Sanctions are a device to ensure that a law (Act) or effective legal power. In legal theory, the determination of sanctions are to be the only feature of the rule of law. There must be a legal sanction. Thus is the position of the positivists. "Sanctions required at law or legislation that is forcing or commonly known as dwingen recht," said Manan when the government acts as an expert in the trial in the Constitutional Court (MK), Wednesday (04/07/2012).

Session times for the fifth test case number 30/PUU-X/2012 particulars of Article 25 paragraph (9) and Article 27 paragraph (5d) of Law Number 28 Year 2007 regarding the Third Amendment Act No. 6 of 1983 on General Provisions and Tax Procedures (UU KUP), listening Witness Testimony / Expert. The Government party was attended by Director General of Taxation Fuad Rahmany, a Government expert: Manan, Abdul Hakim Garuda Nusantara, Siti Ismiati Jenie, and Supardji, and Edward Omar Sharif Hiariej.

Manan continued, the force of law is a law or laws relating to public order (public order), or in the public interest (public interest), such as national interest or national security. "For all the law contains few or many elements of public order or the public interest, it is almost always found as an element of dwingen recht including civil and criminal law more as regelend recht," said Bagir.

Tax is a levy that is forcing the state as the embodiment of the obligation to state taxpayers. As a state income tax borne directly by the state’s obligation to guarantee and run the public interest and the interests of the state itself, such as ensuring national security and others. Tax function is solely to ensure fairness, but not least is the function of public order or public order. Based on the definition, purpose, and functions, the sanctions as an instrument of adherence to pay taxes to run are necessities. "There is no tax law without a sanction," said Bagir.

Other experts presented by the Government of Abdul Hakim Garuda Nusantara. According to him, the content of articles in the Law tested by applicant, in compliance with the principles of balance, legal certainty, justice and legal protection. "With the brightly lit a quo provisions in the legislation a quo harmonize the demands of legal certainty, efficiency, and effectiveness in tax collection by avoiding delays improper tax payments," said Abdul Hakim

In addition, continued Abdul Hakim, justice and legal protection to the taxpayer of the possibility of arbitrariness, inaccuracy, omission tax authorities by providing opportunities for taxpayers to appeal the tax assessment letter and authorized the Director General to eliminate tax penalties, interest, and increase, even eliminate tax assessment. Legal certainty, efficiency, and effectiveness of tax collection, as intended by Article 25 paragraph (9) and Article 27 paragraph (5d) of the KUP worthy to be preserved because it is not contradictory to Article 28D paragraph (1), Article 28G Paragraph (1), and Article 28H paragraph (2) of the 1945 Constitution. In fact, by the maintenance of the article will allow the implementation of the state’s constitutional obligation of the fulfillment of civil and political rights and economic, social, and cultural. "The loss of the second chapter, the loss of the constitutional power of the second section may result in delayed payments massive tax by the taxpayer," said Abdul Hakim Garuda Nusantara.

To note, the petition for judicial review of Article 25 paragraph (9) and Article 27 paragraph (5) UU KUP filed by Wilmar Harangan Hutahaean, Director Hutahaean. Article 25 paragraph (9) KUP Law states: "In this case the taxpayer objected to being rejected or granted in part, taxpayers subject to administrative sanctions such as fines by 50% (fifty percent) of the amount of tax deducted by the decision objected to the tax has been paid before filing objection. "Then Article 27 paragraph (5) letter d states:" In this case the appeal is rejected or granted in part, taxpayers subject to administrative sanctions in the form of a fine of 100% (hundred percent) of the amount of taxes based on the Decision of Appeals reduced the tax payments that have been paid prior to object. "

PT Hutahaean is the taxpayer who unexamined by tax authorities (tax inspectors) and has received an assessment Pay Less Corporate Income Tax. PT Hutahaean tax authorities denied the findings. But his right to raise objections, hindered by the provisions of Article 25 paragraph (9) and Article 27 paragraph (5d) of the Act KUP. This provision is very harmful because it has limited taxpayers who have tax disputes before filing a lawsuit shall be liable to the objection, the administrative sanctions such as fines as much as 50% of the amount of tax deducted by the decision objected to the tax has been paid before filing the objection, and subject to administrative sanctions such as fines as much as 100% of the amount of tax deducted by Appeal Decision with tax payments have been paid before filing the objection. Assess the applicant’s case is too excessive and violated Petitioner’s constitutional rights protected by Article 28D paragraph (1), Article 28G Paragraph (1), and Article 28H paragraph (2) of the 1945 Constitution. (Rosihin Nur Ana / mh/Yazid.tr)