Petitioners of Papua Special Autonomy Law Present Four Witnesses
Image

Constitutional justices entering the courtroom for the judicial review of the Papua Special Autonomy Law to hear the Petitioners’ witnesses, Thursday (3/10/2022). Photo by Humas MK/Ilham W. M.


Friday, March 11, 2022 | 07:05 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) virtually on Thursday afternoon, March 10, February 22, 2022. The case No. 47/PUU-XIX/2021 was filed by the Papuan People’s Assembly (MRP).

The hearing was to hear four witnesses for the Petitioners—Nurzahri, Benny Swenny, Helena Hubi, and Wensislaus Fatubun. 

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

Aceh Local Political Parties

Nurzahri, spokesperson for the Aceh Party, explained the local political parties in Aceh.

“The nomenclature of local political parties first emerged in Indonesia in Law No. 21 of 2001 on the Special Autonomy for Papua Province. As referred to in Article 28 paragraph (1) of Law No. 21 of 2001, ‘Papuans may form political parties,’” he said before Chief Justice Anwar Usman (plenary chair) and the other constitutional justices.

This nomenclature, Nurzahri added, inspired the Free Aceh Movement (GAM) during a negotiation in Helsinki, Finland. The goal was so that Aceh be given a special right to form its own political parties. This, in fact, became the most important point of the entire agreement as well as the most recent point that the Indonesian Government and GAM agreed upon.

Throughout the history of Aceh’s induction into the Unitary State of the Republic of Indonesia, Nurzahri added, the people of Aceh had never had the political and constitutional right to express opinions. GAM believed that political aspirations through national parties had never really worked. National political parties had never granted independence to their representatives in Aceh and party figures in the province and regencies/cities in Aceh. All party policies and decisions were made by the leadership at the central level in Jakarta. Therefore, GAM asked the Government of the Republic of Indonesia for political independence. 

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

MRP a Cultural Representation

The next witness, Benny Swenny, is the deputy chairperson of the working team for the hearing meeting (RDP) of the MRP. “The MRP is a state institution in the region established under the mandate of Law No. 21 of 2001 on the Special Autonomy for Papua Province in accordance with the provision of Article 1 letter f of Law No. 21 of 2001,” he said.

He explained that the MRP is the cultural representation of indigenous Papuans who have certain authorities in protecting the rights of indigenous Papuans based on respect for their customs and culture, on empowering women, and strengthening religious harmony.

“Institutionally, the MRP is a representative institution for indigenous Papuans that was established along with the Papua Special Autonomy, which has an equal position to the DPRP, which is a political representative institution, and the Governor as the head of government in Papua Province. The MRP actually intends to implement Article 77 of Law No. 21 of 2001, which reads, ‘Proposals for the amendment of this Law may be submitted by the people of the Papua Province through the MRP and DPRP to the House of People’s Representatives or the Government according to the statutory regulations,’” Benny said. 

Also read: House: Papua Special Autonomy Law Gives More Authority to Papuans

Meanwhile, MRP member Helena Hubi revealed her experience following an RDP in Wamena on Sunday, November 15, 2020. The participants including herself, she said, were held hostage at Wamena Airport on 09:00-16:00 WIT. Outside of the airport, protesters who rejected them had been demonstrating.

“The MRP RDP team was held inside the airport. At the time, the MRP RDP team requested a dialogue with the protesters, but they refused. They even shouted at the MRP members to go back to Jayapura and not hold the RDP. In the end, we all left Wamena for Jayapura,” she testified.

Also read: Amendment to Papua Special Autonomy Law Disregards Indigenous Papuans’ Rights 

The last witness was Wensislaus Fatubun, an expert staff for the MRP. He revealed that he and the MRP DRP members and participants from Boven Digoel, Mappi, and Asmat Regencies were detained unilaterally by the Merauke precinct chief and his team in Merauke City on Sunday night, November 15, 2020.

“It became a huge trauma for me and my fellows who were captured. In the beginning, I hadn’t known the reason, but I found out from the minute that I was apprehended with an allegation of treason. I was shocked that I was accused of treason. [What did I do that] was treason?” he asked.

Also read: 

Papua Special Autonomy Law Issues Surfaced in Early Discussions

Transforming Armed Political Conflicts in Papua into Party Political Movement

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 3/11/2022 15:56 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.


Friday, March 11, 2022 | 07:05 WIB 276