Tax Judges' Discretion in Assessing Electronic Evidence as A Legal Loophole in Upholding Justice Based on The Principle of Judicial Independence

Ari Julianto; Faisal Santiago

doi:10.59188/jurnalsostech.v6i6.32855

Authors

Ari Julianto Universitas Borobudur
Faisal Santiago Universitas Borobudur

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.59188/jurnalsostech.v6i6.32855

Keywords:

Electronic Evidence, Tax Judge Discretion, Tax Procedure Law, Legal Certainty, Strict Liability

Abstract

The development of information technology has encouraged the widespread use of electronic evidence in tax disputes, including proceedings before the Tax Court. Although the recognition of electronic evidence within the national legal system has been established through general legislation, these regulations have not been specifically designed to address the procedural requirements of tax law, which is characterized by strict liability and emphasizes legal certainty. This situation grants Tax Judges broad discretion in assessing the validity and evidentiary value of electronic evidence. On the one hand, such discretion is necessary to fill a normative gap; on the other hand, it has the potential to result in inconsistent judicial decisions and legal uncertainty. This study aims to critically analyze the existing normative framework, the judicial practice of assessing electronic evidence, and the implications of Tax Judges' discretion for protecting taxpayers' rights while safeguarding the state's fiscal interests. The research employs a normative legal research method using statutory, conceptual, and case-based approaches. The findings demonstrate that the absence of standardized criteria for assessing electronic evidence has caused judicial discretion to shift from an instrument for achieving justice into a legal loophole that threatens legal certainty. This study proposes an ideal framework for limiting judicial discretion by formulating normative parameters and judicial guidelines that balance the principle of judicial independence with the strict liability nature of tax law. This normative reconstruction is expected to strengthen the consistency of judicial decisions, ensure proportional justice, and enhance public trust in the tax adjudication system.

References

Arifin, F. (2025). Rekonseptualisasi diskresi perspektif hukum administrasi negara: Analisis kritis terhadap implementasi Undang-Undang Administrasi Pemerintahan Nasional. Audi et AP: Jurnal Penelitian Hukum, 4(1), 25–37.

Army, E. (2020). Bukti elektronik dalam praktik peradilan. Sinar Grafika.

Barus, L. B., & Alam, R. S. (2022). Strict liability in the field of taxation: Comparison between United States and United Kingdom. Criminal Law and Policy Review, 1(1), 19–22.

Dadi, A. F. P., Jiwantara, F. A., Putra, I., Lubis, A. F., & Budianto, H. (2024). Kebijakan diskresi dalam pemerintahan perspektif hukum administrasi negara. Jurnal Kolaboratif Sains, 7(10), 3807–3811.

Hakim, G. G. R. (2025). Kajian teoritis alat bukti elektronik dalam sistem hukum pembuktian di Indonesia. Causa: Jurnal Hukum dan Kewarganegaraan, 16(2).

Hambali, A. R. (2021). Kemerdekaan hakim dan kemandirian kekuasaan kehakiman dalam konsep negara hukum. Kalabbirang Law Journal, 3(1), 47–57.

Hasanah, N., Anggraeni, R. F. D., Pahala, I., & Wahono, P. (2025). Analisis sengketa pajak di Indonesia: Perspektif konsultan dan fiskus. JIIP: Jurnal Ilmiah Ilmu Pendidikan, 8(2), 1342–1349.

Irawan, A. D. (2024). Kedudukan hukum Surat Edaran Mahkamah Agung Nomor 2 Tahun 2023 terhadap prinsip kebebasan hakim dalam memutus perkara. Media of Law and Sharia, 5(3), 247–263.

Kaeng, B. (2022). Kebebasan dan pedoman hakim dalam penerapan putusan pengadilan. Lex Administratum, 10(2).

Karyadi, I. P. D., & Saraswati, P. S. (2022). Peranan diskresi hakim dalam kewenangan mengadili. Jurnal Hukum Mahasiswa, 2(1), 123–128.

Lubis, F., & Purba, S. R. (2024). Analisis kritik pembuktian elektronik dalam hukum acara perdata: Tantangan dan prospek di era digital. Judge: Jurnal Hukum, 5(2), 39–47.

Mufidah, I. F., & Hasanah, A. (2023). Kupas tuntas peran digitalisasi perpajakan. JIMEK: Jurnal Ilmiah Mahasiswa Ekonomi, 6(1), 89–97.

Mustamu, J. (2025). Implementasi penyalahgunaan diskresi yang melahirkan tanggung jawab pidana. Bureaucracy Journal: Indonesia Journal of Law and Social-Political Governance, 5(1), 946–973.

Purnamasari, E. D. A., Mboeik, P. M. R., Setiawan, A. L., Stefany, K., Manuputty, S. A. A., Indriani, N. A., Sahasika, A. E., & Kuncoro, B. S. (2025). Digital tax system: Peluang, tantangan, dan implementasi di Indonesia. SIEGA Publisher.

Rayfindratama, A. D. (2023). Kebebasan hakim dalam menjatuhkan putusan di pengadilan. Birokrasi: Jurnal Ilmu Hukum dan Tata Negara, 1(2), 1–17.

Sasanti, D. N., & Indah, H. T. K. (2022). Problematika penyelesaian sengketa di Pengadilan Pajak dalam rangka perwujudan peradilan sederhana, cepat, dan biaya ringan: The problem of disputes settlement at the tax court in realizing a simple, fast, and low cost judiciary context. Reformasi Hukum, 26(1), 21–38.

Sinaga, H. D. P. (2023). Kepastian hukum di bidang perpajakan yang berbasis cita hukum Pancasila. Journal of Tax Law and Policy, 2(2), 59–74.

Supriyadi, M. W. (2024). Administrasi sengketa pajak dan persidangan secara elektronik (E-Tax Court): Suatu tinjauan pustaka. Jurnal Pajak Indonesia (Indonesian Tax Review), 8(1), 127–144.

Susanto, S. N. (2021). Penerapan asas-asas umum pemerintahan yang baik dalam praktik peradilan di Indonesia. Administrative Law and Governance Journal, 4(3), 459–470.

Sutrsino, A. (2025). Peran hakim dalam mewujudkan due process of law pada sistem peradilan tata usaha negara di Indonesia. Locus: Jurnal Konsep Ilmu Hukum, 5(1), 17–28.

Tanudjaja, T. (2024). Tanggung jawab pidana pada korporasi dalam tindak pidana perpajakan. Jurnal Hukum Indonesia, 3(3), 96–106.

Wala, G. N., & Tesalonika, R. (2024). Transformasi administrasi perpajakan melalui Coretax: Analisis hukum dan akuntansi. Jurnal Komunikasi dan Ilmu Sosial, 2(4), 149–158.