The judicial review hearing of Law No. 8 of 1981 on the Criminal Procedure Code to hear the Relevant Party’s (Attorney General’s Office) witness, Thursday (8/4/2021). Photo by Humas MK/Ifa.
Monday, August 29, 2022 | 14:44 WIB
JAKARTA (MKRI)—The Constitutional Court (MK) held another judicial review hearing of Article 143 paragraph (3) of Law No. 8 of 1981 on the Criminal Procedure Code (KUHAP) on Monday, August 29, 2022. At the ninth hearing for case No. 28/PUU-XX/2022 by Umar Husni, Director of PT Karya Jaya Satria, the Court heard the testimonies of witnesses for the Attorney General’s Office (Relevant Party): Endeono Wahyudi, Ade Iva Kurniawan, and Syarifah Nurdjuliana.
Ade Iva Kurniawan explained the investigation process on tax crime by PT Karya Jaya Satria. First, the first district tax service office (KPP) of Purwokerto made an official visit to the company on May 27, 2013 for tax training. The company was given an appeal letter to report their income tax (PPh), which they ignored.
Since 2012, the Petitioner’s company was subjected to tax audit in order to compel them into compliance, as they initially only met some of the records requirements. The audit team then issued a first warning letter on October 15, 2014. However, even after being served with a second warning letter, the company still did not pay for the VAT (PPN) for January-December 2012. It also did not disclose fraudulent administrative penalty payment, which was a 50% increase of the underpayment.
“The audit found indication of tax crime: fraudulent tax return. So, the tax audit team proposed initial evidence audit, which was sufficient basis for an investigation. The assessment on suspect Umar Husni was declared complete by the investigating prosecutor of the Central Java high prosecution office. In January 2020, the suspect and the evidence were turned over to the prosecutor of the Purwokerto district office,” Ade said.
Also read:
Provision on Indictment in Criminal Procedure Code Challenged
House: Criminal Procedure Code Does Not Regulate Deadline for Prosecutor’s Indictment
Pretrial
Next, Endeono Wahyudi testified on the pretrial stage. A notice of commencement of investigation (SPDP) on Umar Husni No. B/SPDP/109/IX/20t7/Reskrimsus dated September 5, 2017 from the investigator of the Directorate-General of Taxation of D3P Office of Central Java through the Directorate of Special Criminal Investigation of the Central Java Regional Police was received by the Central Java high prosecution office on September 11, 2017. Then a letter of prosecutor appointment was issued for the investigation. The dossier for the case was declared incomplete even after P-18 was issued on August 20, 2019.
“The results of the dossier investigation by the prosecutor concluded that [Umar Husni] was suspected of violating Article 39 paragraph (1) letters c, d, I, jo Article 43 paragraph (1) of Law No. 6 of 1983 on General Provision and Taxation Procedure as amended by Law No. 16 of 2009 jo Article 64 paragraph (1) of the KUHP so that the dossier be completed,” he said.
Also read:
Govt: Implementation of Provisions on Indictment under Judge’s Purview
Attorney General’s Office Says Indictment Defends Defendant’s Rights
Incomplete Letters
Next, Syarifah Nurdjuliana testified about the chronology of the tax crime case by Umar Husni. On December 23, 2021, the public prosecutor’s opinion was read out at a trial, one point being that the Purwokerto district court was not authorized to hear the case, the attorney could not accept the exception to the indictment, that the defendant’s (Petitioner) action was not a crime, and that the defendant’s attorney’s objection letter only asserted administrative arguments to legitimize the defendant’s action.
She asserted that this was only intended to obscure facts, because in order to draw a conclusion and decide that the case not be declared criminal but administrative, it required in-depth observation as well as strong, valid evidence. In order to achieve this, examination of the subject matter of the case must take place, and it was not enough for the defendant’s attorney to submit an objection.
“In addition, the exception to the indictment letter was null and void because the crime was not described clearly and completely, because there was no direction or consideration from the Purwokerto district court and Semarang high court,” Syarifah said before Chief Justice Anwar Usman and the other eight constitutional justices.
Also read:
KUHAP Does Not Explain “Legally Invalid” in Provision on Indictment
Andi Hamzah: Indictment Null and Void Without Time and Place of Crime
The Petitioner asserted that Article 143 paragraph (3) of Law No. 8 of 1981 on the Criminal Procedure Code (KUHAP) was in violation of Article 1 paragraph (3) and Article 28D paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution. Article 143 paragraph (3) of the KUHAP reads, “An indictment that does not meet the provision as intended in paragraph (2) letter b shall be legally invalid.” In his petition, the Petitioner requested that the Court declare the phrase “legally invalid” in Article 143 paragraph (3) of the KUHAP conditionally unconstitutional and not legally binding insofar
Writer : Sri Pujianti
Editor : Lulu Anjarsari P.
PR : Fitri Yuliana
Translator : Yuniar Widiastuti (NL)
Translation uploaded on 9/5/2022 09:36 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, August 29, 2022 | 14:44 WIB 167