Analisis Yuridis Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 80/puu-xv/2017 Berdasarkan Asas Keadilan Atas Pengujian Undang-undang Nomor 28 Tahun 2009 Tentang Pajak Daerah dan Retribusi Daerah

Arifin, Dadang (2020) Analisis Yuridis Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 80/puu-xv/2017 Berdasarkan Asas Keadilan Atas Pengujian Undang-undang Nomor 28 Tahun 2009 Tentang Pajak Daerah dan Retribusi Daerah. Masters thesis, Universitas Islam Riau.

Text 181021029.pdf - Submitted Version Download (3MB)

Abstract

ABSTRACT This thesis examines the considerations of the Constitutional Court (MK) in testing the provisions of Article 1 number 28, Article 52 paragraph (1), and Article 52 paragraph (2) of Law Number 28 Year 2009 concerning Regional Taxes and Regional Retirement (PDRD) which become the basis for collecting street lighting tax (PPJ) and about the comparison of the imposition of PPJ before Law Number 28 of 2009 concerning PDRD. Then it examines alternative revisions to the preparation of the PDRD Law that might be applied by lawmakers as a result of the Constitutional Court's Decision. Judging from the type, this study is a normative study, while the nature of this research is analytical descriptive. Judging from the object of study and orientation to be achieved, this research is a library research. Literature research relies on data from books, journals, archives, documents and official reports. The results showed that the Constitutional Court's Decision was a negative legislature, which negated the articles that were sued because they were contrary to the 1945 Constitution, but also the Constitutional Court still enforced these contradictory articles within a period of three years that were positive legislature. The Constitutional Court's ruling also ordered the legislators to revise the PPJ definition so that it would not be biased. Revision of changes is important to be done immediately to avoid any legal vacuum. Furthermore, the results of the study also show that the definition of PPJ prior to the enactment of the PDRD Law No. 28/2009 is more restrictive or limitative when compared to the definitions contained in Law No. 28/2009. The difference in the application of PPJ tariffs is a logical consequence of the limitation of the definitions that makes tariff uniformity impossible avoided with the hope that PPJ collection can be optimized. Then to control PPJ revenue, it is necessary to have a unit or function of an institution in the region tasked with monitoring the allocation of part of the revenue for public interest expenditure so that the policy can run optimally.

Actions (login required)

View Item