---

The Petitioner\'s attorney Ivan Robert Kairupan in the ruling hearing of the judicial review of the Law on the Special Autonomy for Papua Province, Wednesday (26/2) in the Plenary Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. Photo by Humas MK/Gani.

JAKARTA, Public Relations of the Constitutional Court—Should the recruitment mechanism of the Papua DPRP members lead to conflict, it is not driven by the constitutionality issue of Article 6 paragraph (2) of the Papua Special Autonomy Law, but the implementation of the law, said Constitutional Justice Arief Hidayat reading out the legal considerations of Decision No. 4/PUU-XVIII/2020 on Wednesday (26/2/2020)in the Plenary Courtroom of the Constitutional Court.

"In connection with the implementation of the norm, the Court considers that the specificity in the recruitment of Provincial DPR members, in both Papua and West Papua Provinces, through the appointment mechanism chosen by the Selection Committee, is a democratic effort in recruiting DPRP members through the appointment mechanism," Justice Arief explained related to the petition filed by Penetina Cani Cesya Kogoya, a private employee residing in Jayapura City, Papua. 

Also read: Recruitment Mechanism of Papua DPRP Challenged 

According to the Court, any problems related to members of the Selection Committee who have a "tendency to have close ties with political parties" is also unrelated to the constitutionality of the word "appointed" in Article 6 paragraph (2) of the Papua Special Autonomy Law. In fact, as the implementation of the norm is in accordance with the legal considerations of the Constitutional Court Decision No. 116/PUUVII/2009, regulation on the composition of the membership of the Selection Committee can be adjusted without questioning the constitutionality of the word "appointed" in Article 6 paragraph (2) of Law No. 21 of 2001, including for example by considering "representation of women" in a professional manner and also considering "representation of indigenous peoples" in accordance with "indigenous territories" in Papua and West Papua Provinces. Likewise to keep away from "tendency to have close ties with political parties," members of the Selection Committee shall not come from elements of political parties. 

Reducing Chances 

Related to the Petitioner\'s argument that there would be chaos in the "appointment" mechanism of the provincial parliamentary members determined by Perdasus indicating that there was an undemocratic recruitment process is not under the purview of the Court. 

The argument that the recruitment of DPRP and DPRPB members through appointment mechanism is contrary to election principles, according to the Court, is not appropriate to be used to assess the constitutionality of the word "appointed" in the a quo norm because the appointment mechanism is not intended to be carried out through a direct election process as stipulated in Article 22E paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution. 

"In the context of Papua\'s special autonomy, the mechanism is a manifestation of the specificity of Papua and West Papua, as well as providing greater space for indigenous Papuans to sit in the DPRP and DPRPB. If the logic of the Petitioner was followed, the word "appointed" when interpreted as "chosen by indigenous Papuans," in addition to reducing the special character of Papua and West Papua in the framework of the Unitary Republic of Indonesia, can reduce the chances of Papuans becoming members of the DPRP and DPRPB," Justice Arief explained. (Sri Pujianti/ASF/LA)

Translated by: Yuniar Widiastuti

Uploaded on 2/28/2020

---