In order to secure his position in the MRP, Timotius Murib approached Komnas HAM to smooth out a lawsuit for the Special Autonomy Law

Another maneuver was carried out by Timothy Murib and his carriage at the representative institution of the Papuan people, the Papuan People's Council (MRP). This happened after the dynamics of the central government's policy response through Special Autonomy (Otsus) and the expansion of New Autonomous Regions (DOB). It should be noted that the internal organization of the MRP is currently divided into several groups, one of which is the Timothy Murib group, which tends to reject central government policies. On behalf of the institution, a number of people who are in the circle of the MRP chairman met Komnas HAM members under the guise of sharing the judicial review process of the Special Autonomy Law (UU Otsus) which is currently in the process of being tried at the Constitutional Court (MK).

Questioning Komnas HAM's Support for the MRP in Lawsuit on Special Autonomy

In a report in the national media last March, Komnas HAM through its chairman Ahmad Taufan Damanik stated that he was interested in supporting the MRP's judicial review of the Special Autonomy Law in the Constitutional Court. In its opinion, Komnas HAM considers the absence of Papuan Orang Asli (OAP) participation in the making of the law as a violation of the rights of the Papuan people.

As we know that Law Number 21 of 2011 concerning Special Autonomy for Papua Province is a form of central government support for the Papuan people. This was conveyed by the Head of the Legal Bureau of the Ministry of Home Affairs R. Gani Muhammad, that the Special Autonomy Law is part of the central government's support in order to utilize the democratic tools available in modern countries such as political parties, general elections, and people's representative institutions so that various aspirations can be channeled properly and have strong and effective legality in order to achieve democratic life.

The existence of a lawsuit against the Special Autonomy Law that was filed by the MRP through the Constitutional Court became a controversial matter regarding the MRP's legal position as an institution. This is because a number of parties have questioned this from the start.

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 same thing was conveyed in the follow-up trial of Law Number 2 of 2021 concerning Special Autonomy for the Papua Province at the Constitutional Court (MK), by one of the President's experts, Fahri Bachmid. He questioned the MRP's legal position 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.

Thus, the existence of support from Komnas HAM in the lawsuit for the Special Autonomy Law by the MRP needs to be questioned about the underlying motives and interests. We should also suspect that the closeness between representatives of the MRP and representatives of Komnas HAM members, whether on institutions or individuals with an interest in taking advantage of the existence and exclusivity of the institution. As we know, Timothy Murib used the name MRP to advance his personal interests. For example, in response to the Papua New Guinea policy. The existence of the MRP is unfortunate because it is tendentious and only raises the aspirations of parties or groups who reject the new autonomous regions. Timotius Murib has even claimed that the majority of people in 29 regencies/cities in Papua Province rejected the policy. However, if you ask in detail about the data you have, it cannot 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.

This is also what happened at Komnas HAM, as we know that the independent institution whose position is at the level of another state institution is currently being held by Ahmad Taufan Damanik as chairman. Investigating an investigation, he is indicated to have a close relationship with Hizbut Tahrir Indonesia (HTI), which is a banned mass organization in Indonesia because its political goals threaten the integrity of the nation. It is suspect that he has other intentions and intentions to re-create state stability disturbances, especially conduciveness in the Papua region only for the sake of personal or group interests that have not been fulfilled.

Timotius Murib's Mission to Use MRP Institutions for the Interests of His Group

It was previously revealed that Timothy Murib had misused the MRP budget for interests outside the institution. The existence of a meeting with members of the National Human Rights Commission is also suspected of being a personal interest that is inserted using the name of the institution. The meeting was allegedly conducted without the knowledge or approval of the plenary in their respective institutions. The involvement of Komnas HAM in the judicial review of Otsus was an effort that was forced on behalf of the MRP led by Timotius Murib et al, who from the start had been inclined to reject government policies. This attitude is also contrary to other MRP members and the majority of Papuan people who support it. The existence of the meeting is also a step that does not respect the trial process in the Constitutional Court which is currently waiting for a decision. It could be said that the meeting was only filled with individuals seeking personal gain under the guise of upholding human rights.

Otsus Gives Wider Authority to the Papuan People

The special autonomy of the Papua Province is basically the granting of wider authority for the Papua Province and the Papuan people to regulate and manage themselves within the framework of the Unitary State of the Republic of Indonesia. Wider authority also means greater responsibility for the Papua Province and the Papuan People to administer the government and regulate the use of natural resources in the Papua Province. This authority also means the authority to empower the socio-cultural and economic potential of the Papuan people, including providing an adequate role for indigenous Papuans through representatives of adat, religion and women. The role carried out is to participate in formulating regional policies to determine development strategies while respecting the equality and diversity of Papuan people's lives, preserving culture and the natural environment.

The regulation of the Special Autonomy Law for Papua and the Law on the Aceh government does not mean that they have to be the same. In fact, there are differences in the law, the government has recognized and respected regional government units that are special or special in nature. So that the absence of local political parties in the Papua Special Autonomy Law does not mean that there has been discrimination against the Papuan people in line with Article 28 of the 1945 Constitution.