The Petitioner’s counsel Eddy Christian explaining the revisions to the petition at the judicial review hearing of Law No. 3 of 2009 on the Second Amendment to Law No. 14 of 1985 on the Supreme Court, Monday (9/20/2021). Photo by Humas MK/Bayu.
Monday, September 20, 2021 | 15:18 WIB
JAKARTA, Public Relations—The petition revision hearing of the judicial review of Law No. 3 of 2009 on the Second Amendment to Law No. 14 of 1985 on the Supreme Court was held by the Constitutional Court (MK) on Monday, September 20, 2021. The petition No. 43/PUU-XIX/2021 was filed by Vikash Kumar Dugar, Executive Director of PT Realindo (Principal Petitioner).
The Petitioner’s counsel Eddy Christian conveyed the revisions to the petition, including to its format following Article 10 of the Constitutional Court Regulation No. 2 of 2021, to Constitutional Justices Manahan M. P. Sitompul (chair), Arief Hidayat, and Suhartoyo. He also said that the Petitioner’s counsels had signed the petition following the justices’ advice at the preliminary hearing. The petition has also been added with an explanation that the company’s executive director is the only one that has the right to represent the company.
The Petitioner has also explained his specific, potential, and actual constitutional loss and its correlation to the norm being reviewed. It has also been stated in the petition that the constitutional loss will not occur if the petition is granted.
Also read: Constitutionality of 14-Day Judicial Review Limit Questioned
The Petitioner requested the material judicial review of Article 31A paragraph (4) of the Supreme Court Law, which reads, “The judicial review petition as referred to in paragraph (1) shall be conducted by the Supreme Court no later than 14 (fourteen) workdays since the date of the petition is received.”
The Petitioner is a private legal entity in the form of a limited liability company (PT) that manages and lease offices at the Sainath Tower. He felt harmed by the enactment of Article 31A paragraph (4) of Law No. 3 of 2009, which led to him being denied constitutional rights as referred to in Article 24 paragraphs (1) and (2), Article 28D paragraph (1), and Article 28D paragraph (2) of the 1945 Constitution.
At the preliminary hearing, the Petitioner stated that in mid-2007, he started the construction of the Sainath Tower office building, which was stopped at the end of 2011, then continued in April 2014. In mid-2016 when the building was completed, he received two tax collection notices (STP) and four nil tax assessment notices (SKPN) by the Director General of Taxes (DGT) regarding the determination of taxable entrepreneur who fails to produce based on Article 14 paragraph (1) letter g of Law No. 28 of 2009 (KUP Law), Article 9 paragraphs (6a) and (6b) of Law No. 42 of 2009 (VAT Law), and the Regulation of the Minister of Finance (PMK) No. 31/PMK.03/2014 (which amended the PMK No. 81/PMK.03/2010).
The Petitioner has taken various legal measures up to the judicial review (PK) to the Supreme Court. At the end of 2020 while waiting for the PK decision, he filed a judicial review petition to the Supreme Court on Article 7 paragraphs (4) and (6) of PMK No. 31/PMK.03/2014 on the Time of Calculation and Repayment Procedures for Input Tax That Has Been Credited and Refunded for Taxable Entrepreneur Who Fails to Produce for being contrary to Law No. 12 of 2011 on Lawmaking.
The Petitioner interpreted the 14-workday deadline in Article 31A paragraph (4) of the Supreme Court Law to mean until a decision is passed. However, his case was settled in twice that period. The niet ontvankelijke verklaard ruling (case inadmissible due to formal defects) that the Supreme Court passed can be interpreted that the Court had not failed to meet the deadline. The Petitioner interpreted this as Article 31A paragraph (4) of the Supreme Court Law not being legally binding for the Supreme Court and not applying in general.
The Petitioner argued that he had filed a petition to the Supreme Court due to constitutional loss caused by a regulation that had been repealed. However, when it was still in effect, it had been used by the legislature to determine tax laws, which led to the Petitioner’s constitutional loss and afforded him legal standing to judicial review in the Supreme Court.
Writer : Nano Tresna Arfana
Editor : Lulu Anjarsari P.
PR : Fitri Yuliana
Translator : Yuniar Widiastuti (NL)
Translation uploaded on 9/21/2021 12:32 WIB
Disclaimer: The original version of the news is in Indonesian. In case of any differences between the English and the Indonesian versions, the Indonesian version will prevail.
Monday, September 20, 2021 | 15:18 WIB 298