---

Deputy Chief Anwar Usman. Photo PR/Ganie

 

 

 

The Constitutional Court declared reject community sponsored organizations’ petition on Act Number 7 Year 2012 of Social Conflict Management (UU Penanganan Konflik Sosial).

“Declares reject Applicants’ petition in its entirely,” said Deputy Chief Anwar Usman reading judicial verdict on Monday (30/11) at Plenary Room, the Constitutional Court Building.

As known, the Indonesian Legal Aid Foundation (YLBHI) and the Indonesian human rights watchdog IMPARSIAL filed the petition concerning Article 16 and Article 26 Act a quo.

Article 16

Conflict status in district/city scale as referred in Article 15 (2) is determined by regent/mayor after consulting with regency/city legislative leader (“Status Keadaan Konflik skala kabupaten/kota sebagaimana dimaksud dalam Pasal 15 ayat (2) ditetapkan oleh bupati/wali kota setelah berkonsultasi dengan pimpinan DPRD kabupaten/kota.”)

 

Article 26

During conflict in district/city scale, regent/mayor able to do: (Dalam Status Keadaan Konflik skala kabupaten/kota, bupati/wali kota dapat melakukan:)     

a. temporary restriction and closure on conflict area; (pembatasan dan penutupan kawasan Konflik untuk sementara waktu;)

b. temporary restriction on going outdoor to people (pembatasan orang di luar rumah untuk sementara waktu;)

c. temporary mitigation; and (penempatan orang di luar kawasan Konflik untuk sementara waktu; dan)

d. temporary prohibition on entering conflict area or exiting conflict area. (pelarangan orang untuk memasuki kawasan Konflik atau keluar dari kawasan Konflik untuk sementara waktu.)

 

The Court argued Article 16 Act a quo had provided clear regulation. Authority granting to mayors or regents in determining conflict status in their area by asking consideration to the Regional Legislative Council (DPRD) as people’s representative is reasonable, the Court added. “The provision is in line with the principle of democracy state and the 1945 Constitution,” said Constitutional Justice Patrialis Akbar reading legal consideration.

Moreover, the Court argued Article 16 Act a quo should be linked with Article 14 Act a quo. Conflict status of an area is determined if the conflict cannot be controlled by the police and interfere governance function. “Regents or mayors cannot unilaterally determines conflict status in their region because deepening process that initiated by an event resulted by disputed parties in which the police cannot be controlled,” said Akbar.

Regarding Article 26 Act a quo, the Court argued the Article aims to prevent other regions citizen’s loss. Considering regional governments more aware on their regional condition than central government/president, decentralization becomes the main point in democracy state.  

“By decentralization, the diversity of regional condition with its local wisdom also receives recognition, particularly in determining the region’s stance regarding social conflict appeared within the region. Decentralization also eases conflict settlement because it shortens the span of control and coordination between the Government and regional government,” explained Akbar.

Such authority granting, according to the Court, is flexible because social conflicts have various forms and roots. Therefore, the police (Polri) and the army (TNI) as the institutions responsible for resolving conflicts have gradual mechanism in carrying out their tasks in regional level. As delivered by the representative of army in the session dated September 9, 2014, the army has no authority in handling social conflicts except the police required assistance on it. “Based on the consideration, according to the Court, the determination of social conflict condition by regional governments –regency governments or city governments– is reasonable and not contrary to the 1945 Constitution,” asserted Akbar. (Lulu Hanifah/IR/Prasetyo Adi N)  

---