The preliminary hearing for the material judicial review of Law No. 14 of 2002 on the Tax Court, Wednesday (4/23/2025). Photo by MKRI/Ilham W.M.

---

JAKARTA (MKRI) — Advocate Zico Leonard Djagardo Simanjuntak has filed a material judicial review petition of Article 34 paragraph (2) letter c of Law No. 14 of 2002 on the Tax Court to the Constitutional Court (MK). The Petitioner for case No. 25/PUU-XXIII/2025 challenges other requirements for attorneys in the tax court, set forth by the finance minister.

“The Petitioner has experienced an actual loss since, as an advocate that often litigate in the Constitutional Court, [he] is aware that some Constitutional Court decisions cannot fully resolve the issue of the judicial independence in the tax court because the requirements for tax attorneys are still regulated by the finance minister,” said one of his legal counsels, Bernie Joshua L. Tobing, at the remote preliminary hearing for the case on Wednesday, April 23, 2025.

The Petitioner asserted that tax attorneys should not be distinguished from attorneys representing clients in other courts. Meanwhile, Article 34 paragraph (2) letter c of Law No. 14 of 2002 reads, “To become a legal counsel, the following requirements shall be fulfilled: c. other requirements stipulated by the Minister.”

The definition of a legal counsel in said provision, he added, can only be found in Article 1 point 2 of the Finance Minister Regulation No. 184 of 2017, which is similar to that of an attorney. In addition, none of the statutory provisions on special courts other than the tax court provide specific requirements.

An advocate who wants to litigate in other special courts within the judicial system under the Supreme Court (MA) only needs to have a valid advocate identification card (KTPA), minutes of advocate swearing-in, and a power of attorney from the client they represent. The Petitioner stated that even if the formal requirements as stipulated in the ministerial regulation are required, for the benefit of tax cases, they should be regulated in a law, not a ministerial regulation.

The Petitioner asserted that the principles inherent in the advocate would be threatened if there was still power controlling the advocate, in this case the executive through the finance minister. The regulation of the requirements to become a legal counsel in the finance minister regulation could potentially create a conflict of interest in tax case trials that can hamper the advocate’s independence and objectivity.

In the petitums, the Petitioner requested that the Court declare Article 34 paragraph (2) letter c of Law No. 14 of 2002 unconstitutional and not legally binding if not interpreted as “To become a legal counsel, the following requirements shall be fulfilled: c. other requirements stipulated under the Advocate Law” or “To become a legal counsel, the following requirements shall be fulfilled: c. other requirements stipulated under statutory laws.”

The hearing was presided over by Constitutional Justices M. Guntur Hamzah (panel chair), Daniel Yusmic P. Foekh, and Ridwan Mansyur. Justice Foekh stated that the Petitioner must review the petition and confirm whether the issue relates to the unconstitutionality of the norm or its interpretation.

“According to the Petitioner, is the norm actually unconstitutional or is it about its interpretation? Please review that. There is delegation for the minister, the arrangement in the ministerial regulation, which is usually administrative and not regulating,” Justice Foekh said.

Before concluding the hearing, Justice Guntur said the Petitioner shall revise the petition within 14 days. The revised petition must be received by the Court no later than Tuesday, May 6, 2025.

Author       : Mimi Kartika
Editor        : Lulu Anjarsari P.
PR            : Raisa Ayuditha Marsaulina
Translator  : 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.

---