The government representatives attending the material judicial review hearing of Law No. 6 of 2023 on Job Creation, Monday (15/12). Photo by MKRI/Ifa.

---

Jakarta (MKRI) – The Constitutional Court resumed the material judicial review hearing of Article 34 paragraph (1) and paragraph (2) of Law No. 6 of 1983 on General Tax Provisions and Procedures (KUP Law), as amended by Law No. 6 of 2023 on Job Creation (Job Creation Law) for Case No. 211/PUU-XIII/2025 on Monday, December 15, 2025. However, the hearing, originally scheduled to hear testimony from the House of Representatives and the President, was postponed because the House was in recess and the President was not yet ready to deliver his testimony.

“The House of Representatives is still in recess, right? So they are not ready to give their statement. Likewise, the President has requested a postponement because his statement is not ready yet, is that correct, sir?” Chief Justice Suhartoyo said.

Chief Justice Suhartoyo continued, stating that the hearing on the petition would resume at a later date to be determined by the Court. This is because the Court is currently preparing its hearing schedule for the end of the year amid a busy court calendar.

“Therefore, the parties should simply wait for news from the Court regarding when this petition will be heard again,” Chief Justice Suhartoyo concluded, before striking the gavel to signal the end of the hearing.

Also read:

Ban on Taxpayers Recording Audio-Visual of Tax Meeting Challenged

Questioning the Ban on Taxpayers Making Audio-Visual Recordings During Meetings with Tax Officials

The petition was filed by Fungsiawan, who argued that the norms under review have given rise to excessive multiple interpretations, which, in turn, have resulted in a prohibition on taxpayers and/or their legal representatives from making audio-visual recordings during meetings with tax officials (fiskus) or other tax authorities. Article 34 paragraphs (1) and (2) read: “(1) Every official is prohibited from informing any other party of any matter known or disclosed to them by the taxpayer by virtue of their position or work in implementing tax regulations. (2) The same prohibition as referred to in paragraph (1) applies to experts appointed by the Director General of Taxes to assist in implementing tax regulations.”

He further contended that these are vague, thereby depriving him of his constitutional right to obtain and retain information related to his own defense or that of his clients in tax proceedings. The Petitioner claimed to have suffered actual losses in the form of the refusal to allow recording of meetings discussing the final results of tax audits (at Tamansari Tax Office in 2023 and Cengkareng Tax Office in 2025); expulsion from tax office premises on the grounds of “confidentiality” even though he had been officially summoned, was legally obliged to appear, and the matter concerned his own tax affairs; refusal to provide copies of recordings made by the Directorate General of Taxes (DJP) of official meetings between taxpayers and tax officials (with such internal documents deemed “confidential even to the taxpayer concerned”); as well as the DJP’s inability to preserve documentary evidence of the audit process and the loss of documentation media of communications that are crucial for the taxpayer’s defense. These actions, he argued, directly violate the Petitioner’s rights guaranteed under Article 28F of the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia.

The Petitioner has also revised the petitum. In his petitum, the Petitioner requested the Court to declare that, insofar as the phrases “Every official”, “other parties”, and “anything” in Article 34 paragraph (1) of Law No. 6 of 1983 on General Provisions and Tax Procedures, as amended several times, most recently by Law No. 6 of 2023 on the Stipulation of Government Regulation in Lieu of Law No. 2 of 2022 on Job Creation as Law, are concerned, those phrases are contrary to the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia and have no binding legal force insofar as they are not interpreted as: “Every tax official is prohibited from disclosing to any party other than the Taxpayer and/or the Taxpayer’s attorney who is exercising his or her own tax rights and obligations, anything”; and to declare that, insofar as the phrase “Every official, both tax officers and those performing duties in the field of taxation” in the Elucidation of Article 34 paragraph (1) of Law No. 6 of 1983 on General Provisions and Tax Procedures, as amended several times, most recently by Law Number 6 of 2023 on the Stipulation of Government Regulation in Lieu of Law No. 2 of 2022 on Job Creation as Law, is concerned, that phrase is contrary to the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia and has no binding legal force insofar as it is not interpreted as: “Every tax official”.

Case tracking

Author: Mimi Kartika
Editor: Lulu Anjarsari P.
PR: Tiara Agustina

Translator: Rizky Kurnia Chaesario

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 prevails.

---