Pemohon Prinsipal Amustofa Besan and attorney in the ruling hearing of the judicial review of the Establishment of South Buru District, Wednesday (13/3) in the Plenary Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. Photo by Humas MK/Ganie.

JAKARTA, Public Relations of the Constitutional Court—The Constitutional Court rejected and could not accept the judicial review Law No. 32 of 2008 on the Establishment of South Buru District. The Decision No. 11/PUU-XVII/2019 was read out by Chief Justice Anwar Usman in the presence of the other constitutional justices on Wednesday (13/3/2019). The Constitutional Court deemed the petition filed by the Government of Buru District as Petitioner I legally groundless. Two individual citizens registered as Petitioner II were deemed not having legal standing. “Rejects the petition of Petitioner I and declares the petition of Petitioner II cannot be accepted,” he reads.

The petition No. 11/PUU-XVII/2019 was filed by Ramly Umasugi dan Amustofa Besan as Regent and Vice Regent of Buru District (Petitioners I); Iksan Tinggapy, A. Azis Hentihu, and Djalil Mukadar as Chairman and Vice Chairman of Buru District Legislative Council (Petitioners II); and residents of Waihotong Village and Batu Karang Village Mahmud Nustelu and Elias Behuku (Petitioners III).

The Petitioners argued that Law No. 32 of 2008, especially Article 2, 3, and 4 as well as the Appendix of the Regional Map of the South Buru District, Maluku Province not providing legal certainty and leading to multiple interpretations. Factually, the vague definition of the norm and the multiple interpretations of Article 3 paragraph (2) and the Appendix on the Regional Map of Law 32/2008 on administrative area certainly caused losses to citizens residing in Waehotong Village and Batu Karang Village, as experienced by the Petitioners.

The constitutional impairment of the Petitioners was related to the uncertainty over the status of the borders of the region they reside in, as well as their resident status, whether they belong in Buru District or South Buru District. According to the Petitioners, clarity of regional boundaries was of importance for administration needs such as ID extension or certainty of Permanent Voters List (DPT) in the elections or the local election as a form of public service that must be carried out by the regional government.

In the legal considerations read out by Constitutional Justice Saldi Isra, the Court stated that the resolution of regional boundary disputes is the authority of the Government. The authority is tiered, where the dispute over boundaries in one province is the authority of a governor, while the dispute over boundaries between provinces is the authority of the Ministry of Home Affairs.

“Therefore, the allegation of constitutional violation of Article 18 paragraphs (2), (3), and (4), Article 25A, and Article 28D paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution as argued by the Petitioner I is irrelevant because the violation in question depends on the resolution by the governor in case of dispute over boundaries in one province, and by the Ministry of Home Affairs in case of dispute over boundaries between provinces,” Justice Saldi explained.

Justice Saldi also said that Petitioner II did not have legal standing as individual Indonesian citizens on the constitutional loss due to the enactment of Article 3 paragraph (2) and the Appendix on the Regional Map of Law 32/2008. “Because the substance of the a quo petition is related to the issue of regional government authority, not directly to the violation of the constitutional rights of individual citizens, the Court believes that Petitioner II does not have legal standing as petitioner in the a quo petition,” he said. (Arif Satriantoro/LA/Yuniar Widiastuti)