---

Panel preliminary examination hearing of the judicial review of the Law on the Special Autonomy for Papua Province, Monday (20/1/2020) in the Plenary Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. Photo by Humas MK/Gani.

JAKARTA, Public Relations of the Constitutional Court—Once again, Law No. 21 of 2001 on the Special Autonomy for Papua Province was challenged at the Constitutional Court (MK) in a hearing on Monday (20/1/2020). The case No. 4/PUU-XVII/2020 was petitioned by private employee Penetina Cani Cesya Kogoya. The Petitioner argues that Article 6 paragraph 2 of the Papua Special Autonomy Law, which reads "The DPRP shall comprise members elected and appointed based on statutory regulations," is unconstitutional.

Abel Rumbiak as the Petitioner\'s attorney stated that the election is the actualization of democracy. The people can declare sovereignty in the government, both at the central and regional levels, especially in regions with decentralization and regional autonomy. Rumbiak added that the recruitment of DPRP members of Papua and West Papua Provinces by regional governments deviates from democracy in the constitutional system in Indonesia, negates people\'s sovereignty, as well as creates discrimination, injustice, and potential conflicts. 

Rumbiak further explained that in reality, according to the Governor of Papua, the appointment of DPRP members caused conflict. The 2014-2019 DPRP members should be re-elected so as not to cause new problems. In West Papua Province the recruitment of DPRP candidates had a legal problem because the chairperson of the West Papua Provincial People\'s Assembly was appointed and became a member of the selection committee. 

This recruitment issue in DPRP, Rumbiak added, shows an undemocratic recruitment process that violates statutory regulations. One of the special attributes of Papua Province and West Papua Province is the number of its members, at one a quarter times more than in the previous period.

"Thus, there is no restriction against Papuans or the Petitioner becoming DPRP members in both Papua and West Papua Provinces if they are recruited through legislative elections because of the priority for Papuans in political party recruitment," Rumbiak explained before a session chaired by Constitutional Justice Arief Hidayat with Constitutional Justices Suhartoyo and Saldi Isra. 

Constitutional Loss 

Constitutional Justice Saldi Isra believes it is necessary for the Petitioner to explain her constitutional loss. The Petitioner must be able to describe the factual loss due to the enactment of the phrase in the article or the loss that has occurred so far. In addition, Justice  Saldi also asked the Petitioner to explain the her position as a representative of Papuan women by showing evidence of her involvement in a legal-entity organization or forum for women\'s representation.

Constitutional Justice Suhartoyo recommended that the Petitioner write a petitum, which was still missing from the petition. He also asked that she read up on previous petitions on the Special Autonomy for Papua Province, especially in relation to representation of customary law communities. Meanwhile, Constitutional Justice Arief Hidayat suggested that the Petitioner observe the impacts if the petition was to be granted, considering the phrase "and appointed" is regulated in the Regulation of Special Regions No. 9/2009. “The regulation requires native Papuans. If the phrase is removed, [wouldn’t it be unclear]? The appointment of DPRP should be able to be based on the Election Law. This allow representation among Papuans. Please reconsider,” he said.

Before concluding the session, Justice Arief said that the Petitioner was given 14 days to revise the petition and submit it by Monday, February 3, 2020 at 10:30 WIB to the Registrar\'s Office. (Sri Pujianti/LA)

Translated by: Yuniar Widiastuti

---