---

Judicial review of act 28/2009 on Regional Taxes and Levies (PDRD) of the 1945 Constitution, the Constitutional Court (MK), Thursday (1/3), has entered the trial to-3. The trial is registered with the Case Number 1/PUU-X/2012 is scheduled to hear statements of the Government, Parliament, and the Expert and / or witnesses of the Petitioners and the Government.

In this case, the Government had the opportunity to testify at the first test in the Act. In his statement, Marwanto Harjowiryono as government representatives said that if the Petitioners questioned item 13 of Article 1 of Law PDRD, especially limits of understanding, abbreviation, or anything else that is, then according to the Government, so it is unreasonable and inappropriate. “Precisely provisions of the Act a quo gave an overview and a clear direction of what is meant by a motor vehicle, "said Marwanto.

More than that, Marwanto explained that the losses suffered by the Petitioners is not actually caused from the norm of is contained in Section a quo, but the article is to explain clearly how the collection of tax and levies on equipment by the Regional Government. "It is thus entirely determined by the local authority regulations," he said.

In addition, the Government also submitted that the Applicant if the linked article a quo with Article 28D paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution, which is the touchstone of petition in this Case, then the applicant does not lose constitutional.

Meanwhile, if the Court granted the petition of the Petitioner, continued Marwanto, it will cause confusion, uncertainty, and uncertainty in the definition of motor vehicles in the Act. "Whereas these definitions in the Act a quo is needed as the tax base, so that it can cause a legal uncertainty in tax rules and levies," he explained.

The same thing was also said by the House of Representatives, represented by Abdi Yahdil Harahap. In this case, the House responded to the statement of the applicant related to heavy equipment and large appliances are not just used as an object of the tax because the tool is a tool for production. However, according to DPR, the determination of tax objects is derived from the Act. "Heavy equipment and large appliances can be used as objects for this tax is determined by the law," said Yahdil.

With regard to the Petitioners’ argument that heavy equipment and major appliances in traffic law not included in the category of motor vehicles, so heavy equipment can not be given PKB and BPNKB, according to the Parliament, the Act is the basis for determining PDRD object corresponding tax with applicable law.

Thus, the final statement in the House of Representatives asked the Court to declare the petition a quo did not have legal status (legal standing). "So the application is acceptable," said Yahdil. In addition, the House also pleaded that Article 1, item 13, Article 5, paragraph (2), Article 6 paragraph (4), Article 12 paragraph (2) of a quo did not contrary to Article 28D Paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution. "Act a quo still has a legally binding," he added.

At the end of the trial, the leadership of the Assembly M. Akil Mochtar said that today’s hearing was postponed and then resumes hearing expert testimony / witness of the applicant and the Government. "The next session will take place on March 15, 2012, At 11 am, to hear expert testimony / witness either of the applicant or the Government, or Parliament also if there is," said Akil.

The Applicant is PT. Bukit Makmur Mandiri President represented by Budikwanto Kuesar, PT. Pamapersada with Dwi Priyadi Nusantara, PT. Manage Self Success with Freddy Samad, PT. Eternal Ricabana Sugiarto Jemmy, PT. Prima Nipindo Nierwan Machines with Gambling, PT. Lobunda Golden Kingdom by Dipar Tobing, and PT. Uniteda Arkato who represented Muhammad Yani Kasmir.All the companies represented by its Director respectively.

According to the Petitioners, judicial Law 28/2009 on PDRD, in particular Article 1, item 13, Article 5, paragraph (2), Article 6 paragraph (4), and Article 12 paragraph (2), that article can not give the principle of legal certainty to the applicant. Details Article 1 number 13, which reads, as long as the phrase "... including heavy equipment and large appliances are in operation using the wheels and the motor and not permanently attached ...". And, Article 5, paragraph (2), reads, as long as the phrase "... including heavy equipment and major appliances ...". And Article 6 paragraph (4) and Article 12 paragraph (2), contrary to the Constitution of 1945, one of whom Article 28D Paragraph (1). (Shohibul Umam / mh/Yazid.tr)

---