Wednesday, September 22, 2021 | 21:08 WIB
JAKARTA, Public Relations—Law No. 21 of 2001 on the Special Autonomy for Papua Province (Papua Special Autonomy Law) was challenged materially in the Constitutional Court (MK) by the Papuan People’s Assembly (MRP), represented by Timotius Murib (Chairman), Yoel Luiz Mulait (Vice Chairman I), and Debora Mote (Vice Chairman II).
At the virtual preliminary hearing for case No. 47/PUU-XIX/2021 on Wednesday, September 22, 2021, the Petitioners argued that the norms in Article 6 paragraph (2), Article 6A, Article 28, Article 38, Article 59 paragraph (3), Article 68A, Article 76, and Article 77 of the Papua Special Autonomy Law have violated their constitutional rights as indigenous Papuans (OAP). The Petitioners are the cultural representations of indigenous Papuans for the protection of their rights based on respect for customs and culture, for empowering women, and strengthening the harmonious life of religious communities, who have a direct interest in the a quo law.
At the hearing chaired by Deputy Chief Justice Aswanto, Timotius Murib said the Petitioners filed the petition because there are clauses in the amendment to the Papua Special Autonomy Law that actually harm the Petitioners’ interests and constitutional rights and, in particular, the interests and constitutional rights of the indigenous Papuans. He explained that the changes and addition of new norms in Article 6 paragraphs (4) and (5) of the a quo law on the position, composition, duties, and authorities, rights, and responsibilities of the leadership membership and apparatuses of the Papuan People’s Representatives’ Council (DPRP) and the Aceh Regency Legislative Council (DPRK) in accordance with the provisions of the legislation have actually led to legal uncertainty.
“The deletion of Article 68 paragraphs (1) and (2) on the abolition of the formation of political parties and the change of the phrase ‘must’ to ‘can’ in Article 68 paragraph (3) of Law No. 2 of 2001 is clearly unconstitutional,” he added.
He also said that the fact that Article 77 remains has made the article multi-interpretive. The article regulates that proposals for the amendment to the Papua Special Autonomy Law may be submitted by the people of the Papua Province through the MRP and DPRP to the House of Representatives (DPR) or the Government in accordance with statutory regulations. He revealed that the amendment to several articles of Law No. 21 of 2001 is purely central government’s initiative, not a proposal by the Papuans. “Therefore, the Papuan People’s Assembly feels that the central government’s action has violated the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia,” he said.
Therefore, in the petitum, the Petitioners requested that the Court declare Article 6A paragraph (1) letter b and paragraph (2); Article 6A paragraph (1) letter b and paragraph (2); Article 28 paragraphs (1), (2), and (4); Article 38 paragraph (2); Article 59 paragraph (3); Article 68A; and Article 76 paragraphs (1) and (2) of Law No. 2 of 2021 unconstitutional and not legally binding. They also requested that the Court declare Article 6 paragraph (4) and Article 6A paragraph (4) contrary to the phrase ‘in accordance with statutory regulations’ and not legally binding insofar as interpreted as ‘statutory regulations in question are special regional regulations (perdasus) and provincial regulations (perdasi) of the Papua Province.’
“… [the Court] declare Article 28 paragraph (1) and paragraph (2) as stated in Law No. 21 of 2001 reinstated, Article 7 of Law No. 21 of 2001 not legally binding insofar as interpreted as ‘the proposed amendment to the law must be submitted by the people of the Papua Province through the MRP and DPRP,” counsel Stefanus Roy Rening said of the Petitioners’ demand to the Court.
Justices’ Advice
Constitutional Justice Arief Hidayat as member of the panel requested that the Petitioners simplify the petition and clarify the object of the petition.
“There are things to refine or improve in the object of the petition. Upon my observation, the petition does not consistently mention which part is to review, whether it is articles, paragraphs, or phrases. Please be consistent so that the Court understand what the Petitioners intend. If it remains incomprehensible, (the Court) could conclude that the petition is obscure,” he said.
Meanwhile, Constitutional Justice Enny Nurbaningsih advised the Petitioners to revise their legal standing by laying out the legal basis.
“My question, in order to affirm [the legal standing], what is the legal basis? What affirm their representation of the MRP in and outside of the court? What is the basis for it? It does not exist in the law, so there must be a strong basis to show it,” she said.
Deputy Chief Justice Aswanto (panel chair) announced that the Petitioners have 14 workdays to revise the petition and must submit it to the Registrar’s Office by October 5, 2021.
Writer : Utami Argawati
Editor : Lulu Anjarsari P.
PR : Andhini S. F.
Translator : Yuniar Widiastuti (NL)
Translation uploaded on 9/23/2021 12:38 WIB
Disclaimer: The original version of the news is in Indonesian. In case of any differences between the English and the Indonesian versions, the Indonesian version will prevail.
Wednesday, September 22, 2021 | 21:08 WIB 488