The petition revision hearing for the material judicial review of Law No. 14 of 2002 on the Tax Court, Tuesday (5/6/2025). Photo by MKRI/Ifa.

---

JAKARTA (MKRI) — Advocate Zico Leonard Djagardo Simanjuntak delivered the revised material judicial review petition of Law No. 14 of 2002 on the Tax Court to the Constitutional Court (MK). He changed the petitioned norm from Article 34 paragraph (2) letter c to Article 34 paragraphs (2) and (3).

“Following the panel justices’ direction on other potentially problematic paragraphs, we have also discussed it and we added one new object of review, that is Article 34 paragraph (3),” said the Petitioner’s legal counsel I Putu Gede Putra Sentana remotely at the petition revision hearing for case No. 25/PUU-XXIII/2025 on Tuesday, April 6, 2025.

The Petitioner challenges those articles for other requirements for attorneys in the tax court, set forth by the finance minister. Article 34 paragraph (2) reads, “To become a legal counsel, the following requirements shall be fulfilled: a. Indonesian citizen; b. have broad knowledge and expertise in tax laws and regulations; c. other requirements stipulated by the Minister.” Meanwhile, Article 34 paragraph (3) reads, “In the event that the attorney accompanying or representing the appellant or plaintiff is a blood relative or a relative by marriage up to the second degree, an employee, or a guardian, the requirements as referred to in paragraph (2) shall not be required.”

The Petitioner also revised the petitums. He requests that the Court declare Article 34 paragraph (2) 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: a. Indonesian citizen; b. requirements as regulated in the Advocate Law” and declare Article 34 paragraph (3) of Law No. 14 of 2002 unconstitutional and not legally binding.

Also read: Other Requirements for Tax Counsels Challenged

At the preliminary hearing on Wednesday, April 23, the Petitioner asserted that tax attorneys should not be distinguished from attorneys representing clients in other courts. 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.

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.

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.

---