New Autonomous Regions

KOMPAS/RADITYA HELABUMI (RAD)

Audience participants chat after a public hearing with Commission II of the DPR regarding the expansion of new autonomous regions at the Parliament Complex, Senayan, Jakarta, Tuesday (12/11/2019).

It is hoped that the plenary meeting on Thursday (30/6/2022) over the bills on the New Autonomous Regions (DOB) of Papua will give birth to a pro-people decision, considering that one of the government's duties is to improve public welfare.

The deliberation of the three DOB Papua bills entered the final stage after the draft bills were included in the drafting and synchronization teams’ review on Thursday (23/6). After the bills’ formulation and synchronization are complete, the three draft DOB Papua bills will be submitted to the plenary meeting on Thursday (30/6).

The three DOB Papua bills are on the Establishment of Central Papua Province, the Establishment of South Papua Province, and the Establishment of Papua Highlands Province.

Also read:

> Papua: Theater of Development and Violence

> Papua and Neglect on the Conflict-Development Nexus

The discussion of the bills has been dynamic. As Kompas reported on Friday (24/6), the Papuan People's Assembly (MRP) viewed that the deliberation of the Papua New Guinea Bills had been rushed. The MRP said that the bills’ deliberation should await the decision of the Constitutional Court (MK) on the judicial review of Law No. 2/2021 on the Second Amendment to Law No. 21/2001 on Papua's Special Autonomy.

Arguments are common when deliberating a bill. In some cases, the government and the House of Representatives (DPR) have shown the wisdom to listen to, accept, accommodate, and realize proposals or inputs from the public.

KOMPAS/RADITYA HELABUMI

The atmosphere of the DPR Commission II public hearing meeting with a number of parties related to the expansion of new autonomous regions at the Parliament Complex, Senayan, Jakarta, Tuesday (12/11/2019).

However, it must be admitted that on a number of other occasions, the deliberation process involving the public has been less than ideal. Our experience in the legislation of the Job Creation Law provides a case study. After widespread demonstrations, especially in Jakarta, with some even exhibiting anarchistic behavior, the Constitutional Court conditionally ruled that the Job Creation Law was unconstitutional.

One way is to optimize meaningful public participation in the revision of Law No. 15/2019 on Drafting Legislation

In line with this, the court gave two years to reform the economic structure so it would be more sustainable and inclusive. One way is to optimize meaningful public participation in the revision of Law No. 15/2019 on Drafting Legislation.

What does meaningful participation mean? The three requirements mentioned by the Constitutional Court to describe meaningful participation in making laws are: the public has the right to have their opinions heard, the public has the right to have their opinions considered, and the public has the right to an explanation over the extent to which their opinions are accommodated in the law.

These three principles of meaningful participation need to be understood collectively as necessary for making decisions related to the public interest, including the deliberation of bills. The DPR and the government need to open their ears wide during this process.

Maximum accommodation of public input will at least ensure that there are no problems when laws are enacted and implemented. If a problem does arise, it will not be very big. In the end, the law that is passed following deliberation that involves the public is expected to support the people’s welfare.

(This article was translated by Hyginus Hardoyo)