Chief Justice Anwar Usman and Chief Registrar Muhidin at the ruling hearing of the judicial review of Law No. 2 of 2021 on the Special Autonomy for Papua Province, Wednesday (8/31/2022). Photo by MKRI/Ifa.
Wednesday, August 31, 2022 | 16:04 WIB
JAKARTA (MKRI)—The Constitutional Court (MK) rejected the judicial review petition against 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) by E. Ramos Petege and Yanuarius Mote.
“[The Court] adjudicated, declares the petition relating to Article 75 paragraph (4) and Article 76 paragraphs (2) and (3) of Law No. 2 of 2021 on the Second Amendment to Law No. 21 of 2001 on the Special Autonomy for Papua Province inadmissible, rejects the Petitioners’ petition for the rest and remainder,” said plenary chairman Chief Justice Anwar Usman at the ruling hearing of case No. 43/PUU-XX/2022 on Wednesday, August 31, 2022.
In the Court’s legal considerations read out by Constitutional Justice Manahan M. P. Sitompul, the Court asserted that the substance of the Petitioners’ petition relating to Article 76 paragraphs (2) and (3) was also related to the regional government’s interest. Therefore, the petition could only be filed by the Petitioners as individual citizens. In addition, they could not explain the specific, actual, or at least potential impairment and the causality between the impairment and the enactment of the norm.
As such, the Petitioners did not meet the requirements to be granted legal standing to review Article 75 paragraph (4) and Article 76 paragraphs (2) and (3). Even if they had, quod non, their argument was legally groundless for its entirety.
“Based on the aforementioned legal considerations, the Court is of the view that 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 had not resulted in injustice, legal uncertainty, and discrimination [against the rights] guaranteed in the 1945 Constitution that the Petitioners alleged. Therefore, the Petitioners’ petition was legally groundless for its entirety and the Petitioners did not have legal standing to file a petition against Article 75 paragraph (4) and Article 76 paragraphs (2) and (3) of the Papua Special Autonomy Law,” Justice Manahan asserted.
Also read: Papua Special Autonomy Law Challenged: Discrimination in Election
The Court also asserted that it had decided the judicial review of Article 6 paragraph (1) letter b and Article 6A paragraph (1) letter b of the Papua Special Autonomy Law for case No. 47/PUU-XIX/2021. It had also ruled over Article 68A paragraphs (1) and (2), especially paragraph (2).
“Because the judicial review of Article 68A paragraph (2) of Law No. 2 of 2021 was closely related to Article 68A paragraph (1), which regulates the establishment of a special body, the Court believes the legal considerations of the judicial review of Article 68A paragraph (2) of Law No. 2 of 2021 in case No. 47/PUU-XIX/2021 also [applies to] Article 68A paragraph (1),” Justice Manahan added.
Also read: Petitioners: Papua Special Autonomy Law Keeps Papuans Out of Jobs
Dissenting Opinion
Constitutional Justice Saldi Isra voiced a dissenting opinion. He asserted that the specific, actual, or potential impairment of the constitutional rights due to the enactment of Article 75 paragraph (4) and Article 76 paragraphs (2) and (3) of the Papua Special Autonomy Law had caused a loophole in the decentralization system as regulated in Article 18 paragraphs (1), (2), and (3) of the 1945 Constitution into the centralized system.
As the Petitioners elaborated, the decision-making to issue provincial regulations (perdasi) and special regional regulations (perdasus) without the involvement or consideration or approval of the Papuan People’s Assembly (MRP) and the DPRP (Papuan People’s Representatives’ Council) or the Regency/City Legislative Council (DPRK) hijacked the special autonomy granted to Papua Province. The Petitioners believed this had impaired their constitutional right to voice their aspirations in the event of proliferations in Papua Province.
The Petitioners’ legal standing in the a quo petition, in casu Article 75 paragraph (4) and Article 76 paragraphs (2) and (3) of the Papua Special Autonomy Law, Justice Saldi added, must be seen based on Article 51 of the Constitutional Court Law, which requires (1) the Petitioners’ constitutional rights granted by the 1945 Constitution; (2) the Petitioners’ constitutional rights and/or authorities impaired by the enactment of the law petitioned for judicial review; (3) the Petitioners’ constitutional impairment is specific, actual, or at least potential which, according to logical reasoning, is inevitable; (4) causality between the impairment and the enactment of the law; and (5) a possibility that if the petition is granted, the constitutional impairment will not occur again.
Upon observation, the Petitioners had elaborated their factual or potential constitutional impairment specifically as well as the causality between the norms and the enactment of the law. Those norms were closely related to indigenous Papuans, given the legal politics that was the background to the Papua Special Autonomy Law. The letter a in “considering” in the law is explicitly intended to protect and uphold dignity, affirm, and protect the basic rights of indigenous Papuans in the economic, political, and socio-cultural fields. Therefore, because all the norms were related to the cultural interests of indigenous Papuans, the Court should have granted the Petitioners legal standing for all the norms in question.
The Petitioners alleged that they had suffered potential impairment according to logical reasoning due to Article 68A paragraphs (1) and (2) of the Papua Special Autonomy Law, which they believed had eliminated the principles of regional autonomy, decentralization, and co-administration as a constitutional attribution to regional governments as stipulated in the 1945 Constitution. They also alleged that such impairment had also been caused by Article 75 paragraph (4) and Article 76 paragraphs (2) and (3), which had 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 : Lulu Anjarsari P.
PR : Andhini S. F.
Translator : Yuniar Widiastuti (NL)
Translation uploaded on 9/5/2022 13:36 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.
Wednesday, August 31, 2022 | 16:04 WIB 212