The Constitutional Court (MK) held a judicial review of Law No. 20 Year 1997 on State Revenue Tax (PNPBLaw) and Law No. 36 of 1999 on Telecommunications (TelecommunicationsAct) on Tuesday (4/3) at the Plenary. Case registered with the Registrar of the Court was filed by 12/PUU-XIII/2014 Number Indonesian Internet Service Providers Association (APJII).

In the main petition,Petitioner, represented by legal counsel Pradnanda Berbudy, et al, argue that their constitutional rights violated as a result of the application of Article 2 and Article 3 of Law PNPB and Article 16, Article 26 and Article 34 of the Telecommunications Act. According to the Applicant, the second law is the legal basis for the government does not levy taxes. There are three receptions Pradnanda explained that the Universal Service Obligation, the delivery costs of telecommunications and frequency.

 “This law mandates the Government to further regulated by government regulation no. 7/2009 that apply to the Ministry of Communications and Telecommunications. All three charges are non-tax revenues, but do not explicitly set a nominal figure. It turns out that the nominal rate is set in the appendix. This does not indicate the legal uncertainty because the law is not regulated, but in PP, and even then only through the attachment," he explained.

Panel of judges led by Deputy Chief Justice AriefHidayatwas accompanied by Constitutional Justice PatrialisAkbar and Anwar Usman suggests improvements to the applicant. Anwar Usman as the association requested that the applicant completes the AD / ART. While AriefHidayat said applicants must also complete the argument by looking at a loss of consumer standpoint. This, more Arief, because consumers felt aggrieved by the determination of the tariff rules.

 “The applicant is less explaining and outlining what the applicant expressly desired. The applicant should have been able to explain a simple sentence losses suffered, constitutionally or financially. Applicant must be able to explain PNPB is ultimately raise the cost of production was not injured businessman, but the general public as consumers. Consumers can be harmed because it has become the primary needs of society. This could burden the people," he said.

The applicant was given for 14 working days to make improvements to the petition on the advice of the judges. The next hearing was scheduled inspection repair requests. (LuluAnjarsari / mh)