Petitioners at Preliminary Hearing for Case No. 193/PUU-XXIII/2025, the Material Judicial Review of Law No. 2 of 2021 on the Second Amendment to Law No. 21 of 2001 on Autonomy for Papua Province, Wednesday (10/29/2025). Photo by MKRI/Bay.

---

JAKARTA (MKRI) – Two Papuans, Elisa Stepanus Banundi and Joyce Meyer Giay, filed a judicial review of 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) to the Court (MK). The Petitioners questioned provisions that were deemed to reduce the authority of the Papuan People's Assembly (MRP) and the Regency/City People's Representative Council (DPRK) in protecting the rights of indigenous Papuans. The Petitioners challenged Article 42 paragraph (1) letter b and Article 45 of the Papua Special Autonomy Law against the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia (UUD 1945).

The first hearing of the examination of Case No. 193/PUU-XXIII/2025 was held at the Court Building, Jakarta on Wednesday, October 29, 2025, chaired by Constitutional Justice Enny Nurbaningsih, Constitutional Justice Daniel Yusmic P. Foekh, and Constitutional Justice M. Guntur Hamzah with the agenda of hearing the arguments of the Petitioners.

The Petitioners, through their legal counsel Agust Giay Bedu, argued in the court hearing that articles being challenged violate Article 18B paragraphs (1) and (2) of the 1945 Constitution, which affirms the state's recognition of indigenous legal communities and their traditional rights.

"The government's study did not involve indigenous communities as a whole. Some tribes claim to represent other tribes, even though each tribe in Papua has its own sovereignty," Agust stated before the panel of justices.

Agust also explained that the provisions in the new Papua Special Autonomy Law have the potential to disadvantage indigenous communities in gaining recognition and recognition of their rights. He cited the example of Elisa Stepanus Banundi—the son of a Papua Special Autonomy activist—who was not recognized as a representative of his tribe in regional policy processes.

The Petitioners believe that the Special Autonomy for Papua should be a direct embodiment of Article 18B paragraph (2) of the 1945 Constitution, where this special status is implemented through the Papuan People's Assembly (MRP) as a cultural institution that protects the rights of Indigenous Papuans (OAP). The MRP also has the authority to provide considerations regarding prospective regional head candidates from OAP elements and to uphold customary values, culture, and religious harmony.

However, the transformation to the regional government structure through Law No. 2 of 2021 and Government Regulation No. 106 of 2021 are considered to have consequences for the role of the MRP in the formation of the DPRK. Under the current mechanism, DPRK members are appointed based on the consideration and approval of the MRP. The petitioners argue that this is inconsistent with the original spirit of Special Autonomy.

Furthermore, the Petitioners also questioned the transformation in membership proportion from ¼ (one-quarter) to ⅓ (one-third) as stipulated in the general explanation of Law No. 2 of 2021. This transformation is considered to create legal uncertainty and contradict Article 28D paragraphs (1) and (3) and Article 28H paragraph (3) of the 1945 Constitution, which guarantees fair legal certainty and equality before the law.

Based on these arguments, the Petitioners requested that the Constitutional Court declare the articles in Law No. 2 of 2021, particularly Article 42 paragraph (1) letter b and Article 45 contradictory to the 1945 Constitution and not legally binding.

Responding to the petition, Constitutional Justice Daniel Yusmic P. Foekh asked the Petitioners to revise the formatting of the petition. "The petition does not provide the Petitioner's complete identity. Furthermore, the main body of the petition contains an error in the mention of the article, namely Article 18D, when in fact Article 18B is intended," Justice Daniel explained. He also reminded the Petitioners to describe the constitutional losses in more detail.

Before closing the hearing, Constitutional Justice Enny Nurbaningsih gave the Petitioners 14 days to revise their petitions. "The revised petitions must be submitted no later than Tuesday, November 11, 2025, at 12.00 p.m. WIB," Justice Enny stated.

Track case No. 193/PUU-XXIII/2025

Author      : Utami Argawati.
Editor       : N. Rosi.
PR           : Raisa Ayuditha Marsaulina.
Translator : Donny Yuniarto

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.

---