Jawaban Mediasi Tergugat! (Junaedi Eko Widodo, Yohanes Silverius Winoto Dan Haryono)

Summary

The video discusses a legal case involving the plaintiff (penggugat) and defendant (tergugat) in which the defendant is criticized for failing to include all trial evidence and facts in the judgment. The speaker argues that this selective inclusion undermines fairness and justice, as it contradicts legal norms. Despite mediation efforts, the case could not reach a resolution, and the proceedings will continue with the defendant presenting an exception. The speaker encourages those facing similar issues of judicial transparency to seek further legal guidance.

Takeaways

• 😀 The plaintiff's legal team asserts that the tax court failed to include all expert testimony and evidence in the case files, specifically in the bundles submitted to the Supreme Court.
• 😀 The core issue revolves around the legal requirement for the tax court to include all evidence, facts, and legal considerations in its judgment, as stipulated by law.
• 😀 The defendants, consisting of the tax court judges, argue that there is no explicit law requiring them to include all evidence and facts in their decisions.
• 😀 The plaintiff contends that the defendants' selective inclusion of evidence undermines the fairness of the proceedings, asserting that evidence should not be chosen arbitrarily by the judges.
• 😀 The defendants suggest that the plaintiff should withdraw their lawsuit, claiming that the plaintiff's demands have already been met with the presentation of expert testimony and evidence.
• 😀 The plaintiff disagrees with the defendants' assertion, feeling that the incomplete inclusion of evidence continues to harm their case and is unjust.
• 😀 The plaintiff emphasizes that the lack of full consideration of evidence and expert testimony constitutes a violation of legal fairness, impacting the justice of the trial.
• 😀 The plaintiff's legal team believes that the tax court judges' failure to fully consider and include evidence may reflect a lack of legal expertise, especially in the context of complex tax cases.
• 😀 The plaintiff announces that the case will move forward with an exception hearing in the Central Jakarta District Court after mediation failed to resolve the issue.
• 😀 The plaintiff invites others who may be facing similar issues with tax court judges to consult with them, offering legal advice on how to challenge the selective omission of evidence in tax court decisions.

Q & A

What is the main argument the speaker is making about the defendant's actions in the case?

The speaker argues that the defendant, the Tax Court, is improperly selecting and omitting evidence and facts from the trial, which violates legal norms and undermines justice. The speaker emphasizes that the court is not following the legal requirement to include all evidence and facts in its ruling.

How does the speaker challenge the defendant's claim about not needing to include all evidence?

The speaker challenges the defendant's claim by questioning whether it is acceptable for the Tax Court to choose which evidence or facts to include in the decision. The speaker asserts that such an approach would be unjust and illogical, as it would allow the defendant to pick and choose evidence at will.

What legal requirement does the speaker refer to regarding the inclusion of evidence in court rulings?

The speaker refers to **Article 84, Paragraph 1, Letter F**, which mandates that a court decision must include all evidence and facts presented during the trial, along with a legal explanation and consideration of these elements.

What does the speaker believe about the understanding of the Tax Court judges regarding the law?

The speaker believes that the Tax Court judges lack a proper understanding of the law. They argue that the judges' actions reflect a poor grasp of legal principles, suggesting that they only understand the law after becoming judges and that this ignorance leads to a miscarriage of justice.

What does the speaker say about the mediation process in the case?

The speaker claims that the mediation process did not achieve its intended goals. While the plaintiff's demands seemed to be met in terms of including expert testimony, the core issue was the failure to include all relevant evidence, particularly expert testimony and other documents, which led to dissatisfaction with the mediation outcome.

Why does the defendant ask the plaintiff to withdraw their lawsuit?

The defendant asks the plaintiff to withdraw their lawsuit because they claim the plaintiff's demands have already been fulfilled, as the expert testimony and other evidence were supposedly included in the case files. However, the plaintiff disagrees, feeling that important evidence was still omitted.

What does the speaker mean by 'dangkal' (superficial) in describing the defendant's arguments?

The speaker uses the term 'dangkal' to describe the defendant's arguments as being shallow and lacking depth. They suggest that the defendant's rationale for not including all evidence is simplistic and does not adequately address the legal requirements or the plaintiff's concerns.

What is the next step in the legal proceedings after the mediation failure?

After the failure of the mediation, the next step is a court session where the defendant will present objections (eksepsi). The speaker hints at the potential for further legal action if the issue of omitting evidence continues.

How does the speaker address the possibility of other people facing similar legal issues?

The speaker encourages others who may be facing similar issues—such as judges selectively omitting or altering evidence in court cases—to reach out for further consultation and assistance. They offer legal advice on how to challenge such actions.

What does the speaker suggest about the role of judges in the Tax Court regarding the inclusion of evidence?

The speaker suggests that judges in the Tax Court are not fulfilling their legal duties by including only parts of the evidence that they choose. This practice is seen as contrary to the principles of fairness and justice, as it allows judges to manipulate the case outcome by selectively presenting evidence.