---

The Constitutional Court held a trial for Initial Examination on the Review of Act No. 39/2007 on Amendment of Act No. 11/1995 on Customs Duty (Act on Duty) filed by the Governor of West Nusa Tenggara, H.M. Zainul Majdi, MA, Wednesday (17/12).

The Petitioner filed a pleading to review Article 66A paragraph (1) of Act on Duty so long as such phrase was concerned: “distributed to provinces producing customs duty from tobacco” because such phrase had violated Article 33 paragraph (4) of the 1945 Constitution. The full version of Article 66A paragraph (1) of Act on Duty: State Income from customs duty coming from tobacco produced in Indonesia shall be distributed to provinces as much as 2% (two percent) which to be used for funding the improvement of the quality of raw materials, developing industry, social environment, socialization on regulations in customs duty, and/or eradication of illegal duty on imposed goods.

The Petitioner, as the Governor of a province which produces the most tobacco in Indonesia (In 2008: 46.824 ton/22.824 Ha) felt damaged on the implementation of Article 66A because in reality, the duty from tobacco was only given to provinces which produced duty from tobacco; in this case, provinces having cigarette factories, meanwhile West Nusa Tenggara Province did not have any. “How ironic that a tobacco producing province as well as the biggest contributor of foreign exchange from tobacco in this country, do not earn anything from the result of the duty,” said Andy Hadiyanto, the Petitioner s Legal Counsel.

The Petitioner had filed an inquiry to the Minister of Finance to be involved as a party to earn partial income from cigarette duty, unfortunately the answer they received was that cigarette duty was only given to provinces having cigarette factories. “It is very ironic for us,” repeated Andi.

By not getting any of the duty resulted from West Nusa Tenggara tobacco, then the Governor claimed that the aim of the duty, which was to fund the raw material quality improvement, industrial development, and social environment development, could not be conducted in the province.

On those grounds, in the Petitum, the Petitioner demanded the Constitutional Court to state Article 66A paragraph (1) of Act on Duty so long as the phrase “distributed to provinces producing Duty tobacco” was concerned violated Article 33 paragraph (4) of the 1945 Constitution.

Responding to the claim, Constitutional Justice Maruarar Siahaan demanded the Petitioner to explain in detail regarding whether the tobacco Duty was understood as Duty from cigarette products or not. Furthermore, related to the Petitioner s Legal Standing, Maruarar demanded the Petitioner to explain more explicitly about the Petitioner of the case whether the governor as a person or the government of the related province which was more permanent, “because a governor can be transferred anytime (or not holding the office again ed.),” explained Maruarar.

Thirdly, concerning the constitutional loss, Maruarar demanded the Petitioner to explain the things considered as constitutional loss to regional government. Moreover, about the phrase reviewed, Maruarar also advised the Petitioner to think deeply whether or not such phrase was really demanded to be eliminated, “because if the phrase is granted to be eliminated, the rest of the paragraph does not mean anything,” advised Maruarar.

On the advices, Andy said that his party would make the most of the 14-working-day opportunity provided to improve his file. (Wiwik Budi Wasito)

Photo: Doc. MK PR/Denny Feishal

Translated by Yogi Djatnika / MK

---