---

Deputy Chief Justice Aswanto alongside Constitutional Justices Arief Hidayat and Enny Nurbaningsih at the preliminary hearing of the interagency dispute petitioned by the Papuan People’s Assembly and the West Papuan People’s Assembly, Wednesday (21/7/2021) in the plenary courtroom. Photo by Humas MK/Bayu.

Wednesday, July 21, 2021 | 14:19 WIB

JAKARTA, Public Relations—The Papuan People’s Assembly (MRP) and the West Papuan People’s Assembly (MRPB) withdrew their interagency authority dispute (SKLN) petition against the president at the preliminary hearing of case No. 1/SKLN-XIX/2021 held by the Constitutional Court (MK) on Wednesday, July 21, 2021. They questioned the proposal for the second amendment to Law No. 21 of 2001 on the Special Autonomy for Papua. The law had been amended into Law No. 2 of 2021 on the Special Autonomy for Papua, which had been signed by Presiden Joko Widodo on July 19, 2021.

Panel chair Deputy Chief Justice Aswanto began the hearing by informing the litigating parties of a request letter by the Petitioners to withdraw the petition, which the Court had received on July 19, 2021. in the letter, Saor Siagian expressed that he would deliver an oral statement on the matter on an online hearing on Wednesday, July 21, 2021.

One of the Petitioners’ attorneys, Rita Kolibonso, confirmed the request. The Petitioners intended to withdraw the petition on the ground of irrelevancy.

The Petitioners had alleged that the MRP, not the central government, has the right to propose an initiative of proliferation of regions and/or of the amendment to Law No. 21 of 2001 on the Special Autonomy for Papua Province. Following the right granted by Article 77 of the a quo law and the initiative to amend the a quo law, the Petitioners had organized a hearing meeting to evaluate the implementation of the Papua’s special autonomy policies for the last twenty years, where all elements of native Papuans were involved.

The Petitioners’ positions, membership, and authority are regulated in the a quo law. As such, they have direct interest in the disputed authority.

The Petitioners believed that the Presidential Letter No. R-47/Pres/12/2020 dated December 4, 2020 to the House of Representatives’ (DPR) Speaker on the bill (RUU) of the Second Amendment to Law No. 21 of 2001 on the Special Autonomy for Papua Province—which limitedly revised Article 1 letter (a), Article 34, and Article 76 of Law No. 21 of 2001—had not gone through the people of Papua Province through the MRP and the DPRP (the Papuan People’s Representatives’ Council).

They believed the bill didn’t reflect the aspirations of Papuans, which should have been conveyed to the MRP and the DPRP, but was instead proposed by the Government unilaterally without any hearing meeting with the Papuans. They believe the bill was against the spirit of the special autonomy law, which granted the people of Papua Province special autonomy to evaluate and propose the amendment to the Special Autonomy Law based on the principles of democracy, equality, and justice for improving nationalism, democracy, and the welfare of all Papuans.

Apology

At the hearing, Justice Aswanto apologized for the Court having to delay the hearing, which had been scheduled for July 5, 2021. He revealed that the emergency public activity restriction (PPKM Darurat) in Jakarta and other regions. He provided another reason for the Court’s decision not to hold hearings.

“One of the constitutional justices was COVID-19 positive and is now still undergoing treatment at a hospital. The secretary-general was also COVID-19 positive, but, alhamdulillah, is now able to go to work. In addition, twenty staff of the Court’s Registrar’s Office is also COVID-19 positive,” Justice Aswanto explained alongside Constitutional Justices Arief Hidayat and Enny Nurbaningsih.

Writer        : Nano Tresna Arfana
Editor        : Lulu Anjarsari P.
PR            : Fitri Yuliana
Translator  : Yuniar Widiastuti (NL)

Translation uploaded on 7/22/2021 16:56 WIB

Disclaimer: The original version of the news is in Indonesian. In case of any differences between the English and the Indonesian version, the Indonesian version will prevail.

---