---

Chief Justice Anwar Usman reading out the Court’s decree on the interagency authority dispute case filed by the Papuan People’s Assembly (MRP) and the West Papuan People’s Assembly (MRPB) against the president, Friday (30/7/2021). Photo by Humas MK/Ilham W. M.

Friday, July 30, 2021 | 16:39 WIB

JAKARTA, Public Relations—The Constitutional Court (MK) granted the withdrawal request of the interagency authority dispute (SKLN) petition by the Papuan People’s Assembly (MRP) and the West Papuan People’s Assembly (MRPB) against the president of the Republic of Indonesia at a ruling hearing for case No. 1/SKLN-XIX/2021 on Friday, July 30, 2021.

“[The Court] decrees, declares to grant the Petitioners’ request for petition withdrawal. The petition No. 1/SKLN-XIX/2021 on the interagency authority dispute between the Papuan People’s Assembly (MRP) and the West Papuan People’s Assembly (MRPB) and the president of the Republic of Indonesia is hereby withdrawn,” said Chief Justice Anwar Usman (plenary chair) alongside the other constitutional justices.

Recorded in e-BRPK

The Court had received the petition on June 17, 2021, which was then recorded in the e-BRPK (electronic constitutional case registration book) on June 28. On July 19, the Court received a request letter by the Petitioners to withdraw the petition, from counsels Saor Siagian and partners.

The Court then held a panel preliminary hearing on July 21, after it had been delayed on July 5 due to an emergency public activity restriction (PPKM). At that hearing, in which the Petitioners and Respondent attended, the Petitioners’ counsels confirmed the petition withdrawal request.

The justices then convened at a justice deliberation meeting (RPH) on July 26 and decided that the withdrawal request was legally grounded and ordered the Chief Registrar to record it in the e-BRPK.

Also read: Papuan People’s Assembly Withdraws Interagency Dispute Petition Against President

In the petition, the Petitioners questioned the proposal for the second amendment to Law No. 21 of 2001 on the Special Autonomy for Papua. They 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.

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

Translation uploaded on 7/30/2021 18:00 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.

---