---

Panel hearing of judicial review of Land and Building Tax (PBB) Law, Wednesday (14/3) in the Plenary Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. Photo by Humas MK/Ganie.

Retired civil servant Abas Tasimin along with two other Petitioners filed a petition for judicial review of Law No. 12/1985 on Land and Building Tax (PBB). The first hearing of case No. 19/PUU-XVI/2018 was held by the Constitutional Court (MK) on Wednesday (14/3) afternoon. 

The Petitioners questioned Article 6 paragraph (1) of the PBB Law on the tax base being tax object sale value (NJOP) and Article 6 paragraph (2) of the a quo law on the number of the tax object sale value as referred to in paragraph (1) shall be stipulated every 3 years by the Minister of Finance, except for certain regions that is set every year in accordance with the development of the regions. 

"The land and building tax rise in 2014, which varies from 57.7% to 350% according to the data presented, (II) has disturbed the lives of the Petitioners because they feel burdened to pay the 2014 Land and Building Tax bill. Therefore, the Land and Building Tax rise of 2014 is contrary to Article 28H paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution," Abas Tasimin said. 

As a proof of restlessness due to tax increase, Abas said, the community of Cempaka Putih Timur Village, Cempaka Putih Subdistrict has sent Letter No. 008/RW01 - 08/Pajak/VIII/2014 dated August 21, 2014 to the Governor and Chairman of DKI Jakarta Legislative Council. The Petitioners claimed the decision to raise tax as well as the 2014 building [tax] for land and building not sold by the owner on the basis of NJOP contrary to the considerations of letter a and letter b of the PBB Law because it is not in accordance with the ability of the owner. The ability of owner lies only at the initial value of tax object and owner in 2014, and the owner did not even receive benefits in the form of money that can be partially paid to the state as Land and Building Tax. 

Abas also said that the Forum of neighborhood unit (RT) and community unit (RW) of Kelurahan Cempaka Putih Timur, Cempaka Putih Sub-district, Central Jakarta, sent letter No. 005/RT RW CPT/12/2016 to Soni Soemarsono as acting Governor of DKI Jakarta in 2016. The letter contains a request for reduction in PBB tariffs in 2014, 2015, and 2016, which amounted to 3 times the that in 2013. 

"Based on the above description, according to the Petitioners, there is constitutional impairment of the Petitioners due to the enactment of Article 6 paragraph (1) and paragraph (2) of Law No. 12/1985 on Land and Building Tax. Therefore, the Petitioners have the legal standing to file the a quo petition," Abas explained. 

Revise Legal Standing 

With regard to the arguments presented by the Petitioners, Constitutional Court Justice Wahiduddin Adams as the Chairperson of the Panel highlighted the legal standing of the Petitioners, who act as individuals. "It turned out that [the Petitioners] did not represent a group called RT and RW Forum of Keluarahan Cempaka Putih East Community, Cempaka Putih District," said Wahiduddin. 

Then, Justice Wahiduddin observed the format of the petition that was not well-drafted. "Actually [you] can see the format of petition on the website of the Constitutional Court, sir. In addition, the Petitioners’ argument relating tax payment to the right to live a prosperous and spiritual life, please elaborate it later," he said. 

Meanwhile, Constitutional Justice I Dewa Gede Palguna highlighted the principal issue of the petition regarding tax calculation. According to him, it is not related to the issue of constitutionality of the norm. "That means the calculation is what you are concerned about? If the method of calculation is questioned, then the issue is a matter of application of the law. Because the state has the right to collect taxes, but why the calculation is this way? So, the issue is not about conflict with the 1945 Constitution," he said. 

To that end, Justice Palguna requested that the Petitioners elaborate the constitutional impairment related to the enactment of the articles being reviewed. "If you stick to the assumption that such a regulation of norms is contrary to the 1945 Constitution, there should be more explanation than this, sir. Why is it against the 1945 Constitution? Well, this brief explanation is not enough," he said. (Nano Tresna Arfana/LA/Yuniar Widiastuti)

---