๐๐ซ๐๐๐๐๐๐ง๐ญ๐ฌ ๐ข๐ง ๐๐ซ๐๐๐ญ๐ข๐๐: ๐๐ฎ๐ซ๐ข๐ฌ๐ฉ๐ซ๐ฎ๐๐๐ง๐๐ ๐ข๐ง ๐ญ๐ก๐ ๐๐ง๐๐จ๐ง๐๐ฌ๐ข๐๐ง ๐๐๐ฑ ๐๐จ๐ฎ๐ซ๐ญ
- November 13, 2024
- Posted by: Administrator
- Category: Tax News

As we know, jurisprudence generally refers to previous judicial decisions that are frequently followed and used as a basis for subsequent rulings on similar issues. These decisions often carry permanent legal force and may be validated by the Supreme Court.
Indonesia follows the Civil Law system, or Continental European law, which it inherited from the Dutch colonial government. This system designates legislation as the primary source of law, requiring all court arguments to be based on current law (positive law) rather than on legal texts or jurisprudence.
Jurisprudence in the Context of Tax Court Evidence.
Formally, jurisprudence is not regarded as evidence in the tax court. Article 69 of Law No. 14 of 2002 on Tax Courts defines the acceptable forms of evidence as: (a) documents or writings, (b) expert testimony, (c) witness testimony, (d) confessions by the parties, and/or (e) the judgeโs knowledge.
According to Article 76 of the Tax Court Law, judges have the authority to determine what must be proven, the burden of proof, and the evaluation of evidence, with a minimum of two pieces of evidence required for validation. Consequently, tax court judges are not obligated to use jurisprudence as the basis for their rulings. Judges may choose to apply jurisprudence but are not compelled to do so. In practice, applying jurisprudence in tax courts is challenging, as tax disputes are adjudicated on a case-by-case basis. Typically, jurisprudence is only relevant if a case is identical and is presided over by the same panel of judges who ruled on the previous case.
Should Jurisprudence Be Presented in Tax Court Arguments?
Based on Article 69, the Tax Court applies the principle of free evaluation of evidence. Article 76 gives judges the discretion to determine what must be proven and to assess the burden and quality of proof, with one form of evidence being the judgeโs knowledge. Article 75 further clarifies that the judge’s knowledge comprises information they have personally verified and believe to be true.
Although jurisprudence is not formally included as evidence, it remains a critical tool for persuading judges. However, any jurisprudence presented should meet specific criteria: the decision must carry permanent legal force, it must have been repeatedly used as a reference in similar cases, it should fulfill the publicโs sense of justice, and it must have been validated by the Supreme Court of Indonesia.
While jurisprudence is not a formal requirement in the Indonesian tax court, it can be a compelling means of strengthening a legal argument if it aligns with the aforementioned criteria. This approach highlights the potential of jurisprudence as a persuasive element, even within a system that primarily prioritizes positive law.