Constitutional justices entering the courtroom for the judicial review hearing of the Papua Special Autonomy Law to hear the Petitioners’ experts testify virtually, Monday (2/7/2022). Photo by Humas MK/Ilham W.M.
Monday, February 7, 2022 | 16:25 WIB
JAKARTA, Public Relations—Fees were waived for the people of Papua and West Papua Provinces, but they are assisted by budgeting in the Regional Regulation on the Regional Budget in accordance with Article 15 paragraph (3) of Government Regulation No. 2 of 2018 on Standards of Basic Services, which reads, “In carrying out the fulfillment of basic services as referred to in paragraph (2), local governments can: a. waive fees to meet basic needs for citizens who are entitled to minimal basic services, by prioritizing for the poor or underprivileged in accordance with the provisions of the legislation; and/or b. provide assistance in the fulfillment of goods and/services of basic needs that citizens are entitled to obtain at a minimum, by prioritizing for the poor or underprivileged in accordance with the provisions of the legislation.”
This was asserted by the Petitioners’ expert Dian Puji Nugraha Simatupang in the judicial review hearing of 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) at the Constitutional Court (MK) on Monday afternoon, February 7, 2022. The case No. 47/PUU-XIX/2021 was filed by the Papuan People’s Assembly (MRP).
Also read: Papuan People’s Assembly Challenges Revised Papua Special Autonomy Law
Standards of Basic Services
In several regulations on public services, especially basic services defined as the services for the provision of goods and/or services of basic needs Article 15 paragraph (3) of Government Regulation No. 2 of 2018 on Standards of Basic Services that citizens are entitled to, regional government waive fees or provide assistance to fulfill the needs.
“Papua and West Papua Provinces are regions with waived fees but are assisted with budgeting in the Government Regulation on the Regional Budget,” Simatupang said before the panel chaired by Chief Justice Anwar Usman.
He said the phrase “the lowest fees on community” showed the community still had to pay for fees when the state and/or the region must waive them and/or provide aids. The National Social Security System (SJSN) stipulates that health aid for the people is provided through premiums, as regulated in Article 1 point 5 in conjunction with Article 21 paragraph (3) of Law No. 40 of 2004 on SJSN, which stipulates that participants who suffer permanent total paralysis and are underprivileged have their premiums paid by the government.
“The use of the phrase ‘the lowest fees on community’ in Article 59 paragraph (3) of Law No. 2 of 2021 potentially violates the rights of community groups who must be supported by and is the responsibility of the state. The phrase ‘the lowest fees on community’ potentially lead to injustice because the entire community is charged for health, because it equates all community members, whether they are underprivileged or privileged; they are still subject to a fee even if it is low,” said the law lecturer of the University of Indonesia (UI).
Also read: Mahfud MD: Papua Special Autonomy Law Affirms Papua’s Legitimacy in NKRI
Not Easy to Realize
Another expert for the Petitioners, Adriana Elizabeth, a lecturer of the Graduate Program of the International Relations of Pelita Harapan University (UPH), said the Papua Special Autonomy Law serves to reach prosperity of Papuans. “In this context, this means realizing welfare for part of Indonesia,” she said.
In addition, she added, the a quo law is a conflict resolution approach that serves to overcome trust issues that started with past dissatisfactions and injustice practices in Papua. “What was felt was the marginalization of indigenous Papuans,” she said.
Also read: House: Papua Special Autonomy Law Gives More Authority to Papuans
The purpose of special autonomy, Adriana said, in addition to improving the welfare of the community, is also overcoming conflicts in a community, in this case the Papuan community. However, special autonomy cannot be fully implemented in Papua because, from the start, when the special autonomy transition was to be carried out in 2001, it turned out to have given full authority to Papua insufficiently, and not provided a good enough budget.
The Papua Special Autonomy Law is a compromise. “Anything can be compromised. Although on the way, it was not easy to realize the Special Autonomy Law because there were initial problems when the discussion on special autonomy was [first] carried out,” she stressed.
Also read: Amendment to Papua Special Autonomy Law Disregards Indigenous Papuans’ Rights
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 challenged materially by the Papuan People’s Assembly (MRP), represented by Timotius Murib (Chairman), Yoel Luiz Mulait (Vice Chairman I), and Debora Mote (Vice Chairman II) in case No. 47/PUU-XIX/2021.
At the virtual preliminary hearing 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). 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.
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.
“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,” said Murib.
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.
Writer : Nano Tresna Arfana
Editor : Nur R.
PR : Andhini S. F.
Translator : Yuniar Widiastuti (NL)
Translation uploaded on 2/8/2022 09:46 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.
Monday, February 07, 2022 | 16:25 WIB 473