Porah Yohanes after taking oath as witness for a material judicial review hearing of Law No. 7 of 2021 on the Harmonization of Taxation Regulations, Thursday (10/26/2023). Photo by MKRI/Ilham W.M.

---

JAKARTA (MKRI) — Commissioner of PT Surya Kencana, Porah Yohanes, gave a testimony as a witness presented by Surianingsih and PT Putra Indah Jaya (Petitioners) at a material judicial review hearing of Law No. 7 of 2021 on the Harmonization of Taxation Regulations (HPP Law), Thursday, (26/10/2023). Responding to petition No. 83/PUU-XXI/2023, Yohanes shared that he had received a letter from the Directorate-General of Taxation (DJP/DGT) on September 27, 2023, requesting him to provide information regarding the implementation of Article 35 paragraph (1) of the HPP Law. In short, he was asked to fulfill the summons so as not to get sanctioned.

“I don’t know which institution I should go to for protection against the exercise of the authority to examine preliminary evidence of tax crimes. If I go to the tax court, it is only for administrative legal protection from tax debt and tax collection issues. Meanwhile, if I go to pre-trial, the district court’s decision is only for tax investigations. I experience legal uncertainty relating to the institution I can seek legal protection from the arbitrariness of this preliminary evidence examination,” Porah said in his testimony at the plenary hearing presided over by Chief Justice Anwar Usman, Deputy Chief Justice Saldi Isra, and the other constitutional justices.

Also read: 

Taxpayer Questions Procedure to Examine Preliminary Evidence of Tax Crimes

Legal Entity Becomes Petitioner in Case on Preliminary Evidence of Tax Crimes

Eddy Hiariej: Preliminary Evidence Examination an Application of Sunrise Principle

Ministerial Regulations Derived from Higher Legislation

At the preliminary hearing on Monday, August 28, legal counsel Cuaca said those articles were in violation of Article 1 paragraph (3) and Article 28D paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution. He revealed a concrete case where in an examination of preliminary evidence of a tax crime, the house of Petitioner I was sealed off and searched by civil service investigators (PPNS), which could not be challenged through pretrial in both the district court and the state administrative court (PTUN). This is because the letters issued for preliminary evidence examination are related to criminal law enforcement, which are not within the state administrative court’s jurisdiction. The Petitioners believe this to be a reflection of legal imbalance and lack of protection of human rights for taxpayers who is examined for preliminary evidence of tax crimes. In addition, there are different court rulings on pretrial motions relating to the examination of preliminary evidence of tax crimes.

Author       : Sri Pujianti
Editor        : Lulu Anjarsari P.
PR            : Andhini S.F.
Translator  : Nyi Mas Laras Nur Inten Kemalasari/Yuniar Widiastuti (NL)

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.

---