Petitioner’s legal counsel Dede Gustiawan during the petition revision hearing at the Plenary Courtroom, Wednesday (12/9/2024). Photo by MKRI/Panji.

---

Jakarta, MKRI – Chairman of the Papuan People's Assembly (MRP) of Central Papua Province Agustinus Anggaibak has revised his petition for judicial review of Article 11 paragraph (3), Article 20 paragraph (1) letter a and letter e and their General Explanation in Law No. 2 of 2021 on the Second Amendment to Law No. 21 of 2001 on Special Autonomy for Papua Province (Papua Special Autonomy Law). According to the Petitioner of Case No. 110/PUU-XXII/2024, the articles tested contradict the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia.

“The constitutionality of Article 11 paragraph (3), Article 20 paragraph (1) letter a and letter e of the General Explanation of Law Number 2 of 2021 is contrary to Article 28D paragraph (1) and paragraph (3) and Article 28H paragraph (3) of the 1945 Constitution and has the potential to cause legal uncertainty,” said the Petitioner's legal counsel, Dede Gustiawan in a hearing with the agenda of revising the petition on Wednesday, September 12, 2024.

The Petitioner requested the Court to provide a new interpretation of these articles insofar as they relate to the approval of candidates for governor and deputy governor and the determination of candidates for regent/deputy regent and mayor/deputy mayor from the Indigenous Papuan element proposed by the regional head election organizer with new norms that are different from the previous norms. The Petitioner explained that with the enactment of Law No. 2 of 2021, the provisions of Article 20 paragraph (1) letter a, which regulates the recognition of the duties and authority of the MRP, states that the MRP gives “consideration” and “approval” to the candidates for governor and deputy governor proposed by the regional head election organizer. Meanwhile, Article 20 paragraph (1) letter e and the General Explanation of Law No. 2 of 2021 states, “MRP gives consideration to the DPRP, Governor, DPRK, and Regent/Mayor on matters related to the protection of the rights of Indigenous Papuans.”

Furthermore, the General Elucidation of Article 20 paragraph (1) letter e states, “What is meant by consideration includes the consideration of the MRP to the DPRK in terms of determining candidates for Regent/ Deputy Regent and Mayor/Deputy Mayor.” According to the Petitioner, the provisions of Article 20 paragraph (1) letter e of the General Elucidation of Law No. 2 of 2021 contain vague norms, and there is a lack of clarity of content with the provisions of Article 20 paragraph (1) letter a which confirms the consideration of the MRP in terms of determining candidates for regent/deputy regent and mayor/deputy mayor proposed by the election organizer.

According to the Petitioner, this would certainly lead to multiple interpretations for both the election organizers, in this case, the General Election Commission (KPU) and the MRP in giving consideration and approval to candidates for regent/deputy regent and mayor/deputy mayor in the implementation of the duties and authority of the MRP.  In addition, the provisions of Article 20 paragraph (1) letter a and letter e are not in line with Article 12 of Law No. 21 of 2001, which states, “Those who can be elected as Governor and Deputy Governor are Citizens of the Republic of Indonesia with the requirements of (a) Indigenous Papuans.

The Petitioner argued that this would potentially limit and even reduce the duties and authority of the MRP to give consideration and approval to candidates for regent/deputy regent and mayor/deputy mayor of OAP at the district/city level in Papua Province. The unclear constitutionality of the material content of paragraphs, articles, and/or sections in the Law a quo has limited and reduced the constitutional rights of OAP to put themselves forward as candidates for regent/deputy regent and mayor/deputy mayor proposed by the election organizers at the district/city level in Papua Province has, in fact, caused constitutional harm.

In its revised petitum, the Petitioner requests the Court to declare Article 11 paragraph (3) and Article 20 paragraph (1) letters a and e along with the General Elucidation of the Papua Special Autonomy Law contrary to the 1945 Constitution and does not have binding legal force as long as it is not interpreted, “provisions regarding the procedures for the election of governors and deputy governors include the duties and authority of the MRP to provide consideration and approval of candidates for regent/deputy regent and mayor/deputy mayor as referred to in the General Elucidation of Article 20 paragraph (1) letter e of the Papua Special Autonomy Law”.

The case was heard by a panel of Justices led by Justice Enny Nurbaningsih, accompanied by Justice Arief Hidayat and Justice Anwar Usman. Before closing the hearing, the Panel of Justices validated the evidence submitted by the Petitioner. Justice Enny also said that this petition would be reported to a Justice Deliberation Meeting (RPH) attended by nine constitutional justices or at least seven constitutional justices, so the Petitioner was asked to wait regarding the follow-up of his petition, which would be informed by the Registrar’s Office.

Also read: Chairman of Papua People’s Assembly Challenges Papua’s Region Heads Nomination Rule

Author: Mimi Kartika.

Editor: Nur R.

PR: Raisa Ayuditha Marsaulina.

Translator: Rizky Kurnia Chaesario (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.

---