Law No. 20 Year 1997 on non-tax state revenue provides flexibility to the government - in this case is to determine the type of executive - non-tax revenues other than those specified in paragraph ( 1 ) . Determination of tariff choice of the type of non-tax revenues as outlined in laws or government regulations would lead to legal uncertainty.

It is delivered by a lecturer of Law UII Yogyakarta Ni\'matul Huda when it becomes Experts Indonesian Internet Service Providers Association ( APJII ) as the Applicant at the hearing which took place on Wednesday ( 30/4 ) at Courtroom .

"Government latitude in determining the cost of providing government activities with respect to the types of non-tax revenue must see aspects of fairness in the imposition of the burden to the society and the imposition of the impact on society and business activities," said Ni’matul before the panel of judges led by Deputy Chief Justice Arief Hidayat.

Meanwhile , Petitioner experts, Mustaqiem explains the rules in Article 60 paragraph ( 2 ) of the Telecommunications Act is far from a sense of justice . He said if after paying implement mandatory universal service contribution obligations to pay , then the amount paid is not calculated to deduct for income tax shall be paid as a subject , there will be multiple payments made ​​by the taxpayer to pay , ie pay income tax and pay- respected contribution of universal service . " So that raises the legal provisions of double tax payment obligations by the public is far from a sense of justice , " he said .

He also explained the will of Section 23A of the 1945 Constitution that taxes and other needs that are forced for the sake of the country governed by law . It is useful in the field of telecommunications, particularly for the determination of the percentage of the state to the public polling rate should be set out in the Telecommunications Act , as well as in the field of taxation . " It is not entirely a percentage arrangement fee rates delivered through a legal product called government regulations , " he said .

In the main petition , Petitioners argue that their constitutional rights violated due to 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 do not levy taxes . There are three reception Pradnanda explained that the Universal Service Obligation , the delivery costs of telecommunications and frequency .

" This law mandates the Government to further regulated by PP. 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 said . ( Lulu Anjarsari / mh )