The Petitioners’ legal counsel Judianto Simanjuntak, accompanied by other counsels, presenting revisions to the judicial review petition of Law No. 7 of 2021 on Harmonization of Tax Regulations (the HPP Law), Monday (4/21/2025). Photo by MKRI/Panji.

---

JAKARTA (MKRI) — The Constitutional Court held another judicial review hearing of Law No. 7 of 2021 on Harmonization of Tax Regulations (the HPP Law) on Monday, April 21, 2025, in the Court’s courtroom. The hearing, chaired by Constitutional Justice Arief Hidayat, was held to examine revisions to the petition in case No. 11/PUU-XXIII/2025.

The petition was filed by individuals from various backgrounds, including housewives, students, private sector employees, micro-entrepreneurs, ride-hailing drivers, and an organization focusing on mental health issues.

Judianto Simanjuntak, legal counsel for the Petitioners, outlined several revisions to the petition, including the removal of the word “Chapter” from the list of articles under review. The reviewed provisions include Article 4A(2)(b), 4A(3)(a), (g), (j), and Article 7(1), (3), and (4) of the HPP Law.

He also mentioned that the list of Petitioners was now structured more clearly, as set out on pages 2 to 5 of the petition. The Petitioners include Asmania (Petitioner I), Fauzan Hakami (Petitioner II), Muhamad Agus Salim (Petitioner III), Risnawati Utami (Petitioner IV), Rusin (Petitioner V), Warsiti Hajar (Petitioner VI), and the Indonesian Mental Health Association Foundation (Petitioner VII).

“Another revision is the separation of the legal standing argument from the posita section,” said Judianto. He added that the Indonesian Mental Health Association Foundation is represented by Jenny Rosanna Damayanti as Chairperson and Ira Askarina as Treasurer in this petition.

Also read: VAT Increase Under Scrutiny in Judicial Review

The Petitioners challenge Article 4A(2)(b), 4A(3)(a), (g), (j), and Article 7(1), (3), and (4) of the HPP Law, which they argue effectively remove staple goods, health services, education, and public transportation from the list of non-taxable goods and services. The law also introduces new provisions on VAT rates and how they may be adjusted.

The petitioners believe that Article 4A (2) violates Article 27 (2), Article 28H (1), and Article 28H (2) of the 1945 Constitution. They argue that the 12% VAT hike has driven up the prices of essential goods amid stagnant or declining income levels, forcing people to lower their consumption quality or forgo goods they previously could afford.

In their petitum, the Petitioners request the Court to declare the contested provisions unconstitutional and not legally binding. They also request that Article 7(3) be conditionally constitutional—provided that VAT rate adjustments are based on clear economic, social, and environmental indicators. Furthermore, they request that Article 7(4) be interpreted to mean that changes to the VAT rate must only be made through legislation, not government regulations.

Read more: Petition Revision in Case No. 11/PUU-XXIII/2025

Author: Utami Argawati.
Editor: N. Rosi
PR: Raisa Ayuditha Marsaulina

Translator: Yuanna Sisilia

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.

---