← All published articles · Journal site
Yulius Wahyu Setiadi,SE.MM; Ludwina Harahap
Journal of Law, Public Policy and Public Finance (2026)
Special autonomy is commonly assumed to displace general legislation within its field. This article shows that the assumption fails for taxation in the clearest Indonesian case and explains why. Law No. 11 of 2006 on the Governing of Aceh confers extensive autonomy, an enhanced share of natural resource revenue, and a special autonomy fund. It does not confer autonomy over the tax base. Article 180(2) provides that the management of Aceh's own-source revenue from taxes and levies is carried out in accordance with legislation, and Article 7(2) reserves national fiscal affairs to the central government. When Law No. 1 of 2022 reassigned two thirds of provincial vehicle taxation to regencies and cities, Aceh was therefore subject to the reassignment on the same terms as every other province, and its special autonomy supplied no carve-out. The article argues that the point of resistance, if there is one, lies not in the fiscal articles but in two procedural provisions: Article 8(2), requiring consultation with the Aceh legislature on bills relating directly to the governing of Aceh, and Article 269(3), requiring the same before amendment of the autonomy statute itself. It compares this with the Constitutional Court's treatment of Papuan special autonomy, where a general-legislation reference was read down in favour of a special instrument, and asks why the two cases differ.