Article Per Year (5 Year)
p-Index From 2021 - 2026
0.408
P-Index
This Author published in this journals
All Journal Media Hukum Indonesia (MHI) Kertha Semaya : Journal Ilmu Hukum
Shahrazad Elmaniz
Fakultas Hukum Universitas Tarumanagara
Law, Crime, Criminology & Criminal Justice

Published : 2 Documents Claim Missing Document
Claim Missing Document
Check
Articles

Found 2 Documents
Search

 1 
Evaluation of the Implementation of the Principle of Justice in Tax Collection on Individual Taxpayers Shahrazad Elmaniz
Media Hukum Indonesia (MHI) Vol 4, No 2 (2026): June
Publisher : Penerbit Yayasan Daarul Huda Kruengmane

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.19589147

Abstract

This study focuses on evaluating the application of the principle of fairness in the tax collection system for individual taxpayers in Indonesia. As a fundamental foundation, the principle of fairness demands a proportional distribution of the tax burden based on economic capacity or ability to pay. By adopting a normative legal methodology through regulatory and conceptual approaches, this study qualitatively analyzes secondary data. Research findings indicate that normative manifestations of fairness have been integrated through the progressive Income Tax (PPh) tariff scheme and the Non-Taxable Income (PTKP) instrument, which represents the dimensions of vertical and horizontal fairness. However, the effectiveness of its implementation in the field is still hampered by regulatory complexity, minimal taxpayer compliance, and the phenomena of tax avoidance and evasion. Furthermore, weaknesses in the self-assessment system, which relies on taxpayer integrity, require regulatory simplification, strengthened oversight, and greater transparency to create a sustainable tax ecosystem.
KEPASTIAN HUKUM ATAS PENERAPAN EKSEPSI PLURIUM LITIS CONSORTIUM DALAM PENJATUHAN PUTUSAN NIET ONTVANKELIJKE VERKLAARD Shahrazad Elmaniz; Amad Sudiro
Kertha Semaya: Journal Ilmu Hukum Vol. 14 No. 11 (2026)
Publisher : Fakultas Hukum Universitas Udayana

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.24843/KS.2026.v14.i11.p09

Abstract

Penelitian ini menganalisis penerapan eksepsi plurium litis consortium sebagai dasar putusan niet ontvankelijke verklaard dan pertimbangan Mahkamah Agung dalam memperbaiki susunan amar pada Putusan Nomor 867 K/Pdt/2025. Penelitian hukum normatif ini menggunakan pendekatan kasus, konseptual, dan perundang-undangan; bahan hukum dikumpulkan melalui studi dokumen dan di analisis secara kualitatif. Hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwa Puang Mama atau ahli warisnya dinilai perlu diikutsertakan untuk menjelaskan hubungan hukum dan rangkaian penguasaan tanah yang menjadi dasar tuntutan. Analisis juga menemukan bahwa putusan N. O. merupakan putusan prosedural yang tidak menentukan benar atau tidaknya hak materiil yang disengketakan. Ketentuan bahwa eksepsi selain kompetensi diputus bersama pokok perkara tidak berarti hakim wajib menilai substansi tuntutan setelah eksepsi formil dikabulkan. Karena itu, penempatan pernyataan gugatan tidak dapat diterima pada bagian dalam Pokok Perkara putusan kasasi tersebut bukan semata persoalan tataletak, melainkan teknik untuk menegaskan akibat prosedural terhadap gugatan utama; namun, penempatan itu tidak dapat diperlakukan sebagai kaidah universal yang mewajibkan satu format amar untuk semua perkara. This study examines the application of the plurium litis consortium exception as a basis for declaring aclaim inadmissible (niet ontvankelijke verklaard) and the Supreme Court’s correction of the operative order in Decision No. 867 K/Pdt/2025. This normative legal study applies case, conceptual, and statutory approaches; legal materials were collected through document study and analyzed qualitatively. The findings indicate that Puang Mama or the heirs were considered necessary parties to clarify the legal relationship and chain of possession underlying the claim. The analysis also finds that an N. O. decision is procedural and does not determine the substantive ownership dispute. The rule that non-jurisdictional exceptions are decided together with the principal claim does not require a court to examine the merits after a formal exception is upheld. Accordingly, placing the declaration of inadmissibility under the “On the Merits” heading in the Supreme Court’s order is not merely a matter of layout; it clarifies the procedural consequence for the principal claim. However, this arrangement should not be treated as a universal rule requiring the same operative-order structure in every case.
Co-Authors Amad Sudiro