Ada Pertanyaan? Hubungi Kami 
2026 Hak Cipta Milik Hukumonline.com
Produk Pilihan
Ada Pertanyaan? Hubungi Kami Agus Sahbani, Yanuar Pribadhie
The information technology (IT) business sector, represented by the Indonesian Association of Internet Services Providers (APJII) and Ahmad Suwandi Idri, has filed a petition to review the laws that impose levies on this sector with the Constitutional Court.
The applicant has requested a review of two laws that relate to levies on the information technology sector, Law No. 20 of 1997 on Non-Tax State Revenue (PNBP) and Law No. 36 of 1999 on Telecommunications.
Levies imposed by both laws are viewed as overly burdensome on the information technology industry. More specifically, the petitioners are requesting a review of Articles 2 and 3 of the PNBP Law and Articles 16, 26, and 34 of the Telecommunications Law which set out details on the types and amount of PNBP tariffs.
“We are not against the levies. However, the types of levies and the tariff amounts for the PNBP violate our constitutional rights,” said Pradnanda Berbudy, the applicant’s legal counsel, during the preliminary hearing at the Constitutional Court in Jakarta on Tuesday.
Articles 2 and 3 of the PNBP Law, according to the counsel, provides that the types and amounts of tariffs for PNBP other than determined under that Law, are to be regulated in a Government Regulation.
These articles are implemented for the IT sector under Government Regulation No. 7 of 2009 on Types and Tariffs for PNBP applicable to the Ministry of Communications and Information Technology (last amended by Government Regulation No. 76 of 2013). Under this regulation, the Government may, at its discretion, add additional new tariffs and increase existing tariff rates.
“This discretion has been oppressive for our industry. For example, the Government imposes rather burdensome PNBP levies for universal services obligation (USO) contribution fees, telecommunication organization rights fees, and rights to use frequency spectrum fees,” said Pradnanda.
The petitioners submit that these provisions violate Article 23A of the Constitution which provides that “Taxes and all other mandatory levies are to be regulated under the law”. PNBP falls under ‘other mandatory levies’. Therefore, the petitioners argue, the tariff should not be regulated in a Government Regulation.
“We submit that the Court will declare the said articles materially invalid since they do not conform with the Constitution,” says Pradnanda.
Responding to the petition, Arief Hidayat, member of the panel handling the petition, who is also the Chief Justice of the Constitutional Court, stated that the petition is lacking in clarity as to what exactly is the prayer of relief being requested.
“The petitioners should have been able to describe the intention and objective of the petition in a simple and concise manner,” Justice Hidayat suggested.
Justice Patrialis Akbar, another member of the panel, further commented that the petition is biased towards financial damages instead of constitutional damage.
“The petitioners are expected to put more emphasis on the constitutional damage since we don’t have jurisdiction over financial damages,” said Patrialis.
(hot/kc)
Agus Sahbani, Yanuar Pribadhie
The information technology (IT) business sector, represented by the Indonesian Association of Internet Services Providers (APJII) and Ahmad Suwandi Idri, has filed a petition to review the laws that impose levies on this sector with the Constitutional Court.
The applicant has requested a review of two laws that relate to levies on the information technology sector, Law No. 20 of 1997 on Non-Tax State Revenue (PNBP) and Law No. 36 of 1999 on Telecommunications.
Levies imposed by both laws are viewed as overly burdensome on the information technology industry. More specifically, the petitioners are requesting a review of Articles 2 and 3 of the PNBP Law and Articles 16, 26, and 34 of the Telecommunications Law which set out details on the types and amount of PNBP tariffs.
“We are not against the levies. However, the types of levies and the tariff amounts for the PNBP violate our constitutional rights,” said Pradnanda Berbudy, the applicant’s legal counsel, during the preliminary hearing at the Constitutional Court in Jakarta on Tuesday.
Articles 2 and 3 of the PNBP Law, according to the counsel, provides that the types and amounts of tariffs for PNBP other than determined under that Law, are to be regulated in a Government Regulation.
These articles are implemented for the IT sector under Government Regulation No. 7 of 2009 on Types and Tariffs for PNBP applicable to the Ministry of Communications and Information Technology (last amended by Government Regulation No. 76 of 2013). Under this regulation, the Government may, at its discretion, add additional new tariffs and increase existing tariff rates.
“This discretion has been oppressive for our industry. For example, the Government imposes rather burdensome PNBP levies for universal services obligation (USO) contribution fees, telecommunication organization rights fees, and rights to use frequency spectrum fees,” said Pradnanda.
The petitioners submit that these provisions violate Article 23A of the Constitution which provides that “Taxes and all other mandatory levies are to be regulated under the law”. PNBP falls under ‘other mandatory levies’. Therefore, the petitioners argue, the tariff should not be regulated in a Government Regulation.
“We submit that the Court will declare the said articles materially invalid since they do not conform with the Constitution,” says Pradnanda.
Responding to the petition, Arief Hidayat, member of the panel handling the petition, who is also the Chief Justice of the Constitutional Court, stated that the petition is lacking in clarity as to what exactly is the prayer of relief being requested.
“The petitioners should have been able to describe the intention and objective of the petition in a simple and concise manner,” Justice Hidayat suggested.
Justice Patrialis Akbar, another member of the panel, further commented that the petition is biased towards financial damages instead of constitutional damage.
“The petitioners are expected to put more emphasis on the constitutional damage since we don’t have jurisdiction over financial damages,” said Patrialis.
(hot/kc)