Jestin Justian as Principal Petitioner delivering the principal of the petition for the judicial review of the Land and Building Tax on Monday (15/1) in the Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. Photo by Humas MK/Ganie.

The Constitutional Court (MK) held the first judicial review hearing of Article 4 paragraphs (1) and (2) of Law No. 12/1985 on Land and Building Tax (PBB Law), Monday (15/1). The Petitioners for Case No. 3/PUU-XVI/2018 are concerned about the obligation to pay land and building tax that they consider burdensome.

In this case, the four Petitioners are Jestin Justian (Petitioner I) and Ezra Prayoga Manihuruk (Petitioner II) both students; Agus Prayogo (Petitioner III) who works as a private employee, and retired Nur Hasan (Petitioner IV). During the preliminary hearing chaired by Constitutional Justice Wahiduddin Adams, only Jestin and Hasan were present without legal representation.

In his petition, Jestin stated that the Petitioners have difficulty in paying property tax. He suffered a constitutional impairment, in that he cannot own a plot of land due to the obligation to pay tax. He has no financial means because he is still a student. Meanwhile, Petitioner II was fined because the money supposedly used for tuition fee was used by his parents to pay property tax.

"Petitioners III and IV cannot afford to pay the property tax. Petitioner III could not pay the tax that his house was almost sold to finance tax debt. Petitioner IV has retired and find it difficult to pay the tax," said Jestin in the preliminary hearing.

According to the Petitioners, the a quo article is contradictory to the phrase "live" as stated in Article 28H paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution. Thus, the Petitioners requested that the Court declare the article having no binding legal force and contradictory to the 1945 Constitution.

Justices’ Advice

Responding to the petition, Justice Wahiduddin stated that the introduction of the petition was still unclear and too brief. In addition, he requested that the constitutional losses be further defined because the reasons are still trivial.

"The petitum should also be fixed because it contains request from the Petitioners [for the Court] to add a new norm, whereas the Constitutional Court cannot create new norms; it is the authority of the government and the House of Representatives," he explained.

Meanwhile, Constitutional Justice I Dewa Gede Palguna requested that the other petitioners be present at the hearing. According to him, the consequence of not using legal counsel is that the Petitioners must be present in every session. "If not, the petition filed will be considered not serious," he stressed. (ARS/LA/Yuniar Widiastuti)