Witnesses for a former deputy gubernatorial candidate in Papua told the Constitutional Court on Tuesday that his disqualification from the 2005 poll was against the law.
Agus Tanawani, the foster brother of plaintiff Komaruddin Watubun Tanawani Mora, told the court that the latter should have been allowed by the Papuan People’s Council (MRP) to run for the post despite not being an indigenous Papuan.
“While it’s understood that an indigenous Papuan is someone from the Melanesian race, it can also be extended to include someone who has long been acknowledged by an indigenous tribe as a member of that tribe,” he said.
“In Komaruddin’s case, he was adopted by my father when he was a child. He’s been involved and rooted in the social traditions of the tribe for most of his life.”
Under the law on Papua’s special autonomy, the MRP is entitled to prioritize indigenous candidates in gubernatorial elections or those nominated by the provincial legislature. In 2005, it disqualified Komaruddin as the running mate to candidate Barnabas Suebu on the grounds that Komaruddin was a Southeast Maluku native.
Barnabas would later go on to win the election with a new running mate. Komaruddin, for his part, has sought a judicial review of the special autonomy law with the Constitutional Court.
Sukirno, an indigenous law expert from Diponegoro University in Semarang, told the court that the MRP should have taken into consideration the fact that Komaruddin had grown up with an indigenous Papuan tribe and was considered part of the community.
“There are many examples of people being adopted by indigenous groups in other regions,” he said. “In the Minangkabau culture [of West Sumatra], an outsider may be considered a legitimate part of the family if the family has no heirs. In Lampung, an adopted child is also considered part of the ethnic group, while in Minahasa tradition [in North Sulawesi], foster children are considered equal to biological children.”
Sukirno also argued that the article under review was open to interpretation.
“It’s the duty of the MRP to consider candidates nominated by the Papuan legislature,” the expert said.
“But the problem is, what should those considerations be? We need clear guidelines and criteria to consider a candidate’s suitability.”
Justice Akil Mochtar, hearing the review, also questioned why the MRP did not take into account Komaruddin’s status as an adopted member of an indigenous tribe.
“The decision by the MRP went against the Papuan autonomy law,” he said.
Internationally, he continued, rights of tribal communities were strictly regulated. “The acknowledgement of tribal groups and their rights are stipulated in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights,” he said.
However, Zudan Arif Fakhrulloh, a Home Affairs Ministry official representing the government at the hearing, said the dispute should not have been brought before the Constitutional Court because the problem was not with the law itself, but with the MRP’s implementation of it.
“If you consider it thoroughly, the plaintiff’s loss was not caused by the article in the law, but because of the MRP’s decision not to consider the plaintiff a Papuan native,” he said.
The hearing has been adjourned to next week, when the court will call in the MRP to explain its decision.