The new Papua Special Autonomy Law (Otsus II) has again been challenged through a judicial review at the Indonesian Constitutional Court on 15 July 2024. The filed Coordinator of the Constitution and Democracy Advocacy Team on behalf of petitioners, Mr Bastian Buce Ijie and Mr Zakarias Jitmau, inquired about the judicial review of several articles within Law No 2/2021, which amended the original special autonomy law No 21/2001. The plaintiffs argue that these amendments undermine the constitutional rights of Indigenous Papuans (OAP), particularly concerning their ability to hold executive and legislative positions in West Papua.
Several articles in the Otsus II Law are being contested as potentially discriminatory against indigenous Papuans. The main points of contention include the lack of clear definitions regarding who qualifies as an “indigenous Papuan” for political positions, and the controversial phrase in Article 1 (22) that defines indigenous Papuans as including “people accepted and recognised as indigenous Papuans by the indigenous Papuan people.”
This definition is seen as overly broad and potentially allowing non-indigenous individuals to claim indigenous status. The plaintiffs argue that this undermines the purpose of the Special Autonomy Law, which is intended to benefit indigenous Papuans specifically. They also claim that the current regulations do not provide sufficient detail on the interpretation of who is eligible to run for positions such as regents, governors, and local parliament members.
Background
This is not the first time the Otsus II Law has faced legal challenges. In 2021, the Papuan People’s Assembly (MRP) filed a similar lawsuit against the law. However, the Constitutional Court, led by Chairman Anwar Usman, rejected the case (number 47/PUU/XIX/2021) on the grounds that the MRP lacked legal standing to submit a judicial review. The court argued that the MRP failed to adequately explain how their constitutional rights were being violated. Despite this setback, the MRP maintained that the Special Autonomy Law could potentially harm the Papuan people. They challenged eight specific articles, including those related to governance structures and indigenous rights.
The MRP expressed disappointment with the court’s decision, highlighting that there were differing opinions among the Constitutional Court judges regarding the case. Despite this setback, the MRP and human rights groups continue to view the Otsus II Law as potentially harmful to the future of indigenous Papuans and are persistent in seeking legal avenues to address these concerns.
