Jayapura, Jubi – Legal counsel representing the Association of 328 Village Heads in Jayawijaya Regency, Highland Papua, has urged the Jayawijaya Regent (the defendant) to comply with the ruling of the Jayapura Administrative Court (PTUN) in case Number 49/G/2025/PTUN.JPR.

Previously, the association, accompanied by the Alliance for Democracy in Papua (AlDP), filed a lawsuit against the Jayawijaya Regent.

The lawsuit was submitted after the plaintiffs objected to the evaluation process and the unilateral, simultaneous replacement of village heads by the Jayawijaya Regent in 2025.

They argued that the dismissals did not follow proper procedures because, according to the village heads, their appointment decrees (SK) were not due to expire until 2026.

The village heads were dismissed through Jayawijaya Regent Decree No. 100.3.3.2/400.10.2.2/744/2025, which appointed 328 acting village heads in Jayawijaya Regency, dated August 19, 2025.

AlDP Executive Director Latifah Anum Siregar said the Jayapura Administrative Court granted the plaintiffs’ lawsuit in its entirety, a decision later upheld by the Manado High Administrative Court (PTTUN) through ruling Number 11/B/2026/PT.TUN.MDO dated April 22, 2026.

The Manado High Administrative Court declared the disputed decree null and void due to procedural and substantive defects. The court also ordered the defendant to revoke the decree and issue a new State Administrative Decision extending the terms of the village heads by two years.

According to Siregar, the Jayapura Administrative Court subsequently issued Determination Number 669/PAN.PTUN.W8-TUN3/HK2.7/V/2026 dated May 7, 2026, stating that the appeal to the Supreme Court filed by the Jayawijaya Regent on May 4, 2026, was inadmissible because the petitioner, as a state administrative official, is subject to restrictions on the appeal to the Supreme Court.

She said this is in accordance with Article 45A paragraph (2)(c) of the Law on the Supreme Court, which limits the appeal to the Supreme Court in administrative cases involving decisions issued by regional officials whose jurisdiction applies only within the relevant region.

With the issuance of the court determination, Siregar said the defendant no longer has any available legal remedies. This is in line with Article 45A paragraph (4) of Law Number 5 of 2004 concerning amendments to Law Number 14 of 1985 on the Supreme Court.

“As a citizen and a state administrative official with integrity and respect for the rule of law, the defendant should refrain from engaging in unreasonable delays, prolonged postponements, or unlawful and improper delays in implementing the court ruling,” Siregar said in a written press statement on Wednesday.

She urged the defendant to immediately revoke the disputed decree and restore the plaintiffs’ rights and legal status as village heads for the remainder of their two-year terms.

“This is in accordance with Article 118 of Law No.3 of 2024, the second amendment to Law No.6 of 2014 on Villages, as ordered in the court’s ruling,” she said. (*)