The Petitioners and their legal counsels attending the petition revision hearing of the judicial review of Law No. 2 of 2021 on the Special Autonomy for Papua Province virtually, Tuesday (10/5/2021). Photo by Humas MK/Panji.

---

Tuesday, October 5, 2021 | 18:22 WIB

JAKARTA, Public Relations—The Constitutional Court (MK) held another virtual judicial review hearing of Law No. 2 of 2021 on the Second Amendment to aw No. 21 of 2001 on the Special Autonomy for Papua Province (Papua Special Autonomy Law) on Tuesday, October 5, 2021. The Petitioners, represented by Ecoline Situmorang, conveyed the revisions to the petition to the panel chaired by Deputy Chief Justice Aswanto. In the revision, they argue that Article 38 paragraph (2) of the a quo law could potentially lead to losses among vulnerable elements of society such as customary law communities. They also elaborate facts resulting from scientific research by several institutions. They also argue that Article 59 paragraph (3) of the a quo law contradicts Article 7 paragraph (1), Article 28H paragraph (1), and Article 34 paragraphs (2) and (3) of the 1945 Constitution.

Also read: Papuan People’s Assembly Challenges Revised Papua Special Autonomy Law

At the virtual preliminary hearing for case No. 47/PUU-XIX/2021 on Wednesday, September 22, 2021, the Papuan People’s Assembly (MRP)—represented by Timotius Murib (Chairman), Yoel Luiz Mulait (Vice Chairman I), and Debora Mote (Vice Chairman II)—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).  They claimed to be 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.

They 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. 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.

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.’

Writer        : Utami Argawati
Editor        : Lulu Anjarsari P.
PR            : Andhini S. F.
Translator  : Yuniar Widiastuti (NL)

Translation uploaded on 10/6/2021 10:48 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.

---