The judicial review hearing of the Papua Special Autonomy Law to hear the Petitioners’ expert and witness, Tuesday (2/22/2022). Photo by Humas MK/Bayu.
Tuesday, February 22, 2022 | 16:20 WIB
JAKARTA, Public Relations—Another judicial review hearing for 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 held by the Constitutional Court (MK) on Tuesday afternoon, February 22, 2022. The case No. 47/PUU-XIX/2021 was filed by the Papuan People’s Assembly (MRP). The hearing was to hear the Petitioners’ expert and witness.
Otto Nur Abdullah, appearing before the Court as an expert for the Papuan People’s Assembly (MRP), one of the Petitioners, asserted that Papua has been a region with vertical conflict post-Papua Referendum in 1969. Some said the conflict had started since 1962.
“However, what is certain is that the conflict in Papua has been going on for very long, even longer than the Aceh conflict. Now we can say that the Papua [conflict] has entered the third generation,” he said before the full bench chaired by Chief Justice Anwar Usman.
Local Political Parties
Long-lasting vertical conflicts, Otto said, are theoretically difficult to stop immediately. They must be transformed as they have gone on for too long. Such a transformation could be geared toward respect for human rights, the 1945 Constitution, and just and civilized values in Pancasila.
“This conflict transformation was done in Aceh. However, before 2000, President Abdurrahman Wahid took the informal approach by sending the Minister of State Secretariat to meet with the Commander of GAM [(Free Aceh Movement)],” he added.
Meanwhile, in Papua, the initiative to transform conflicts emerged since the region was given special autonomy. One of the ways was giving legal platform to local political parties through Law No. 21 of 2001. This was done in order to transform the armed conflict into a political party movement. In addition, in terms of conflict resolution, local parties could improve the people’s ability to settle differences through negotiation and compromise that promote sense of justice.
Another positive outcome in Aceh, Otto added, was that local political parties were more accessible to Acehnese to channel their political aspirations without any suspicion of them being part of the national politics. In addition, the local parliament served as a contestation arena while being a means for collaboration between national and local parties to fight for the region’s aspirations at the national level.
History of Establishment of Papua Province
The MRP also presented M. Musa’ad as a witness to explain the establishment of the Papua Province based on Law No. 1/PNPS/1962 on the Establishment of the New West Irian Province, Law No. 12 of 2009 on the Establishment of the Autonomous West Irian Province and Autonomous Regencies in West Irian Province. The name West Irian was subsequently changed into Irian Jaya based on the Government Regulation (PP) No. 5 of 1973.
“Then, based on the aspiration of the Papuan people, Irian Jaya was changed into Papua, which was then put in the Decree of the Irian Jaya Province DPRD No. 7/DPRD/2000 dated August 16, 2000 on the Return of the Name Irian Jaya to Papua. Since then, Papua has been used officially following Law No. 21 of 2001 on the Special Autonomy for Papua Province,” Musa’ad explained.
For a long period, the regional government in the Autonomous West Irian Province and Irian Jaya Province had not run the way it was supposed to be in an autonomous region, which should have been given the freedom to regulate and manage their own administration to develop regional aspirations and initiatives, as there was no freedom and independence to exercise such authority. Centralized policies have long been practiced in the West Irian Province and Irian Jaya Province. This has led to a long-standing conflict, which led to the nation’s disintegration.
Also read:
Papuan People’s Assembly Challenges Revised Papua Special Autonomy Law
Mahfud MD: Papua Special Autonomy Law Affirms Papua’s Legitimacy in NKRI
House: Papua Special Autonomy Law Gives More Authority to Papuans
Amendment to Papua Special Autonomy Law Disregards Indigenous Papuans’ Rights
Papua Special Autonomy Law Issues Surfaced in Early Discussions
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 2/23/2022 11:16 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, February 22, 2022 | 16:20 WIB 245