Amran, acting Director-General of Territorial Administration of the Ministry of Home Affairs, testifying on behalf of the Government at a material judicial review of the law on the formation of Bontang City, Thursday (7/18/2024). Photo by MKRI/Ifa.
JAKARTA (MKRI) — The Constitutional Court (MK) held another hearing for case No. 10/PUU-XXII/2024 on Thursday, July 18, 2024 to hear the House of Representatives (DPR) and the president on the judicial review of Law No. 47 of 1999 on the Establishment of Nunukan Regency, Malinau Regency, West Kutai Regency, East Kutai Regency, and Bontang City as amended by Law No. 7 of 2000, in which the Petitioners question the borders of Bontang City.
Amran, acting Director-General of Territorial Administration of the Ministry of Home Affairs, explained that the map attached to Law No. 47 of 1999 shows the same patterns as that attached to the Government Regulation (PP) No. 20 of 1989 on the Establishment of the Administrative City of Bontang. However, the former does not meet cartographic requirements.
“The map attached to Law No. 47 of 1999 is imperfect in cartographic standards, thus may lead to multiple interpretations,” said Amran in the plenary courtroom.
He explained that the pattern of border lines in Law No. 47 of 1999 curves downward. Meanwhile, PP No. 20 of 1989 has a straight line from the coastline to the junction of borders between Bontang City, East Kutai Regency, and Kutai Kartanegara Regency. He added that technically, the map attached to Law No. 47 of 1999 does not meet cartographic requirements.
The map attached to Law No. 47 of 1999 is on a scale of 1:250.000, indicating a medium-scale map. If used as a basis for determining regional borders, it would cause multiple interpretations and monumental errors in showing the existing conditions in the field. Map scale is very important as it serves to project the actual size in the field.
Rectification or georeferencing on the map attached to Law No. 47 of 1999 will lead to great shift of grid coordinates, Amran explained further. The images or objects on the map are not clearly drawn so they cannot be used as a reference for rectification/georeferencing. In addition, it does not have any reference details.
He said the Governments of Bontang City, East Kutai Regency, and Kutai Kartanegara Regency had agreed to conduct border tracking and installation of border pillars, the results of which were outlined in the report on the installation of main pillars of the Bontang City regional borders to Kutai Regency and East Kutai Regency on April 30, 2002. The report agreed on thirteen main pillars and borders. This means the borders between the three regions had been made clear, despite the Petitioners believing the map attached to Law No. 47 of 1999 not meeting cartographic requirements and leading to legal uncertainty.
Then on May 11, 2005, East Kutai regent and Bontang mayor met to settle the border issue, mediated by the vice governor of East Kalimantan. As a result, they agreed that the borders between the two regions be stipulated in a Minister of Home Affairs regulation (permendagri), while the expansion of Bontang City was to be proposed after the permendagri was issued.
In response to the justices’ questions, junior policy analyst Ardi Eko Wijoyo explained that the inclusion of Sidrap into Bontang City had been facilitated by the East Kalimantan Provincial Government. However, the East Kutai Regency Government did not agree on it and refused to give Sidrap away, thus delaying the process.
Before adjourning the hearing, Chief Justice Suhartoyo summoned the House of Representatives (DPR) to testify. The hearing will commence on Wednesday, July 31, 2024 at 10:30 WIB to hear the House and relevant parties that the Court would summon.
Also read:
Bontang City Borders Challenged in Court
Petitioners of Law on Bontang City Revise Petition
President’s Proxy Unprepared, Hearing on Bontang City Establishment Postponed
The Petitioners—Bontang City mayor Basri Rase, DPRD (Regional Legislative Council) chairman Andi Faisal Sofyan Hasdam, DPRD vice chairman I Junaidi, and DPRD vice chairman II Agus Haris—admitted they had received a mandate latter from the Communication Forum of Sidrap Community and seven RTs (neighborhood units) in Guntung Village to file the a quo petition. They question why Bontang City only comprises South Bontang and North Bontang Subdistricts.
The fifth appendix to Law No. 47 of 1999 has led to legal uncertainty as it does not include West Bontang Subdistrict in Bontang City. This was not because it was under another region nor is it an object of dispute.
“Administratively and formally it does not show in the map, nor is it included in the borders. Materially or substantively, there is no dispute [about the subdistrict] with another regency. We only want an affirmation in the Constitutional Court decision. It is not mentioned in the Law that it will lead to legal uncertainty,” said legal counsel Heru Widodo at the petition revision hearing on Monday, February 26.
Another issue that the Petitioners highlight is that Sekambing Village is not included in South Bontang Subdistrict, when it has existed since Bontang is an administrative city. In addition, the west of Bontang City is said to border Marangkayu Subdistrict, when it should be Sangatta Subdistrict of East Kutai Regency.
There is also the issue of Sidrap area, whose nomenclature have changed into RT 19, RT 20, RT 21, RT 22, RT 23, RT 24, and RT 25. Formerly, these areas were part of Bontang Subdistrict of Level II Region of Kutai Regency. Now they are part of Sangatta Subdistrict of East Kutai Regency. In addition to causing legal certainty, it has led to the creation of a new norm, especially on the northern border with Sangatta Subdistrict of East Kutai Regency, by not determining Sidrap as part of North Bontang, thus in violation of Article 10 paragraph (4).
Moreover, Heru explained, the process of resolving borders, especially in Sidrap, has caused prolonged disputes because it has never produced results. The settlement efforts that have been made by the Petitioners include coordination and supervision with the East Kutai Regency Government facilitated by the East Kalimantan Provincial Government, and even a request for settlement to the Ministry of Home Affairs.
The endless series of dispute resolution efforts continued with a review petition of the Minister of Home Affairs Regulation (Permendagri) No. 25 of 2005 on the Determination of Bontang City Borders with East Kutai Regency, Kutai Kartanegara Regency to the Supreme Court (MA) based on recommendations by the North Kalimantan Provincial Government. However, this petition was rejected.
“On the basis of the entire reasons for the petition as described above, it is proven according to law and the determination of the borders of Bontang City in the Elucidation to Article 2 of Law No. 47 of 1999, as well as in Article 7, Article 10 paragraph (4) letter c, Article 10 paragraph (5) letter d, and Appendix 5 of Law Law No. 47 of 1999 is contrary to Article 28D paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution,” Heru said.
In their petitums, the Petitioners request that the Court declare the elucidation to Article 2 of Law No. 47 of 1999 unconstitutional and not legally binding; to include West Bontang in Article 7 and West Bontang in Article 10 paragraph (4) letter c; to interpret Article 10 paragraph (5) letter d as “Bontang City shares boundaries with Sangatta Subdistrict, East Kutai Regency in the west;” and to not include Sidrap Hamlet—whose nomenclature have changed into RT 19, RT 20, RT 21, RT 22, RT 23, RT 24, and RT 25—as part of North Bontang Subdistrict of Bontang City and Sekambing Village as part of South Bontang Subdistrict of Bontang City in Appendix 5 of Law No. 47 of 1999 in the form of the Bontang City map.
Author : Mimi Kartika
Editor : Nur R.
PR : Raisa Ayuditha Marsaulina
Translator : Yuniar Widiastuti (NL)
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.
Thursday, July 18, 2024 | 15:07 WIB 124