Minister for Political, Legal, and Security Moh. Mahfud MD testifying at the judicial review hearing of Law No. 2 of 2021 on the Special Autonomy for Papua Province virtually, Tuesday (11/16/2021). Photo by Humas MK/Ifa.
Tuesday, November 16, 2021 | 15:58 WIB
JAKARTA, Public Relations—Law No. 2 of 2021 on the Second Amendment to Law No. 21 of 2001 on the Special Autonomy for Papua Province (Papua Special Autonomy Law) was formed to strengthen the unity of and advance Papua Province as a legitimate part of the Unitary State of the Republic of Indonesia (NKRI), said the Minister for Political, Legal, and Security (Menko Polhukam) Moh. Mahfud MD at the material judicial review for case No. 47/PUU-XIX/2021 virtually on Tuesday, November 16, 2021.
“The government and the people of Indonesia agreed to divide the land of Papua, which currently consists of two provinces, into several more provinces as autonomous regions or those with special autonomy. This law contains a comprehensive direction for Papua’s development with a welfare approach through affirmation in various fields—politics, economy, social, and culture. So, the main purpose of this law is to continue building Papua in order to build the NKRI,” he explained before the bench chaired by Chief Justice Anwar Usman.
Exclusive Right
In response to the Petitioners’ argument that the law’s revision did not involve indigenous Papuans (OAP), Mahfud said that pursuant to the 1945 Constitution, it only takes a joint approval of the Government and the House of Representatives (DPR) to make a law. It is the Government and the House’s exclusive right. However, he added that public participation is needed in a lawmaking process, where the people provide inputs and opinions.
“The Papuan People’s Assembly or MRP, or the Petitioners in this case, do not have the right to determine the law at the final stage, but have the right to offer opinions and be heard during its preparation, and it has been done. It will be proven at this hearing that the central [government] made visits to the regions; the Coordinating Ministry [for Political, Legal, and Security] and the Ministry of Home Affairs received MRP’s visits and invited panelists; all [stakeholders] were heard. However, the final decision pursuant to the 1945 Constitution was only made by the House and the president,” he explained.
Also read: Papuan People’s Assembly Challenges Revised Papua Special Autonomy Law
Various Approaches
Mahfud also explained that the a quo law was formed using bottom-up and top-down approaches in implementing its policies and programs. The aim, he added, was for acceleration and accuracy to occur as expected.
“For example, the exercise of special autonomy and the determination of policies and program priorities are on a bottom-up and top-down basis. In relation to this, the proposal of the bill on the Papua Special Region proliferation ‘can’ be initiated by the central [government] or the regions according to the needs for expedited and accurate politics and government or target,” he stressed.
Those approaches, he said, does not rule out the possibility that the MRP and other parties in Papua can take initiative and submit a proposal for regional expansion in Papua. However, he added, it must take into account the government’s political and administrative needs so that the legislatures can take initiative and make their own top-down proposal.
“Such provisions are based on Article 5 paragraph (1) and Article 20 paragraphs (1) and (2), that only the House and the president or the government have the power and right to create laws. In everyday reality, it turns out there are often conditions underlying the formation and/or material of a law that is open legal policy without any mention of the articles requested for this review. Thus, all the materials for this judicial review petition are open legal policies whose benefits and drawbacks had been considered,” Mahfud stressed.
Government Support
Meanwhile, the Ministry of Home Affairs’ (Kemendagri) Director-General of Regional Autonomy Akmal Malik said on behalf of the government that the Regency/City Legislative Council (DPRK) in Law No. 2 of 2021 is a changed nomenclature from the regency/city Papuan People’s Representatives’ Council (DPRP) in Law No. 21 of 2001. The change is meant to promote the involvement of indigenous Papuans in the regency/city DPRP.
“The provision that DPRP and DPRK members are selected from indigenous Papuans is the Government’s support for indigenous Papuans to utilize the apparatuses of democracy in the modern state,” Akmal said.
He stressed that the Government also seeks to encourage indigenous Papuans to participate in the government in Papua. They are also given a broad authority to formulate public policies that are in accordance with the local wisdom and characteristics of Papuans.
“Therefore, Law No. 2 of 2021 is in line with the 1945 Constitution and take into account factual conditions in Papua and maximizes special autonomy funds for sustainable development in Papua,” Akmal said.
Also read: Papuan People’s Assembly Revises 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 Regency/City 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 11/17/2021 10:53 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.
Tuesday, November 16, 2021 | 15:58 WIB 340