Petitioner’s Expert: Heavy Equipment non Vehicle Genus Subject to Tax

Vehicles are vehicle on the road as the provisions of Article 1, paragraph (7) of Act No. 22 of 2009 on Road Traffic and Transportation (LLAJ Act) states, "The vehicle is a vehicle on the road consisting of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle No". The question is, whether the heavy equipment including means of transport on the road. If the machine is not a means of transport on the road, the heavy equipment is not included in the definition of vehicle genus. Then, it worth of heavy equipment vehicles taxed.

Function is to limit the definition of a concept. Definition of a motor vehicle in Article 1 paragraph 13 of Act 28 of 2009 on Regional Taxes and Levies (PDRD Act) by adding the words "including heavy equipment" is denying the restriction function. "That means limiting functionality is not there," said Philip M Hadjon who was asked as experts in court cases 1/PUU-X/2012 numbers in the Constitutional Court on Thursday (3/15/2012) afternoon.

Application for judicial review of the substance of the Act PDRD filed by seven directors of the company, namely PT. Bukit Makmur Mandiri Utama, PT.Pamapersada Nusantara (PAMA), PT. Manage Self Success, PT. Ricobana Abadi, PT. Nipindo Prima Engineering, PT. Lobunta Golden Kingdom, and PT.United Arkato.

The materials tested PDRD legislation, namely Article 1 point 13 along the phrase "... including heavy equipment and large appliances are in operation using the wheels and motors and is not permanently attached ...". Then Article 5 paragraph (2), as long as the phrase ".. including heavy equipment and major appliances ...", and Article 6 paragraph (4), and Article 12 paragraph (2).According to the Petitioners, the withdrawal of the Motor Vehicle Tax (PKB) and Tax Tax on Motor Vehicles (BBNKB) of heavy equipment, had violated their constitutional rights. The Petitioners argue, the machine serves as a tool of production, so it does not fall into the category of motor vehicles.

Different treatment demanded

Manan also was asked as an expert of the Petitioners, explained the essence of fairness enshrined in Article 28D of the 1945 Constitution. According to him, there were many ways to achieve justice. Equal treatment before the law is one way of ensuring and justice.

Bagir see the uniqueness in the application for judicial review filed by the Petitioners. Therefore, equal treatment of heavy equipment with a motor vehicle, it causes the aggrieved applicant. This same treatment caused the applicant must spend extra money to pay heavy taxes. "Precisely the same treatment as applicant considers it is seen as an injustice, even against the law" said Manan.

Bagir further states, under certain circumstances, justice would require a different treatment. In other words, equal treatment before the law was a cause of injustice. Bagir was quoted adage that states, "Equalizing something different (not equal), as unfair as anything that does not distinguish between different (same)."

"In certain circumstances was to distinguish precisely the condition and how to enforce justice. Conversely, in certain circumstances make everything homogeneous, whereas differences are found, it will hurt the feeling of justice, "continued the philosophical Bagir.

Bagir also reviewed the differences in function and purpose. According to him, the functions and purposes require different treatment and different ways. Then, as the failure to apply the basic equations, namely, the difference should provide benefits for the affected difference. "Not quite the contrary, (ie) harm or pose excessive burden for a different," he described.

Benefits of a difference are intended to give protection, convenience, or to achieve larger goals.  Difference is necessary as a way to realize the equation itself. The differences are sometimes very necessary for public order. Public order is a means of ensuring peace, fairy-life harmony to achieve common goals.

Equal treatment of the Applicant, said Bagir, poses an additional burden results in productivity, effectiveness and costs to be borne by consumers. "Of course it should be reviewed due to violations of the equation to the principles of justice. Do not let the equation would lead to injustice," said Bagir. (Rosihin Nur Ana / mh/Yazid.tr)