Jayapura, Jubi – The hearing of the lawsuit against the Decree, or SK, of the Regent of Merauke, South Papua Province, was held again at the State Administrative Court, or PTUN, in Jayapura, Papua, on Tuesday (7/7/2026).
The plaintiffs presented three fact witnesses during the hearing, which was on the agenda of evidence presentation, led by Presiding Judge Merna Cinthia, along with panel judges Irfan Amos Sampe and Adjadam Riyange Zulfachmi.
The case is registered at the Jayapura PTUN under number 9/G/LH/2026/PTUN Jayapura, filed since March 5, 2026.
The lawsuit was filed by five representatives of the Malind indigenous community. The indigenous community is suing Merauke Regent’s Decree Number 100.3.3.2/1105/Year 2025.
The decree concerns the environmental feasibility for a planned 135-kilometer access road construction project, part of the food security project of the Ministry of Defense of the Republic of Indonesia.
The legal counsel for the Malind indigenous community, Tigor Hutapea, said that two of the witnesses presented by their side were members of the indigenous community, and one other was from Greenpeace.
During the hearing, all three witnesses presented by the plaintiffs stated that the road construction project had been underway since August 2024.
However, according to Tigor, the permit documents were issued on September 11, 2025. Therefore, from August 2024 to September 2025, the 135-km road construction project is considered to have been carried out without a permit.
“This means the project is illegal because it did not have a permit. This is the document we are challenging,” said Tigor Hutapea after the hearing.
Tigor Hutapea said the plaintiffs have repeatedly requested that the project be halted, because it was carried out without a permit until September 2025, and the permit itself is considered legally flawed.
“Just now, the judges heard and considered this matter. The witnesses clearly stated that they were never consulted through any socialization process. There was no notification when the project was built, and the indigenous community was displaced,” he said.
Another legal counsel for the plaintiffs, Emmanuel Gobai, said that one of the plaintiffs asked the panel of judges to issue a warning letter to the company, so that no demolition would take place until a court ruling is issued.
He said the judges also stated that they would hold a deliberation and decide on the indigenous community’s request.
According to Gobay, the testimony of the fact witnesses in the hearing stated that the Regent’s Decree was issued without involving the indigenous community that owns the customary land, who are the affected victims. In addition, those involved in the preparation of the Environmental Impact Analysis (AMDAL) document were several clans that were actually not affected.
“This can be called false or fabricated information. It was taken by the government and then inserted into the AMDAL document. This happens repeatedly and the government always takes advantage of it, so we want the judges to be more professional and make the right decision,” said Emanuel Gobay.
He said that during the hearing, his side had felt frustrated because the judges questioned the expertise, testimony, and direct observations of one of the witnesses.
Therefore, it is hoped that the Judicial Commission will oversee the proceedings professionally, since his side, together with the indigenous community, is up against the company and the government.
Meanwhile, the legal counsel for the defendant, Victor Kaisiepo, said that in principle, his side accepts and takes note of the testimony presented by the plaintiff’s witnesses.
“There are also several notes that we have compiled, and we will convey those notes to our leadership. In the next hearing, we will also present our own witnesses,” said Victor Kaisiepo. (*)
