Questioning the Existence of the MRP in the Session of the Special Autonomy Law and the Tendency to Take Partisanship with the Aspiration of DOB

The issuance of Law no. 21 of 2001 concerning Special Autonomy (Otsus) for Papua is a strategic policy, in the context of improving services, accelerating development, and empowering communities in Papua province, especially for indigenous Papuans. This policy is expected to reduce the gap between Papua and other provinces within the framework of the Unitary State of the Republic of Indonesia (NKRI), and is expected to provide opportunities for indigenous Papuans to participate as development subjects.

The Papuan People's Council (MRP) was formed as a cultural representation of indigenous Papuans who have certain authority to protect the rights of indigenous Papuans based on respect for customs and culture, empowering women, and strengthening religious harmony. In its implementation, the MRP is said to have contributed in several ways regarding the Papuan people. This includes responding to the Special Autonomy Law which is considered unprofitable. The MRP had submitted a request for a judicial review of the Special Autonomy Law because it received a clause that was deemed detrimental to the interests and constitutional rights of indigenous Papuans. The MRP once considered that the drafting of Law 2/2021 which was a revision of Law 21/2001 was purely the initiative of the central government, not a proposal from the Papuan people.

Questioning the Position and Partisanship of the MRP

Responding to the lawsuit against the Special Autonomy Law involving the MRP, a number of parties then questioned the position of the MRP in the trial held at the Constitutional Court.

The President's expert witness, Yusril Ihza Mahendra once considered that there was no room for the MRP to examine Law Number 2 of 2021 concerning Special Autonomy (UU Otsus) against the 1945 Constitution, where the MRP was the applicant in the trial. According to Yusril, the MRP is categorized as a state institution formed based on the mandate of the law, not the 1945 Constitution directly. The rights and authorities are given as ordered by the law. The existence of arguments against the Papua Special Autonomy Law regarding the provisions of the Papuan People's Representative Council (DPRP) and the Regency/City People's Representative Council (DPRK) can only be submitted by individuals or political parties that have a constitution, not the MRP. MRP is a state institution as a representation of the Papuan people in certain cases as stated in the law. However, the MRP does not have the legal standing to submit a review of the articles requested.

The latest statement regarding the same thing also appeared in the follow-up trial of Law Number 2 of 2021 concerning Special Autonomy (Otsus) for the Papua Province at the Constitutional Court (MK), by one of the President's experts, Fahri Bachmid. He questioned the legal position of the Papuan People's Council (MRP) in requesting the judicial review. According to him, there is no clear legal definition related to the existence of the MRP institution itself, whether as a state institution, public legal entity, private, or individual. When it comes to a state institution, the MRP does not have the attribution of power granted directly by the constitution. Thus, the MRP is very difficult to define as a party that has legal standing in submitting a request for the constitutionality of a law.

Even in response to the Papua New Guinea policy, the existence of the MRP is very unfortunate because it is tendentious only to raise the aspirations of parties or groups who reject the new autonomous regions. Timotius Murib even claimed that the majority of people in 29 districts/cities in Papua Province rejected the policy. However, if you ask in detail about the data you have, it will not be shown scientifically. It only seemed to be based on the aspirations of the people which stated that the expansion should be postponed. For example, there are different meanings of the definition of 'the people' between the MRP and local governments who actually represent the people even to remote or remote areas.

On the other hand, the attitude of the Papuan people who were then represented by the regional government actually gave a lot of support to the new autonomous region plan in the Papua region. Based on the statement from the Minister of Home Affairs Tito Karnavian, regional government associations, such as the association of Regents in South Papua, associations of Regents and community leaders in the Meepago region, Regents in the Central Mountains region, then associations of Regents in the North Papua region such as the Jayapura Regent and Mayor and Deputy The mayor of Jayapura has provided a letter or official statement of support. Therefore, the MRP's attitude in acting on behalf of the people's institutions and expressing objections to the formation of three new provinces in Papua deserves to be questioned, has it been taken to a plenary session? or maybe just the aspirations of a number of parties without representing the Papuan people as a whole.

Continuously Flowing DOB Support from Various Parties

As if they never stop from day to day, a number of parties continue to provide statements of support regarding the new autonomous regions policy, where currently the DPR has received a letter from the President (surpres) to immediately follow up on the discussion of the three new autonomous regions bill.

The group on behalf of the Youth and Student Solidarity Tabi Saireri, Anim-Ha, and the Bintang Mountains expressed support for the policy of expanding the new autonomous regions of Papua. This support was applied through a thanksgiving held by the Tabi Papuan Student Association DPP at Cibery Beach, Jayapura on Monday, May 16, 2022. The general chairman of the Papuan Tabi Student Association DPP, Ayub Wamiau stated that the celebration of students and youth in Tabi Land, Anim-Ha, and Bintang Mountains as a momentum of brotherhood to support development in Papua. The question of the pros and cons of new autonomous regions is a natural thing in a democracy. The most important thing is a sense of togetherness to prepare for the common goal of equalizing development.

Meanwhile, community leaders from the central highlands of Papua Province, Lenis Kogoya, also expressed support for the formation of new autonomous regions in Papua because they were deemed feasible. He then invited the Papuan people not to hold demonstrations against the special autonomy policy (Otsus), but to support the program for the welfare of the people.

It should be noted that the protest against the new autonomous regions, which was held on 10 May 2022, was identified as being supported by local elites who were not in line with the central government and a number of separatist organizations who were riding on the issue of new autonomous regions for the purpose of the mission to release the NRKI.

Acceleration of Development in Papua Must Be Accompanied by Expansion

A clear statement of support for the central government's policies was also conveyed by the General Chairperson of the Papuan Family Association (IKBP) Ayub Faidiban. According to him, expansion is the key to accelerating development in Papua. The expansion in the form of the formation of a new province in Papua can be a solution to accelerate infrastructure development and human resource development (HR). So far, development has only been concentrated in urban areas. In fact, the territory of Papua is very wide. Thus, the acceleration of development in Papua must be accompanied by expansion.

His party has conveyed to the Papuan people to submit and obey the government. If everyone wants to participate in regulating the government, then later there will be no one to guide the community. Therefore, IKBP always supports every policy for the sake of the nation and state, especially the progress of Papua. According to him, if there are other provocations, it is because there are still interested parties. The Papuan people are born of customs and religion. So if they make a fuss, it means that someone provoked them. Including in this case related to Otsus and DOB, where the role of the MRP cannot be said to be a pure and complete representation of the Papuan people.

SOURCE: https://time.online/6599-2/