Justice panel entering the courtroom for the judicial review of Law No. 7 of 2021 on the Harmonization of Taxation Regulations (HPP Law), Tuesday (3/8/2022). Photo by Humas MK/Ilham W. M.
Tuesday, March 8, 2022 | 22:04 WIB
JAKARTA, Public Relations—The Constitutional Court (MK) held the preliminary hearing of the judicial review of Law No. 7 of 2021 on the Harmonization of Taxation Regulations (HPP Law) on Tuesday afternoon, March 8, 2022 for case No. 19/PUU-XX/2022. The petition was filed by entrepreneur Priyanto.
The Petitioner challenges Article 4 points 1, 2, and 6; Chapter V; Article 13 paragraphs (4), (10), (11), and (15); Article 14 points 1, 2, and 3; as well as the Elucidation for those norms. He argued that those articles were in violation of Article 22D paragraphs (2) and (3), Article 28C paragraph (1), Article 28D paragraph (1), Article 28E paragraph (1), Article 28H paragraphs (1) and (2), Article 28I paragraph (1), and Article 32 paragraphs (1) and (2) of the 1945 Constitution.
The Petitioner was represented by a legal team of the PRO HUMANIA Advocate, Mediator, & Curator office. Dian Prinoegroho, one of the legal counsels, conveyed the substance of the petition. He said that relating the Income Tax (PPh) cluster, Article 7 paragraph (3) in Article 3 point 1 of the HPP Law was against Article 22 letter d of the 1945 Constitution, while Article 17 paragraph (2) in Article 3 point 3 of the HPP Law was in violation of Article 22 letter g of the 1945 Constitution.
Meanwhile, relating the Value Added Tax (VAT/PPN), he added, Article 4A of the PPN Law and its Elucidation had been revised in Article 4 point 1 of the HPP Law where basic goods needed by the people—medical services, social services, and educational services—that used to be exempt from VAT are now subject to VAT.
“It is unfair and unreasonable that goods that [constitute] basic needs and are urgently needed by the community are [categorized as] objects that can be subject to VAT,” he said to the panel chaired by Constitutional Justice Manahan M. P. Sitompul.
Dian said that although Article 16B paragraph (1) letter a, letter j point 6 of the PPN Law in Article 4 point 6 of the HPP Law exempts educational services the 11% VAT, they should not be subjected to VAT because they are noble services and are not part of economic transactional activities. He also mentioned the right and freedom to education as stated in Article 28C paragraph (1) and Article 31 paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution.
The Petitioner argued relating to the tax amnesty cluster that the provisions in Articles 5-12 in Chapter V of the Voluntary Disclosure of Taxpayers in the HPP Law constitute the tax amnesty program that the state runs through Law No. 11 of 2016 on Tax Amnesty.
Justices’ Advice
Constitutional Justice Daniel Yusmic P. Foekh remarked that the petition had been received by the Registrar’s Office on February 8, 2022. It was complete without a summary. However, what the legal counsel read out at the hearing was the summary.
“This confused us. Why the one read out is the petition summary. In the upcoming petition revision hearing, please bring out the summary and the complete petition. The summary must also be submitted to the Registrar’s Office,” he said. In addition, he highlighted that the 13-page petitum was verbose. It also mentioned ‘the Petitioners’ petition’ when there is only one petitioner.
Constitutional Justice Suhartoyo commented that the petition was hard to understand because there were a significant number of norms petitioned. He advised that the petition be simplified.
“The petition must be simplified. For example, only phrases or words in the cluster are [petitioned]. [We] did not find in the petitum explanation whether the Petitioner petitioned entire norms or part thereof,” he said.
Meanwhile, Constitutional Justice Manahan M. P. Sitompul (panel chair) said that the legal team was not familiar of the petition’s substance. He advised the Petitioner to be cautious and not to misread the articles, whether they are articles of the new law or the old one.
“Which ones are articles from the new law and which are from the old one,” he said.
Writer : Nano Tresna Arfana
Editor : Nur R.
PR : Raisa Ayudhita
Translator : Yuniar Widiastuti (NL)
Translation uploaded on 3/9/2022 15:55 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.
Tuesday, March 08, 2022 | 22:04 WIB 231