The constitutional justices leaving the courtroom after reading out the decision of the judicial review of the Supreme Court Law for case No. 43/PUU-XIX/2021, Thursday (9/30/2021). Photo by Humas MK/Ilham W.M.
Thursday, September 30, 2021 | 15:28 WIB
JAKARTA, Public Relations—The Constitutional Court (MK) rejected the entire judicial review petition of Law No. 3 of 2009 on the Second Amendment to Law No. 14 of 1985 on the Supreme Court, said Chief Justice Anwar Usman at the ruling hearing for the case No. 43/PUU-XIX/2021 on Thursday, September 30, 2021. “[The Court] adjudicated, rejects the Petitioner’s petition in its entirety,” he stressed.
In considering the Petitioner’s argument on Article 31A paragraph (4) of the Supreme Court Law on the deadline for filing the judicial review of regulations under the laws due to causing legal uncertainty.
“Before considering the a quo argument further, it is important for the Court to quote part of its considerations in Decisions No. 30/PUU-XIII/2015 and No.85/PUU-XVI/2018, although the Petitioner believed that the a quo petition was different from [them],” said Constitutional Justice Manahan M. P. Sitompul reading out the Court’s legal considerations.
However, the constitutionality of the norm that was being challenged in the a quo petition was closely related and relevant to the legal considerations in those decisions, especially in answering the core issue that the Petitioner argued about.
Having reviewed the legal considerations in those decision, the Court asserts that there is no doubt regarding the interpretation of the deadline for the material judicial review in the Supreme Court based on Article 31A paragraph (4) of the Supreme Court Law: 14 workdays since the petition is received. As such, no additional interpretation, which the Petitioner desired, is needed.
The Petitioner’s argument that his material judicial review petition had been ruled past the deadline was, in the Court’s opinion, a matter of implementation, not of the constitutionality of the norm. Therefore, the Court did not have authority to adjudicate it. Based upon examination of the facts and the laws as mentioned, the Court maintains that the Petitioner’s entire petition was not legally founded.
Also read:
Constitutionality of 14-Day Judicial Review Limit Questioned
Petition on Supreme Court Law Revised
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.
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 had 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.
He filed a material judicial review petition dated December 10, 2020, which was received by the Head of Subdirectorate for Material Judicial Review and Tax Dispute, State Administrative Deputy Registrar on December 14, 2020, along with the Deed of Petition for Material Judicial Review. The petition was registered on January 6, 2021. In mid-April 2021, the Petitioner received information regarding the ruling on the petition from the Supreme Court Registrar’s website—stating it was inadmissible.
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 10/2/2021 13:21 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.
Thursday, September 30, 2021 | 15:28 WIB 199