Fixing the Petition of Act 28/2007 on the Third Amendment to Act no. 6/1983 on General Provisions and Tax Procedures - Case No. 30/PUU-X/2012 - held the Constitutional Court (MK) on Friday (20/4) afternoon at the Court Courtroom. Applicant represented by legal counsel of the Office of the Advocate "Andris Basril & Partners".

In the trial, Andris Basril as the attorney of Applicant submits a repair request. Among them, the word ‘phrase’ was changed to the word ‘art’. It was also improved the legal position of the Applicant. Furthermore, from the initial application, contrary to the petition were separated between 1945 and declared not enforceable.

"The arrangement, like the advice the Panel of Judges, we have separated and that just is not caught from the real case experienced by the Petitioner," Andris said.

Andris explained further petition that has been repaired. That the petition, the Petitioner has the legal test to apply Act 28/2007 on the Third Amendment to Act no. 6/1983, Article 25 paragraph (9) in conjunction with Article 27 paragraph (5d) of Article 28D Paragraph (1), Article 28G Paragraph (1) and Article 28H Paragraph (2) of the 1945 Constitution.

"To declare that Law no. 28/2007 on the Third Amendment to Law no. 6/1983 on General Provisions and Tax Procedures contradictory to Article 28D Paragraph (1), Article 28G Paragraph (1) and Article 28H Paragraph (2) of the 1945 Constitution, "explained the attorney of the Applicant.

In addition, the applicant states Article 25 paragraph (9) in conjunction with Article 27 paragraph (5d) Law no. 28/2007 on the Third Amendment to Law no. 6/1983 on General Provisions and Tax Procedures, no binding legal force.

As is known, at the preliminary hearing (29/3), Constitutional Justice Anwar Usman suggested that the applicant distinguish between the terms ‘phrase, chapter, and verse’. In his petition, said Usman, the applicant requested all ‘phrase’, but the application of the ‘verse’. Anwar also requested that the applicant improve the authority and the legal position.

"There is a difference between the articles are used as a touchstone. You must be consistent. Petitioner was also seen inconsistencies on the part of the legal position. Brother sat down as private legal entities, so I’d reiterate the legal position. But in posita as individual citizens, re-examined in order to be consistent, "he advised.

Meanwhile, in a preliminary examination, Constitutional Justice Maria Farida Indrati advised Applicant to improve the application format and explain the reasons for constitutional rights violations that are guaranteed by the 1945 Constitution.

 "Then in your application, there are things that are concrete cases. Your client’s experience in the a quo article. So, try testing the norm in the Constitutional Court Act, does not adjudicate concrete cases. However, the concrete case it could be the reason in his case and sat posita. The Court hearing the verse section, the phrase, the norm in the Act but not prosecute cases of concrete, "explained Maria. (Nano Tresna Arfana / mh/Yazid.tr)