Petitioners attending preliminary hearing of Case No. 230/PUU-XXIII/2025, Wednesday (3/12). Photo by MKRI/Bay.

---

Jakarta (MKRI) – Eight citizens each from eight provinces of Papua filed a material judicial review of Article 6 paragraph (1a) and paragraph (2) of Law No. 2 of 2021 on Special Autonomy of the Papua Province (Otsus Papua Law) to the Constitutional Court (MK). According to the Petitioners of Case No. 230/PUU-XXIII/2025, the provision that one-quarter of the members of the Papuan House of Representatives (DPRP) must be appointed from among indigenous Papuans has eliminated the special status enjoyed by the six provinces in Papua.

"The number 1 ¼ (one and a quarter) was changed to ¼ (one quarter). What is the legal basis for this? Therefore, the Petitioners request that the Constitutional Court immediately decide and determine that the number of seats for members of the Papuan House of Representatives (DPRP) be returned to 1 ¼ (one and a quarter)," said Alexandra Elfrieda Mayor as Petitioner I in the preliminary hearing on Wednesday, December 3, 2025, at the Courtroom.

Article 6 of the Otsus Papua Law reads in full, "The DPRP shall consist of members who a. are elected in general elections in accordance with the provisions of laws and regulations; and b. are appointed from among indigenous Papuans. Furthermore, Article 6 paragraph (2) of the Otsus Papua Law reads: The number of DPRP members appointed as referred to in paragraph (1) letter b shall be ¼ (one quarter) of the number of DPRP members as referred to in paragraph (1) letter a."

This provision is a change from the previous rule, which stated that the number of DPRP members appointed from the OAP should be 1 ¼ (one and a quarter) times the number of DPRP members elected in the general election. However, according to the Petitioners, the 1 ¼ provision has never been implemented since the establishment of special autonomy for Papua Province in 2001.

In their petitums, the Petitioners request the Court to declare that the phrase ¼ in Article 6 paragraph (2) of Law No. 2 of 2001 has no binding legal basis and contradicts Article 18B paragraphs (1) and (2) of the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia. In addition, the Petitioners also request the Court to declare that the difference in the terminology used for the Papuan House of Representatives (DPRP) and the Papuan Provincial House of Representatives (DPRD Provinsi Papua) must be clarified in accordance with their respective duties, functions, and objectives.

In addition to Alexandra Elfrieda Mayor, the Petitioners included in this petition are Pinus Heluka, Timotius Sukai, Maccleurita Bardorita Marianti, Aberaham Bayage, Aser Yaas, Zefanya Agapa, and Bartholomeos Bokoropces. However, the Petitioner Maccleurita Bardorita Marianti did not attend this initial hearing.

This petition was heard by a Panel of Justices led by Deputy Chief Justice Saldi Isra, accompanied by Constitutional Justices Ridwan Mansyur and Arsul Sani. During the advice session, Arsul highlighted the petition submitted by the Petitioners, which was deemed inconsistent with the authority and structure of the Constitutional Court as stipulated in Article 24C of the 1945 Constitution  and Constitutional Court Regulation Number 7 of 2025 on Procedure in Judicial Review Cases.

“This petitum as a whole is not in accordance with what is stipulated in Article 24C of the Constitution and this PMK. You must read carefully what the authority is,” Justice Arsul said.

Before adjourning, Deputy Chief Justice Saldi stated that the Petitioners were granted 14 days to revise their petition. The revision must be submitted no later than Tuesday, December 16, 2025, at 12 local time. (*)

Case tracking

Author: Mimi Kartika
Editor: Lulu Anjarsari P.
PR: Fauzan Febriyan

Translator: Rizky Kurnia Chaesario

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.

---