Jestin Justian as Principal Petitioner delivering the principal revision of the petition for the judicial review of the Land and Building Tax on Monday (29/1) in the Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. Photo by Humas MK/Ganie.

The Constitutional Court (MK) once again held the material judicial review hearing of Article 4 paragraphs (1) and (2) of Law No. 12/1985 on Land and Building Tax (PBB Law), Monday (29/1). 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 the previous hearing, there were four Petitioners: 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). However, one of the Petitioners, Ezra Prayoga Manihuruk resigned as Petitioner.

In the revision, Jestin, who were present without attorney, explained that he had revised the petition as advised by the Panel of Justices led by Constitutional Justice Wahiduddin Adams. The Petitioners had revised their constitutional impairment. “Our legal standing is already in line with the advice of the justices, where we clarified and elaborated the impairment as well as legal standing in the case. In the posita, or argument, or our outline, reason, and idea, we lengthen, elaborate, and complete it,” he said.

However, the Panel of Justices found differences and inconsistencies between the evidence and the evidence list. The Panel of Justices requested that the Petitioners adjust the evidence and the list. "We will approve the pieces of evidence that match the list. Later [we will approve] the new one if the copy of the government regulation and so on will still be used as evidence, let it be submitted later because the [physical] evidence does not match this [list]," Constitutional Justice I Dewa Gede Palguna suggested.

The Petitioners have difficulty in paying property tax. [Petitioner I] suffers 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.

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. (Lulu Anjarsari/Yuniar Widiastuti)