Constitutional Justices Arief Hidayat, Manahan M. P. Sitompul, and Daniel Yusmic P. Foekh opening the panel petition revision hearing of the judicial review of Law No. 2 of 2021 on the Special Autonomy for Papua Province Tuesday (5/10/2022). Photo by Humas MK/Ifa.

---

Tuesday, May 10, 2022 | 16:14 WIB

JAKARTA, Public Relations—The 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) commenced in the Constitutional Court (MK) on Tuesday, May 10, 2022. The case No. 43/PUU-XX/2022 was filed by E. Ramos Petege and Yanuarius Mote.

Legal counsel Hans Poliman conveyed the revisions to the panel chaired by Constitutional Justice Arief Hidayat. “First, we have strengthened, clarified, and added the argument [in support of] the Petitioners’ legal standing and constitutional impairment. Petitioners I and II are Indonesian citizens, as proven by their resident identity cards, [which show] that they reside in Papua Province,” he explained.

Second, he added, the Petitioners believe the provisions in the contented articles had created a loophole where 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.

“The Petitioners as citizens and natives of Papua Province, due to the aforementioned norms, have lost the right to equal opportunity, participation, or electability in government as DPRP and DPRK members through a fair and honest election,” Poliman stressed.

The Petitioners believed that the phrase “elected” and “appointed” within Article 6 paragraph (2) of the Papua Special Autonomy Law would mean that DPRP (Papuan People’s Representatives’ Council) and DPRK (Aceh Regency Legislative Council) members shall be elected through an election. “Meanwhile, the current [interpretation] of the phrase could mean two things—letters a and b. Some DPRP and DPRK are elected, while some are appointed. [The latter] constitutes a violation,” he said.

Also read: Papua Special Autonomy Law Challenged: Discrimination in Election

The Petitioners challenge 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,” Petege explained at the preliminary hearing on Monday, April 18.

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. 

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

Translation uploaded on 5/11/2022 08:16 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.

---