2) Constitutional Court rejects judicial review of Law on the establish
----------------
1) Mass-destruction suspects remind public about Indonesian anti-racism law
Anti-racism activists who named suspects of violence and vandalism in a protest held on 29 August 2019 do a campaign against racism in the court’s detention room on Monday (1/6/2020). – SPC
Jayapura, Jubi – Some activists accused of the alleged mass-destruction in the late August 2019 resumed their trial at the Jayapura District Court on Monday (6/1/2020). They then posed for a picture in the court’s detention room by holding a carton with a caption read “I not Monkey, PSL 9 UU No. 40/2008” calling for resistance to the practice of racism against indigenous Papuans.
This violence and vandalism case was the first trial at the Jayapura District Court since the Christmas and New Year break. In a press release received by Jubi, the Coalition for Law and Human Rights Enforcement of Papua, as legal advisor team, stated that police officers have guarded around the court since early morning, but it did not affect the activists. They remained calm, and instead, did a campaign against all practice of racism against indigenous Papuans in their own way. In the detention room, they took a picture while holding a carton reads “I not Monkey, PSL 9 UU No 40/2008”.
By doing this, it seemed that they wanted to remind the public that Indonesia has Law No. 40/2008 on the Elimination of Racial and Ethnic Discrimination. The activists who are currently named suspects of violence and vandalism case wanted to remind the public that the protest led to mass-rampage in Jayapura City on 29 August 2019 was not a single non-causal incident. It was a reaction to counter a series of persecutions and racism taunts against Papuan students at Kamasan III Dormitory, Surabaya, on 16 and 17 August 2019 by some military culprits and local mobs. However, the protest then turned into a mass rampage in which some anti-racism activists then criminalised and accused to involve in the alleged violence and vandalism case.
Now, the suspects just wanted to remind us about the root that has grounded tens of thousands of Jayapura residents to protest on 29 August 2019. Article 9 of the Elimination of Racial and Ethnic Discrimination states that ‘Every citizen has right to receive equal treatment in obtaining civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights disregard to their race and ethnicity”.
As the activists’ legal councillor team, the Coalition for Law and Human Rights Enforcement of Papua hopes this message can be a notice for both attorney and panel of judges in the trial to objectively view the issue of anti-racism acts in Jayapura. “Hopefully, the message [of anti-racism] becomes a notice for the attorney and judges to see the anti-racism acts clearly, therefore [the Jayapura District Court] would not get into the scenario of criminalisation towards the activists,” stated the coalition in the press release.
The coalition further emphasised that racism is a common enemy of every human. “Let us stop racism because it is a common enemy of every human of diverse backgrounds on the Earth,” wrote the Coalition for Law and Human Rights Enforcement of Papua in the release. (*)
Reporter: Angela Flassy
Editor: Aryo Wisanggeni G.
---------------------
2) Constitutional Court rejects judicial review of Law on the establish
Published 21 hours ago on 10 January 2020
By Admin1
Jayapura, Jubi – The Constitutional Court in Jakarta rejected a petition for a judicial review on Law No. 12/1969 to the 1945 Indonesian Constitution on Monday (1/6/2020) due to the non-legal status of the applicants.
The application for judicial review of Law No. 12/1969 on the establishment of West Irian Autonomous Province and autonomous regencies in West Irian Province was filed on 11 April 2019 by Zadrack Taime, Yan Pieter Yarangga, Paul Finsen Mayor, Sirzet Gwasgwas, Oktovianus Pekei, Albertus Moiwend, Yohanis Petrus Kamarka, Djanes Marambur, Yosepa Alomang, Karel Philemon Erari, Rev. Herman Awom, Thaha M Alhamid, Solidaritas Perempuan Papua (SPP/Papuan Women’s Solidarity), and the Synod of the Gospel Church (KINGMI) in the Land of Papua.
Reading out its ruling No.35/PUU-XVII/2019 in a hearing on Monday, the Constitutional Court stated the applicants have no legal status to submit the judicial review because they deemed to have no constitutional impairment. On this basis, the Constitutional Court rejected their petition.
The Constitutional Court stated that the impairment of constitutional right and/or authority should meet five conditions. First, the constitutional right and/or authority of applicants should granted by the 1945 Constitution. Second, their constitutional right and/or authority have impaired due to the statutory of the petitioned law.
“… It turns out that the petitioners substantially challenged the PEPERA (the Act of Free Choice) of 2 August 1969 that recognised by UN General Assembly Resolution No. 2504 (XXIV) of 19 November 1969. Therefore, there was no connection with the impairment of constitutional right [of the petitioners],” stated in the ruling of the panel of judges led by Anwar Usman.
As a member of the petitioners’ attorney team, advocate Yan Christian Warinussy stated that his clients already suspected that the Constitutional Court would reject their petition. “It showed from the Constitutional Court’s legal consideration saying that Pepera 1969 was an international affair which ratified in Law No. 12 of 1969,” said Warinussy.
Warinussy further stated that it was not reliable if the petitioners were deemed not to suffer any constitutional impairment due to the enactment of Law No. 12 of 1969. “The applicants suffered from a constitutional impairment by PEPERA legitimacy which stipulated into Law No.12 of 1969. [The statutory of the law] then has expanded the slogan of ‘the Unitary State of the Republic of Indonesia is undisputed’ which caused applicants to be treated unfairly in the context of freedom of association, assembly and opinion. That is why they submitted a request to the Constitutional Court,” said Warinussy.
Concerning the Constitutional Court’s decision, Warinussy further said he would promptly learn more about it. “We will meet the petitioners to provide legal explanations, as well as submit a mandate to them to take further legal steps after the verdict,” he said. (*)
Reporter: Angela Flassy
Editor: Aryo Wisanggeni G.
------------
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.