Petrus Bala Pattyona as Petitioner delivering the principal of the petition revision for the judicial review of the Law on Taxes on Monday (2/10) in the Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. Photo by Humas MK/Ifa.

The hearing of the petition revision for judicial review of Law No. 6 of 1993 on General Provision and Tax Procedure (Taxation Law) was held by the Constitutional Court (MK) on Monday (2/10) afternoon. Attending the hearing of Case No. 63/PUU-XV/2017, Petrus Bala Pattyona as Petitioner submitted a number of revisions.

"Regarding the petition revision, there are only changes of parts that we deemed constituting factual or constitutional damage so that in the section on the dispute in court, we only quoted the case numbers," said Petrus to Constitutional Justice Aswanto as chairman of the hearing.

Regarding constitutional damage, the Petitioner stated that his case had been rejected. In addition, the Petitioner has filed three lawsuits in court so he has legal standing to file the petition.

"Furthermore, regarding the petitum, we follow the instructions according to the first hearing that stated that Article 32 paragraph (3a) of Law No. 16 of 2009 is contradictory to the 1945 Constitution and does not apply, and then declared that Article 32 paragraph (3a) has no binding legal force or is unconstitutional. So regarding the Petitioner’s petitum, we have revised it according to Mr. Chairman\\\'s instruction in the previous session. That\\\'s the main point. There is no more change in the rest," said Petrus to the panel of justices.

The Petitioner works as an advocate and lawyer, curator-manager, mediator, legal auditor, and legal attorney of the tax court. The Petitioner filed a petition for the judicial review of Article 32 paragraph (3a) of the Taxation Law. Article 32 of the a quo law reads, "The requirements and the implementation of the rights and duties of attorney as referred to in Article 32 paragraph (3) shall be regulated by or based on the Regulation of the Minister of Finance."

The elucidation to Article 32 of Law No. 6 Year 1993 is stipulated by the decision of the Minister of Finance, which is substantially regulated in the Regulation of the Minister of Finance as the elucidation to Article 32 paragraph (3a) of Law No. 6 Year 1993. It reads, "To be an attorney, one must be a legal consultant."

The Petitioner believes that the provision of Article 32 paragraph (3a) of the law is detrimental or potentially impairing the constitutional rights of the Petitioners, that is, the right to work and a decent living, the right to employment and earnings, the right to recognition, guarantee, protection, and fair legal certainty, as well as equal treatment before the law. The provisions of Article 32 paragraph (3a) of Law 6 Year 1993 raise the potential of damage to the Petitioner due to the absolute authority of the Minister of Finance to determine the requirements and the implementation of the rights and duties of attorneys.

Petrus continued, the constitutional damage arose with the elucidation of Article 32 paragraph (3a) of the Taxation Law, which mentions that those who may assist clients in the tax office shall be a tax consultant, as stipulated in a Ministerial Regulation. The Petitioner feels aggrieved because he was denied the opportunity to assist clients in Tax Office of Bantul. In response to the rejection, the Petitioner filed a lawsuit in the Bantul District Court. (Nano Tresna Arfana/LA/Yuniar Widiastuti)