Adnan Buyung Nasution as a senior lawyer in Indonesia presented in a Constitutional Court (MK). This time, he became the legal counsel of Case No. 1/PUU-X/2012, ie 7 (seven) companies in Indonesia who filed a judicial Law No. 28 of 2009 on Regional Taxes and Levies, in particular Article 1 item 13, Article 5, paragraph (2), Article 6 paragraph (4), and Article 12 paragraph (2, Friday (20 / 1). According to him, that article cannot be gives the principle of legal certainty against the Petitioners.

The Petitioners are companies that are represented by their respective Directors.PT. Makmur Bukit Utama Mandiri represented by Budikwanto Kuesar, PT.Pamapersada with Dwi Priyadi Nusantara, PT. Self Manage Success with Freddy Samad, PT. Ricabana Eternal with Jemmy Sugiarto, PT. Prima Nipindo Nierwan Machines with Gambling, PT. Lobunda Golden Kingdom with Dipar Tobing, and PT.Uniteda Arkato who represented Muhammad Yani Kasmir.

Details of the article pleaded by the Petitioners in Act 28 of 2009 on Local Taxes and Levies is Article 1 paragraph 13 which reads, as long as the phrase "... including tools and large equipment are in operation using the wheels and motors and is not inherent in permanent ... ". And Article 5 paragraph (2), reads, as long as the phrase "... including heavy equipment and large equipment ...". And Article 6 paragraph (4) and Article 12 paragraph (2), contrary to the 1945 Constitution.

One of the Petitioners’ legal counsel said, in addition to the Petitioners were never involved in the formulation of Law 28/2009 also never mentions the background of changing norms of heavy equipment and tools as objects of taxation of motor vehicles, both from the philosophical, sociological and juridical aspect. "Act 28/2009 has placed heavy machinery and large equipment are in operation using the wheels and motors and is not permanently attached, including motor vehicles," said one attorney who co-chaired by Adnan Buyung.

With regard to the Minister of Internal Affairs Regulation No. 25 in 2010, continued the legal counsel of the Petitioners, the client can prove that there is a withdrawal of the Motor Vehicle Tax (PKB) and Tax on Motor Vehicles (BBNKB) heavy equipment is manifestly violated the constitutional rights of the Petitioners. "That is the right to obtain legal certainty, gets the same treatment before the law, and a sense of security and protection from the threat of fear to do or not do something in obtaining justice as stipulated in Article 28D paragraph (1), Article 28G Paragraph (1), Article 28H paragraph (2), and paragraph (4), "said the power of the Petitioners.

On the same occasion, the judges of the Constitutional give some advice that essentially questioned the touchstone filed by the Petitioners.  Akil Mochtar said articles written on the case file has been good, but the article is used as a touchstone unclear statement. "Main application is no problem. I only saw clothes and editorial test, "said Akil.

Responding to that advice, Adnan Buyung looked grateful and very pleased to have been given advice. "However, I admit, this is a new case and new issues. We will give you something different and more detailed, related to human rights issues. How Indonesia could build its economy if the business is threatened constantly changing, "he said. (Shohibul Umam / mh/Yazid.tr)