Menakar Independensi Hakim Pengadilan Pajak Pasca Putusan MK Nomor 10/PUU-XVIII/2020

Ananthia Ayu Devitasari

Abstract


Abstrak

Independensi peradilan adalah fondasi utama terwujudnya keadilan dan kepastian hukum. Terkait diskursus independensi kekuasaan kehakiman tersebut, Mahkamah Konstitusi memutus Perkara Nomor 10/PUU-XVIII/2020 yang menguji pasal Pasal 5 ayat (2) dan Pasal 8 ayat (2) Undang-Undang Nomor 14 Tahun 2002 tentang Pengadilan Pajak. Para Pemohon menguji kewenangan pembinaan organisasi, administrasi, dan keuangan bagi Pengadilan Pajak dilakukan oleh Departemen Keuangan, kewenangan Menteri Keuangan untuk mengusulkan ketua dan wakil Ketua Pengadilan Pajak, serta ketiadaan batasan periodesasi jabatan ketua dan wakil ketua. Lebih lanjut, Mahkamah dalam amar putusan a quo menyatakan bahwa ““Ketua dan Wakil Ketua diangkat oleh Presiden yang dipilih dari dan oleh para Hakim yang selanjutnya diusulkan melalui Menteri dengan persetujuan Ketua Mahkamah Agung untuk 1 (satu) kali masa jabatan selama 5 (lima) tahun”. Berangkat dari latar belakang tersebut, kajian ini berusaha menganalisa independensi hakim pengadilan pajak pasca Putusan MK Nomor 10/PUU-XVIII/2020 dengan pendekatan teori independensi peradilan. Kajian ini menunjukkan Putusan Mahkamah tidak hanya mendukung independensi hakim badan peradilan pajak tetapi juga menarik garis demarkasi antara kekuasaan kehakiman dengan kekuasaan eksekutif.

Abstract

Judicial independence is the main foundation for the of justice and legal certainty. Regarding the discourse on the independence of judicial power, the Constitutional Court decided on Case Number 10 / PUU-XVIII / 2020 which examined Article 5 paragraph (2) and Article 8 paragraph (2) of Law Number 14 of 2002 concerning the Tax Court. The Petitioners challenged the authority of Ministry of Finance to develop the organization, administration and finance for the Tax Court, the authority of the Minister of Finance to propose the chairperson and deputy chairman of the Tax Court. Furthermore, the Court in its ruling states that "the Chairperson and Deputy Chairperson are appointed by the President who is elected from and by the Judges who are subsequently proposed through the Minister with the approval of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court for 1 (one) term of office for 5 (five) years". This study examined the independence of the tax court judges after the Constitutional Court Decision Number 10 / PUU-XVIII / 2020 with independent judicial theory approach. This study showed that the Court's decision not only supports the independence of the tax court judges but also draws a demarcation line between judicial power and executive power.

 


Keywords


Independensi Peradilan; Pengadilan Pajak; Kekuasaan Kehakiman.

Full Text:

PDF

References


DAFTAR PUSTAKA

Buku

Bell, John, 2006, Judiciaries Within Europe: a Comparative Review. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Graver, Hans Petter, 2015, Judges Against Justice On Judges When the Rule of Law is Under Attack, London: Springer.

Manan, Bagir, 2007, Kekuasaan Kehakiman Indonesia, dalam UU No. 4 Tahun 2004, Yogyakarta: FH UII.

Neudorf, Lorne, 2017, The Dynamics of Judicial Independence A Comparative Study of Courts in Malaysia and Pakistan, London: Springer International Publishing.

Saidi, Muhammad Djafar, 2007, Perlindungan Hukum Wajib Pajak Dalam Penyelesaian Sengketa, Jakarta: Rajagrafindo Persada, 2007.

Shetreet, Shimon (ed.), 2004, The Culture of Judicial Independence, Leiden: Brill-Nijhof.

Shetreet, Shimon, dan Christopher Forsyth (eds.), 2012, The Culture of Judicial Independence, Conceptual Foundations and Practical Challenges, Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.

Shetreet, Simon dan Deschenes (eds.), 1985, Judicial Independence: The Contemporary Debate, Boston: Martinus Nijhoff.

Seibert-Fohr, Anja (ed.), 2012, Judicial Independence in Transition, New York: Springer Heidelberg.

Subki, Muhammad Sukri, dan Djumadi, 2007, Menyelesaikan Sengketa Melalui Pengadilan Pajak. Jakarta: Rajagrafindo Persada.

Jurnal/Majalah/Laporan

Ananian-Welsh, Rebecca dan George Williams, 2014, Judicial Independence From The Executive: A First-Principles Review of The Australian Cases, Monash University Law Review Volume 40, Nomor 3.

Neudorf, Lorne, 2015, Judicial Independence: The Judge As A Third Party To The Dispute, Oxford University Comparative Law Forum 2.

Neudorf, Lorne, 2012, The Supreme Court and The New Judicial Independence. Cambridge Journal International Comparative Law Volume 1 Issue 2.

Sitorus, Binsar, 2013 Independensi Hakim Dalam Sistem Peradilan Pajak di Indonesia, Yuridika: Volume 28 No 1, Januari-April.

Internet

Bangalore Principles https://www.unodc.org/pdf/crime/corruption/judicial_group/Bangalore_principles.pdf

Putusan Pengadilan

Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 10/PUU-XVIII/2020, tanggal 18 Agustus 2020.

Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 6/PUU-XIV/2016, tanggal 4 Agustus 2016

Regulasi

Undang-Undang Dasar 1945

Undang-undang Nomor14 Tahun 2002 tentang Pengadilan Pajak

Undang-Undang Nomor 48 Tahun 2009 tentang Kekuasaan Kehakiman

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights

United Nations (1985) Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary

Beijing Statement of Principles of the Independence of the Judiciary

Bangalore Principles, UN Doc E/RES/2006/23, cl 3.2.

Canadian Judicial Council (2004) Ethical Principles for Judges

Peraturan Mahkamah Agung Nomor 7 Tahun 2015 Tentang Organisasi dan Tata Kerja Kepaniteraan dan Kesekretariatan Peradilan




DOI: https://doi.org/10.31078/jk1748

Article Metrics

Abstract view : 118 times
PDF view : 52 times

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.