On October 15, 2026, the Constitutional Court (MK) rejected the entire petition for a judicial review of Article 44E paragraph (2) letter e of the Law on General Provisions and Tax Procedures (UU KUP) through Ruling No. 341/PUU-XXIV/2026. The case concerned the delegation of authority to the minister of finance to regulate the exercise of rights and fulfillment of tax obligations by taxpayer representatives, as well as the qualifications required of such representatives.
Although the Court rejected the petition, it reaffirmed that the authority delegated to the minister of finance is limited to technical and administrative matters. That authority cannot be used to restrict or expand citizens’ constitutional rights beyond the limits established by law.
Taxpayer Representation Provisions
Article 32 paragraph (1) of the UU KUP stipulates that corporate taxpayers are represented by their management, while individual taxpayers may be represented by parties specified under the relevant provisions. Article 32 paragraph (3) further grants taxpayers the right to appoint a representative through a special power of attorney to exercise their rights and fulfill their tax obligations in accordance with applicable laws and regulations.
Article 32 paragraph (3a) of the UU KUP requires representatives to possess certain tax-related competencies, except when the representative is a blood relative or relative by marriage up to the second degree. Further provisions governing the exercise of representation and the required competencies are delegated to the minister of finance under Article 44E paragraph (2) letter e of the UU KUP.
Pursuant to this delegation, the government issued Minister of Finance Regulation No. 44 of 2026 concerning Requirements for Becoming a Representative in Tax Matters and Procedures for Exercising Rights and Fulfilling Obligations by Tax Representatives (PMK 44/2026). The regulation governs the parties eligible for appointment as representatives, competency requirements, procedures for exercising representation, and transitional provisions. It also revokes Minister of Finance Regulation No. 229/PMK.03/2014.
The legal issue arises when competency requirements extend beyond procedures for proving or verifying qualifications and begin to determine whether a person is eligible to be appointed as a representative. It is therefore necessary to distinguish between administrative rules governing the exercise of rights and substantive rules determining whether those rights exist.
The 2017 Constitutional Court Ruling
Before examining Constitutional Court Ruling No. 341/PUU-XXIV/2026, it is necessary to refer to Constitutional Court Ruling No. 63/PUU-XV/2017, pronounced on April 26, 2018. In that ruling, the Court partially granted a petition challenging provisions governing the exercise of rights and fulfillment of obligations by taxpayer representatives.
The Court ruled that the phrase “exercise of the rights and obligations of a representative” in Article 32 paragraph (3a) of the UU KUP was contrary to the 1945 Constitution and had no binding legal force unless interpreted as referring exclusively to technical and administrative matters, rather than restricting and/or expanding citizens’ rights and obligations.
The ruling established that the Minister of Finance’s authority to regulate representation is not unlimited. Technical and administrative rules are necessary to ensure the orderly exercise of tax rights and obligations, but they must not alter the scope of rights and obligations established by law.
As implementing regulations, ministerial regulations must remain within the limits of the authority granted by applicable laws and regulations. The delegation of regulatory authority does not, in itself, empower a minister to establish substantive rules that exceed those limits.
The Substance of the Petition
In Case No. 341/PUU-XXIV/2026, the petitioner challenged the phrase “regulated by or pursuant to a minister of finance regulation” at the end of Article 44E paragraph (2) of the UU KUP, particularly in relation to the competency requirements imposed on representatives under Article 32 paragraph (3a).
The petitioner requested that the delegated authority be interpreted as limited to administrative procedures, such as recording, proof, examination, and verification of competencies whose elements and boundaries have been adequately established by law. According to the petitioner, the delegation should not empower the minister of finance to independently establish competency criteria or additional legal consequences that determine a person’s eligibility to be appointed as a representative.
The issue relates to the implementation of PMK 44/2026, including the requirement for a certificate of registration (surat keterangan terdaftar/SKT) for other parties, the consequences of suspending or revoking an SKT for a person’s eligibility to be appointed as a representative, and transitional provisions for individuals using brevet certificates or certain diplomas as proof of competency.
Accordingly, the case does not merely concern whether taxpayer representatives should be required to possess certain competencies. The central issue is the extent to which a ministerial regulation may establish requirements and legal consequences that affect a person’s eligibility to act as a tax representative.
Limits on Delegated Authority
In Ruling No. 341/PUU-XXIV/2026, the Constitutional Court stated that it had no compelling and fundamental reason to depart from its position in Ruling No. 63/PUU-XV/2017. Consequently, the legal reasoning in the earlier ruling was applied mutatis mutandis to the present case.
The Court reaffirmed that the delegation of authority from a statute to a ministerial regulation is permissible as long as it concerns technical and administrative matters. Such delegation does not authorize a ministerial regulation to address matters beyond its scope of authority under the hierarchy of laws and regulations.
The Court also emphasized that implementing regulations on the competencies of tax representatives must not add to or remove citizens’ constitutional rights. Such regulations must not prejudice the rights of taxpayers or parties who meet the statutory requirements for appointment as representatives, provided that the exercise of those rights does not obstruct or diminish the state’s authority to collect taxes.
However, the operative part of the ruling must be read in its entirety. The Court rejected the petitioner’s entire application and therefore did not grant the request for a conditional interpretation set out in the petition’s prayer for relief. This rejection does not automatically validate every requirement imposed by ministerial regulations without limitation. The principle that delegated authority is confined to technical and administrative matters remains a benchmark for assessing the scope of that authority.
Implications for Competency Requirements
Based on the Court’s reasoning, regulations governing the competencies of tax representatives should be assessed by distinguishing administrative rules from substantive rules. Administrative rules govern procedures for proving, recording, examining, and verifying competencies. Substantive rules, meanwhile, determine the competencies that must be possessed, the parties eligible for appointment as representatives, and the legal consequences of failing to meet the requirements.
Administrative rules are, in principle, necessary to implement statutory provisions. Procedures for submitting competency documents, verification processes, and administrative mechanisms for appointing representatives may be established through implementing regulations. However, when administrative requirements determine whether a person is eligible to exercise a right granted by law, the legal basis for the delegation and its consistency with the limits of regulatory authority must be examined further.
In the context of PMK 44/2026, provisions concerning SKTs should be assessed based on their administrative function and legal consequences. If obtaining, suspending, or revoking an SKT determines whether a person may be appointed as a representative, it is necessary to ensure that these consequences have an adequate legal basis and comply with the principles reaffirmed by the Constitutional Court.
This does not mean that every competency requirement or obligation to hold an SKT is unconstitutional. The assessment must take into account the wording of the provisions, the legal basis for the authority, the regulatory objectives, and the impact on the rights of taxpayers and appointed representatives. Technical and administrative authority must not be used to create substantive restrictions that exceed the scope of the statutory delegation.
Conclusion
Constitutional Court Ruling No. 341/PUU-XXIV/2026 upholds the principle established in Constitutional Court Ruling No. 63/PUU-XV/2017 concerning the limits of the minister of finance’s authority to regulate taxpayer representation. The rejection of the petition does not negate the Court’s reaffirmation that implementing regulations may govern only technical and administrative matters and must not restrict or expand citizens’ rights and obligations beyond the authority granted by law.
Regulations on tax representation must strike a balance between ensuring that taxpayer representatives possess the necessary competencies and protecting taxpayers’ right to appoint representatives in accordance with applicable law. Competency requirements are necessary to support tax administration, but they must remain within the limits of a lawful delegation of authority.
Constitutional Court Ruling No. 341/PUU-XXIV/2026 does not eliminate the minister of finance’s authority to regulate tax representation; rather, it reaffirms the limits on the exercise of that authority. Any provision affecting a person’s eligibility to be appointed as a representative must be assessed based on its legal basis, substantive content, and legal consequences for taxpayers’ rights.
Legal References
- Law No. 6 of 1983 on General Provisions and Tax Procedures, as amended several times.
- Law No. 7 of 2021 on the Harmonization of Tax Regulations (UU HPP).
- Law No. 6 of 2023 on the Stipulation of Government Regulation in Lieu of Law No. 2 of 2022 on Job Creation into Law.
- Minister of Finance Regulation No. 229/PMK.03/2014 concerning the Requirements and Exercise of the Rights and Obligations of a Representative.
- Minister of Finance Regulation No. 44 of 2026 concerning Requirements for Becoming a Representative in Tax Matters and Procedures for Exercising Rights and Fulfilling Obligations by Tax Representatives.
- Constitutional Court Ruling No. 341/PUU-XXIV/2026 concerning the Judicial Review of Law No. 6 of 1983 on General Provisions and Tax Procedures against the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia.
Also Read:
Understanding SP2DK: Purpose, Process, and How to Respond
Tax Brief PMK 55/2026: New Rules for Tax Consultants and Taxpayer Legal Representatives
Tax Brief: PMK No. 44/2026: New Standards for Taxpayers' Legal Representatives
Editor: Thomas Rizal