House Commission III member Supriansa testifying virtually at the judicial review hearing of Law No. 2 of 2021 on the Special Autonomy for Papua Province, Monday (12/13/2021). Photo by Humas MK/Panji.

---

Monday, December 13, 2021 | 20:40 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) essentially gave the Papua Province and its people more authority to regulate and look after itself within Unitary State of the Republic of Indonesia, said House of Representatives (DPR) Commission III member Supriansa virtually at a hearing for case No. 47/PUU-XIX/2021 on Monday, December 13, 2021. The petition was filed by the Papuan People’s Assembly (MRP), represented by Timotius Murib (Chairman), Yoel Luiz Mulait (Vice Chairman I), and Debora Mote (Vice Chairman II).

“More authority also means more responsibility for Papua Province and its people in carrying out the government and regulating the use of natural resources in Papua Province for the greatest welfare of the people, who is part of the Indonesian people, in accordance with statutory legislation,” Supriansa said before Chief Justice Anwar Usman and the other constitutional justices.

He also revealed that the law was an improvement to Law No. 21 of 2001 to ensure the sustainability of the granting of special autonomy funds for the Papua Province, which has been running for 20 years. Furthermore, the Papua Special Autonomy Law also aims to accelerate development and increase equitable development in Papua.

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

Supriansa further said that the authority includes that to empower the socio-cultural and economic potential of Papuans, including the provision of an adequate role for indigenous Papuans through customary law representatives, religious leaders, and women.

He explained that the law had amended several articles in Law No. 21 of 2001 and added materials on resolving political, economic, social, and cultural developments in society. “This law emphasizes the Government’s alignment with indigenous Papuans, which encourages the preparation of a master plan in the field of education and community economic empowerment for the sake of improving the people’s welfare,” he said.

He added that the amendment was also meant to reduce disparities between regions in Papua by opening a bottom-up and top-down regional structuring approaches while still prioritizing the principles of democracy and efficiency.

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

Different from Aceh

At the same hearing, an expert for the Petitioners, Maruarar Siahaan, said Aceh is also a special region like Papua, but both regions are not treated the same way. He went on to say that the MRP has legal standing to file for a judicial review petition in relation to its authority to protect Papuans.

Also read: Mahfud MD: Papua Special Autonomy Law Affirms Papua’s Legitimacy in NKRI

At the virtual preliminary hearing for case No. 47/PUU-XIX/2021 on Wednesday, September 22, 2021, the Petitioners argued that 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 believe there are clauses in the amendment to the a quo law that actually harm the Petitioners’ interests and constitutional rights in particular and those of 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 12/14/2021 11:05 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.

---