The Petitioner’s counsel Eddy Christian appearing before the Court at the judicial review hearing of Law No. 14 of 2002 on the Tax Court virtually, Tuesday (10/26/2021). Photo by Humas MK/Ifa.

---

Tuesday, October 26, 2021 | 18:48 WIB

JAKARTA, Public Relations—Another judicial review hearing of Law No. 14 of 2002 on the Tax Court was held by the Constitutional Court (MK) on Tuesday, October 26, 2021. The petition revision hearing for case No. 51/PUU-XIX/2021 was presided over by Constitutional Justices Suhartoyo (chair), Wahiduddin Adams, and Enny Nurbaningsih. The petition was filed by PT Sainath Realindo, represented by executive director Vikash Kumar Dugar. He questioned Article 42 paragraph (3) of the Tax Court Law.

Legal counsel Eddy Christian, who appeared before the Court virtually, conveyed the revisions to the petition. The petition, initially 24 pages, is now 26 pages. The Petitioner revised the Court’s authority following the latest Constitutional Court Regulation (PMK) and affirmed his legal standing by elaborating his constitutional loss. Eddy added that the Petitioner also explained the definition of ne bis in idem, which he believes should have been included in the a quo article.

“Last, the petitums were made into one: to request the Court to grant the Petitioner’s petition in its entirety and to declare Article 42 paragraph (3) of the Tax Court Law in violation of Article 24 paragraph (1) and Article 28D paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution,” Eddy said.

Also read: Ne Bis In Idem Principle in Tax Court Law Questioned

At the preliminary hearing, Eddy Christian, the Petitioner’s legal counsel, said Article 42 paragraph (3) of the Tax Court Law does not provide legal certainty as it does not provide clear criteria for a petition that has been filed and cannot be refiled.

Article 42 paragraph (3) of the Tax Court Law reads, “A petition that has been withdrawn through a decree or decision as referred to in paragraph (2) cannot be refiled.”

The Petitioner believes their right to clear benefits from the law enforcement, equality, legal certainty, and justice have been impaired because his petition to the Supreme Court was rejected for not meeting formal requirements. The Petitioner questioned what distinguishes a petition and another petition that has been withdrawn so that it can be said that the latest petition be the same as the previous one, thus cannot be refiled since the previous one (which is considered a same one) has been withdrawn.

The Petitioner believes the ne bis in idem principle, which is laid out in in the Circular Letter of the Supreme Court (SE MA) No. 3 of 2020, must be reviewed so as not to repeat the same case in any court. Judicial independence should mean that a judge, who is a pillar for the enforcement of law and justice, can pass a ruling that does not impair the sense of justice.

Writer        : Sri Pujianti
Editor        : Nur R.
PR            : Fitri Yuliana
Translator  : Yuniar Widiastuti (NL)

Translation uploaded on 10/27/2021 11:49 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.

---