---

Petitioner Penetina Cani Cesya Kogoya with attorney Ivan Robert Kairupan delivering the subjects of the petition in the judicial review of the Law on the Special Autonomy for Papua Province, Monday (10/2/2020) in the Plenary Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. Photo by Humas MK/Gani.

JAKARTA, Public Relations of the Constitutional Court—The revision hearing of Law No. 21 of 2001 on the Special Autonomy for Papua Province as amended by Law No. 35 of 2008 on the Stipulation of Government Regulation in Lieu of Law No. 1 of 2008 on the Amendment to Law No. 21 of 2001 on the Special Autonomy for Papua Province was held by the Constitutional Court (MK) on Monday (10/2/2020). The case No. 4/PUU-XVII/2020 was petitioned by private employee Penetina Cani Cesya Kogoya, resident of Jayapura City.

Represented by attorney Ivan Robert Kairupan, the Petitioner affirmed her petition. She believes that the recruitment of the Papuan People\'s Representatives\' Council (DPRP) and the West Papuan People\'s Representatives\' Council (DPRPB) by the governor, the national unity office (Kesbang), and selection committee is similar to the recruitment under President Soeharto\'s New Order in which House members were recruited from the Indonesian Military (ABRI), the Police, and members of the People\'s Consultative Assembly (MPR) from the regions.

"Such a practice actually restricts and suppresses the right of the Petitioner to use her constitutional right to elect representatives and the right to be elected as a representative in the Provincial House of Representatives, which potentially treats the Petitioner as unequal in law and government," Ivan stated before the constitutional justice panel consisting of Constitutional Justice Arief Hidayat (chairman) and Constitutional Justices Saldi Isra and Suhartoyo (members).

In addition, Ivan added, the Petitioner argued that there was no protection for the Petitioner to obtain the same opportunity. The Petitioner is a representative of women who engage in organizations to defend the interests of Papuan women, for example as Secretary Jayawijaya Regency KNPI in 2000 to 2004.

"[The Petitioner is] a citizen who has the same legal standing in the government, who then become a victim of the recruitment mechanism of members of the Papua Province DPRP in 2019. When the registration process was carried out, the Petitioner was later disqualified by the selection committee and the national unity office and the Governor of Papua, so that she did not qualify as a member of the Papua Province Parliament to be appointed in the first period after the decision of the Constitutional Court Number 116/PUU-XVII/2019," Ivan said.

The Petitioner feels disadvantaged due to the appointment mechanism of the DPRP or DPRPB as a result of the enactment of the word "appointed" in Article 6 paragraph (2) of the Papua Special Autonomy Law. The constitutional damage would not have occurred if the word "appointed" in Article 6 paragraph (2) of the Papua Special Autonomy Law relating to the appointment of DPRP and DPRB members had been declared conditionally constitutional in the sense of being interpreted as an election conducted by indigenous peoples or indigenous Papuans.

"According to the Petitioner, the word \'appointed\' in Article 6 paragraph (2) of the Papua Special Autonomy Law as amended by Law Number 35 of 2008 is contrary to the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia as long as it is not interpreted \'chosen by the indigenous people or by indigenous Papuans,\'" Ivan explained.

In the preliminary hearing, the Petitioner argued that 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. She believes that there should be no restriction against Papuans or the Petitioner becoming DPRP members in both Papua and West Papua Provinces if they are recruited through legislative elections

However, according to the Petitioner, the appointment of DPRP and DPRPB members caused conflict and legal issues because of the unfair, undemocratic recruitment process that goes against statutory legislation. The recruitment practice of DPRP and DPRPB members by the regional government deviates from democracy that is adopted in the constitutional system in Indonesia. This practice, in addition to negating the principle of popular sovereignty, also creates discrimination and injustice. (NTA/ASF/NRA)

Translated by: Yuniar Widiastuti

Uploaded on 2/11/2020

---