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), Monday (4/18/2022). Photo by Humas MK/BPE.

---

Monday, April 18, 2022 | 17:42 WIB

JAKARTA, Public Relations—The Constitutional Court (MK) held 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) on Monday, April 18, 2022. The case No. 43/PUU-XX/2022 was filed by E. Ramos Petege and Yanuarius Mote.

E. Ramos Petege explained the main points of the petition virtually. He said that he and Yanuarius Mote challenged Article 6 paragraph (1), Article 6A paragraph (2), Article 68A paragraphs (1) and (2), Article 75 paragraph (4), and Article 76 paragraphs (2) and (3) of the Papua Special Autonomy Law. “The Petitioners’ constitutional rights had been impaired by Article 6 paragraph (1) and Article 6A paragraph (2) of the Law on Special Autonomy for the Papua Province, which have created legal uncertainty and ambiguity, both normatively and in implementation, cause discrimination and nepotism in the election process against indigenous Papuans. These norms have also deprived the Petitioners of the opportunity to have jobs and equal rights before the law,” he explained before the bench chaired by Constitutional Justice Arief Hidayat.

He added that the Petitioners’ constitutional rights had been impaired by the enactment of Article 68A paragraphs (1) and (2), Article 75 paragraph (4), and Article 76 paragraphs (2) and (3) of the Papua Special Autonomy Law, which was contrary to the decentralized system adopted by Indonesia. The central government has taken the local governments’ authority to administer and regulate their autonomous regions.

In addition, the Petitioners suffered specific and actual constitutional impairment due to the Article 6 paragraph (1) and Article 6A paragraph (2) of the Papua Special Autonomy Law, which had shown that equality to be elected in the government only applies to people who are close to those in power, thus closing the opportunity for indigenous Papuans to get jobs and equal opportunities before the law.

Petege said the Petitioners’ potential constitutional impairment which, according to logical reasoning, was caused by the word “appointed” in Article 6 paragraph (1) and Article 6A paragraph (2) of the Papua Special Autonomy Law, which was contrary to the general election principles as stipulated in Article 18 paragraph (3) and Article 22E of the 1945 Constitution, which stipulates that members of the House of Representatives (DPR) must be elected through a direct election by the Indonesian people, since Indonesia adheres to popular sovereignty.

The Petitioners also suffered potential impairment according to logical reasoning due to Article 68A paragraphs (1) and (2) of the Papua Special Autonomy Law, which has eliminated the principles of regional autonomy, decentralization, and co-administration as a constitutional attribution to regional governments as stipulated in the 1945 Constitution.

Potential impairment according to logical reasoning was also caused by Article 75 paragraph (4) and Article 76 paragraphs (2) and (3) of the Papua Special Autonomy Law, which has led to the change from the decentralization system as stipulated in Article 18 paragraphs (1), (2), (3) of the 1945 Constitution into the centralized system in the central government. 

Legal Counsel Absent

Constitutional Justice Daniel Yusmic P. Foekh asked about the Petitioners’ legal counsel, who did not appear at the hearing. “How many people did you give power of attorney to?” he asked, to which Petege answered 10. Justice Foekh also said that even though the Petitioners were the ones who conveyed the main points of the petition, one of their legal counsels should have appeared at the Court.

He also highlighted the petition’s format, which must refer to the Constitutional Court Regulation (PMK) No. 2 of 2021. Article 10 of PMK No. 2/2021 paragraph (2) stipulates that a petition must at least contain the name of the petitioner and/or their proxy, their occupation, and so on; a description of the Court’s authority; the petitioner’s legal standing; the background of the petition; and the petitum.

Meanwhile, Constitutional Justice Manahan M. P. Sitompul reminded the Petitioners to take the justices’ advice and inputs for the petition into account.

“Do not talk too much here but without any results. Please note this. Moreover, no legal counsel is present,” he said. Justice Manahan also observed that the Petitioners’ legal standing needed revision. The elaboration of the petition, he said, need not be divided into two parts. The explanation of the Petitioners’ constitutional impairment should be connected to their professions.

Next, panel chair Constitutional Justice Arief Hidayat emphasized revision to the Petitioners’ legal standing. “The description of the legal standing is still very vague. The Petitioners only mentioned the individual Petitioners, but did not explain the impairment,” he said.

Justice Arief also emphasized that the Papua Special Autonomy Law is an affirmative or specific law, thus cannot be compared to normal laws. It specifically regulates Papua, so the model can be different from other regional government laws.

Writer        : Nano Tresna Arfana
Editor        : Nur R.
PR            : Andhini S. F.
Translator  : Yuniar Widiastuti (NL)

Translation uploaded on 4/19/2022 10:24 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.

---