court to grant the petition and declare Article 6 verse (2) Act 21/2001 opposing Article 18 paragraph (1) and Article 28D paragraph (1) 1945 Constitution.  

“Aside from it, the Plaintiff asked the Panel of Justices to declare Article 6 verse (2) Act 21/2001 especially phrase inaugurated non-binding. And for the first time DPRP members which elected through president’s regulation possess same rights and obligations as well as the ones possessed by election-elected members,” Paskalis said. (Nano Tresna Arfana)