Petitioner and legal counsels attending the preliminary hearing of the judicial review of Law No. 14 of 2013 on the Formation of Tambrauw Regency in West Papua Province virtually, Thursday (12/1/2022). Photo by MKRI/Ifa.
Thursday, December 1, 2022 | 14:12 WIB
JAKARTA (MKRI) — The Constitutional Court (MK) held the preliminary hearing of the judicial review of Law No. 14 of 2013 on the Amendment to Law No. 56 of 2008 on the Formation of Tambrauw Regency in West Papua Province on Thursday, December 1, 2022. The petition No. 115/PUU-XX/2022 was filed by Manokwari regent and vice regent Hermus Indou and Edi Budoyo, who challenge Article 3 paragraph (1) and Article 5 paragraph (1) of the Tambrauw Law. Hermus Indou attended the hearing virtually.
Article 3 paragraph (1) of the Tambrauw Law reads, “Tambrauw Regency shall originate from parts of Sorong Regency and part of Manokwari Regency, which consist of the following areas: a. Fef District, b. Miyah District, c. Yembun District, d. Kwoor District, e. Sausapor District, f. Abun District, g. Amberbaken District, p. Kebar District, i. Senoi District, j. Mubrani District, and k. Moraid District.”
Article 5 paragraph (1) of the Tambrauw Law reads, “Tambrauw Regency shall have the regional boundaries: a. To the north it is bordered by the Pacific Ocean. b. To the east it is bordered by Wariki Village, Kasi Village, Sidey District, Manokwari Regency, and Meifowoska Village, Testega District, Arfak Mountains District. C. To the south it is bordered by Aifam Village, East Aifat District, Yarata Village, North Aifat District, Seya Village, Mare District, Maybrat Regency, and Inofina Village, North Moskona District, Teluk Bintuni Regency. D. To the west it is bordered by Asbaken Village, Makbon District and Sailala Village, Sayosa District, Sorong Regency.”
The Tambrauw Law transferred Amberbaken, Kebar, Senopi, and Mubrani Districts from Manokwari Regency to Tambrauw Regency, which the Petitioners alleged had restricted the aspirations of Meyah and Mpoor ethnic groups as owners of the customary land who live in those four districts, while they don’t share common ethnicity, language, culture, and customs with people in the other six districts: Fet, Sausafor, Kwoor, Abun, Yembun, and Miyah. Therefore, the Petitioners argued, the articles are in violation of Article 18B paragraphs (1) and (2), Article 28D paragraph (1), Article 28I paragraph (3), and Article 28I paragraph (4) of the 1945 Constitution.
In their provisional petitum, the Petitioners requested that the Court order the president and the House of Representatives (DPR) to delay the discussion and ratification of the bill on the formation of Southwest Papua Province until the Court ruled on this petition.
“The territory shift as a result of the proliferation has also resulted in a shift in the customary rights of indigenous peoples. For this reason, the Petitioners appeal to the Court to return four districts—Amberbaken District, Kebar District, Senopi District, and Mubrani District—to Manokwari Regency.
In response to the petition, Constitutional Justice Suhartoyo stated that the regional government, in this case should the regency DPRD (Regional Legislative Council), should also be a petitioner. The regional head and the regency DPRD should be one unit as petitioners. “Therefore, if those two elements [filed] this petition, the power of attorney must be changed,” he said.
He then asked the Petitioners to rearrange the petition, starting from the Petitioners’s profile, an elaboration of the Court’s authority in Constitutional Court Regulation (PMK No. 2 of 2022), the Petitioners’ legal standing as representative of the local government who feel their rights and authorities were harmed by the enactment of the norms, and the posita and petitum. Apart from that, the Petitioners were also asked to explain the DPD (Regional Representatives Council) and DPRD representing elements of the government in said region so that the Court could see the regions involved in the case.
Next, Constitutional Justice Saldi Isra also observed the Petitioners’ legal standing. In many of the Court’s decisions relating to formation or regions, regional authority, and the like, the regional government, i.e. the head of the region and the DPRD have the legal standing to file a petition.
“Therefore, if you want to invite [the DPRD] as a petitioner, there must be evidence that the petition is [also] filed by the DPRD. This can be done [by] the DPRD from the results of the plenary session. If this is not met, the Petitioners will be declared to have no legal standing,” he said.
Meanwhile, Constitutional Justice Daniel Yusmic P. Foekh suggested that the Petitioners renew their power of attorney and legal standing, which were the entry point for the petition. He adviced them to invite the DPRD as Petitioner III.
Before concluding the session, Justice Foekh said the Petitioners had 14 days to revise their petition. The Petitioners can submit their revised petition no later than Wednesday, December 14, 2022 to the Registrar’s Office.
Writer : Sri Pujianti
Editor : Nur R.
PR : Muhammad Halim
Translator : Yuniar Widiastuti (NL)
Translation uploaded on 12/5/2022 10:59 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.