Preliminary hearing of Judicial Review of Law No. 3 of 2013 on Mahakam Ulu Regency, East Borneo – Case No. 139/PUU-XII/2014 was held on Thursday (15/1). Kutai Barat Regent, Ismail Thomas (Applicant I) and Head of Kutai Barat Regency Custom Board Presidium, Yustinus Dullah (Applicant II) questioned the Appendix of Law a quo in the form of map of the territory which wide was not in accordance wide of the area under Paragraph 7 of general explanation of Law No. 2 of 2003. According to Applicants, it caused law uncertainty.

Applicants, through their attorney, Burhan Ranreng explained that the difference on the area was 3,541.20 square km which was obtained from the deviation of 18,856.20 square km with 15,315 square km was on the territory of Long Hubung Sub-District which directly shared border with West Kutai Regency.

 “Long Hubung Sub-District territory, according to Center of Statistic Agency’s data on 2010 was only 530.90 square km. However on the map area calculation of Mahakam Ulu Regency as stipulated under Appendix of Law No. 2 of 2013, Long Hubung area was 4,701.10 square km which was obtained from augmentation of 530.90 square km by 3,541.20 square km,” said Burhan which was accompanied by his other attorney, Ismail.

Burhan quibbled, calculation on the area was contradicted with was has been agreed between officer of East Kutai Regency and officer of Ulu Mahakam Regency as stipulated under Acknowledgement of Data Reconciliation of Territory, Total Population, and  Total Regional Civil Servant  between West Kutai Regency and Mahakam Ulu Regency dated October 8^th, 2013.

Applicants deemed, as a result of area calculation of Long Hubung Sub-District, there was reduction of West Kutai Regency area by 3,541.20 square km that generated lost on General Mining Profit Sharing Fund of Year 2014 and Property Tax Profit Sharing Fund of Year 2014.

 “Beside, mistake on the area calculation of Long Hubung Sub-District generated uncertainty regarding government affairs in border villages and disorder on government administrative management and licensing,” said Burhan.

Applicants’ postulates were responded by the Court, “Applicants has to elaborate his explanation regarding part of the area that has to be expanded and reduced. Explanation on the appendix was only approximate measured. It was a map, so we do not know where the part that has been expanded and reduced is,” said Justice Muhammad Alim.

While Justice Wahidudin Adam critiqued that Applicants did not mention about constitutional lost bear by Applicants. Beside, Wahiduddin also assessed petition being reviewed by Applicants was not norm instead it was a map appendix. “What should be reviewed is norm. Where is the conflicted norm that contradicted with Constitution and else,” explained Wahiduddin.

Meanwhile, Chief Justice Arief Hidayat who led the Court advised the Applicants to include other party whom had legal standing, aside from West Barat Regent and Head of West Barat Custom Council Presidium. “For example, Regional People Representative Council. It could become Applicants’ consideration,” said Arief. (Nano Tresna Arfana/ky)