<![CDATA[Economic pressure that falls short of an emergency places the government in a difficult fiscal position, because state revenue must be strengthened at the very moment when citizens face rising economic burdens. This article examines the legal limits of fiscal discretion when taxation is used as an instrument of fiscal recovery under non-emergency economic pressure. It also constructs a tax proportionality test as a structured and weighted accountability framework for determining whether tax policy remains legally justifiable or instead becomes a mechanism for shifting fiscal burdens excessively onto citizens. The study applies normative legal research using statutory, conceptual, and policy approaches. It finds that tax policy in a non-emergency situation cannot be justified by formal statutory authority under Article 23A of the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia alone. Article 23A supplies a legality threshold; the substantive assessment of tax burdens must also be connected to the constitutional guarantees of legal certainty, protection of property rights, and social welfare. The proposed framework comprises seven elements: legality, legitimate public purpose, suitability of the instrument, necessity, balance of burden, transparency and auditability, and periodic evaluation. These elements do not operate as a strict cumulative invalidation test. Legality functions as the initial threshold. Legitimate purpose, suitability, necessity, and balance of burden operate as core justification elements, whereas transparency, auditability, and periodic evaluation operate as accountability indicators. Applying the framework to the 12 percent Value Added Tax (VAT) policy shows that legality and fiscal purpose are only the starting points of justification. The critical issues lie in proving necessity, protecting purchasing power, balancing burdens, disclosing the use of revenue, and evaluating the effects of the policy on vulnerable groups.]]>
