Minister of Finance‘s Authority over Tax Attorneys Challenged at MK

JAKARTA, DDTCNews — An applicant named Mahamuddin has filed a judicial review petition against Article 44E paragraph (2) subparagraph e of the General Tax Provisions and Procedures (GPTP) Law, as last amended by the Harmonisation of Tax Regulations (harmonisasi peraturan perpajakan/HPP in Indonesian) Law.

The said paragraph vests authority in the Minister of Finance to regulate certain competencies that an attorney must possess, as stipulated under Article 32 paragraph (3a) of the GPTP Law.

According to the applicant, Article 44E paragraph (2) subparagraph e is inconsistent with Article 23A of the 1945 Constitution, which provides that taxes and other compulsory levies must be regulated by law.

"The provisions under Article 23A of the 1945 Constitution clearly and explicitly (expressis verbis) state that taxes and other compulsory levies must be regulated by law. The wording of Article 23A of the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia clearly refers to a 'law' as the basis for tax collection, not statutory laws and regulations," reads Application Number 328/PUU-XXIV/2026 submitted by the applicant, as cited on Tuesday (8/9/2026).

However, Article 44E paragraph (2) subparagraph e of the GPTP Law, as last amended by the HPP Law, instead delegates authority to the minister of finance to enact a minister of finance regulation (MoF Reg.) concerning the competencies that must be possessed by a taxpayer's attorney.

According to the applicant, this clause compels the applicant to appoint an attorney whose competencies are determined by the minister of finance regulation, derived from Article 44E paragraph (2) subparagraph e of the GPTP Law, as last amended by the UU HPP, namely MoF Reg. 44/2026.

The applicant is also unable to engage an attorney with the competencies required to represent their legal interests due to MoF Reg. 44/2026.

Further, Article 44E paragraph (2) subparagraph e of the GPTP Law, as last amended by the HPP Law, is also considered to give rise to legal uncertainty, thereby contradicting Article 28D paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution.

Legal uncertainty arises because the competency of an attorney can only be determined by the minister of finance through MoF Reg. 44/2026 as the implementing regulation of Article 44E paragraph (2) subparagraph e of the GPTP Law, as last amended by the HPP Law. The applicant cannot engage an attorney with competencies outside the scope of MoF Reg. 44/2026.

This results in the loss of the applicant's right to engage an attorney of their choosing. Moreover, Article 44E paragraph (2) subparagraph e of the GPTP Law, as last amended by the HPP Law, also narrows the applicant's rights and infringes upon the applicant's human rights in selecting the desired competency to exercise their tax rights and obligations.

The regulation of attorney competencies by the minister of finance should be purely technical-administrative in nature and must not contain provisions that are detrimental to the taxpayer's right to grant a power of attorney, nor should it diminish the state's authority to collect taxes.

The delegation of authority should not be intended to confer greater powers upon the minister of finance, but only to further regulate the conditions and procedures for the exercise of a power of attorney.

On the basis of the above grounds, the applicant requests the Constitutional Court to declare the phrase '... as well as certain competencies that must be possessed by an attorney referred to in Article 32 paragraph (3a)' in Article 44E paragraph (2) subparagraph e of the GPTP Law, as last amended by the HPP Law, to contradict the 1945 Constitution and to have no binding legal force. (rig)