Plenary hearing to listen to expert statement for the Petitioners of the judicial review of the Special Autonomy for Papua Province, Monday (28/10) in the Plenary Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. Photo by Humas MK/Gani.

JAKARTA, Public Relations of the Constitutional Court—The Constitutional Court (MK) held the judicial review hearing of Law No. 21 of 2001 on the Special Autonomy for Papua Province in the Plenary Courtroom of the Constitutional Court, Tuesday (13/11/2019). The case was petitioned by Chairman and Secretary General of the United Papua Party Krisman Dedi Awi Janui Fonataba dan Darius Nawipa. They challenge the phrase “political party” in Article 28 paragraph (1) of the a quo law, which reads, “Residents of the Papua Province can form political parties.”

The hearing for case No. 41/PUU-XVII/2019 this time was supposed to listen to the statement of the Petitioners’ expert. However, the session was postponed because the statement was submitted only one day before the hearing.  The Petitioners said that technical issued had delayed the submission of the written statement. However, in the hearing on Wednesday (16/10/19), panel chairman Chief Justice Anwar Usman had reminded the Petitioners or attorney to submit it two days before the hearing at the latest. In response, Justice Anwar Usman postponed the hearing

In the previous session, the Petitioners conveyed that their constitutional loss started from a concrete case when the General Elections Commission (KPU) of Papua Province denied their political party from participating in the 2019 legislative election and the Ministry of Law and Human Rights annulled the Decree of the Ratification of the United Papua Party as a legal entity.

“The KPU of Papua Province denied the verification due to unclear regulation on local political parties in the province. The establishment of the United Papua Party is a manifestation of the rights of citizens protected by the Constitution, namely freedom to gather, associate, and express opinions, and therefore must be protected by the laws and regulations below it, including the Papua Special Autonomy Law,” said attorney Habel Rumbiak.  

The Petitioners explained that initially in the Papua Special Autonomy Bill Article 28 paragraph (1) had been intended to protect the local population in Papua so that they would always be represented in the legislative body in the Papua Province. Because Papua Province of was finally given special autonomy based on the Papua Special Autonomy Law, according to the Petitioners, the political parties concerned were local political parties. Apart from the fact its support is solely in Papua Province, the main reason is that the legal basis is special in accordance with the legal principle lex specialis derogat legi generalis.  (Utami/NRA)

Translated by: Yuniar Widiastuti