By: Bara Winatha*)
The Asset Confiscation Bill is one of the legal instruments currently being discussed in the reform of the criminal justice system in Indonesia. This bill is touted as an important step in strengthening the eradication of corruption and other economic crimes. However, the urgency of ratifying this bill must be accompanied by careful discussion so as not to create new loopholes in the abuse of authority.
A criminal law expert from the Islamic University of Indonesia (UII), Mudzakkir, said that the main substance in the discussion of this bill should not be on accelerating ratification, but on arranging legal norms that will be the foundation for its implementation. He assessed that the preparation of asset confiscation regulations requires precision in order to avoid potential deviations, especially if the authority to confiscate and seize assets is given without clear limitations.
In the circulating draft bill, there is a provision that assets that do not originate from criminal acts can also be confiscated. Mudzakkir considered that this was very problematic because it could violate the principles of legality and legal certainty. He emphasized the importance of strictly limiting the authority of the authorities so that there would be no arbitrary confiscation practices, where a person’s assets could be taken by the state without a legitimate criminal basis. He gave an example, the word “confiscation” in the context of criminal law means that the assets are taken over by the state through a court mechanism.
The Expert Council of the Center for Economic Crime Studies also highlighted the importance of a conceptual separation between confiscation and asset seizure. He emphasized that confiscation is a temporary measure based on a court decision and can lead to the return or confiscation of assets, while confiscation means that the assets are immediately taken by the state and removed from the owner’s ownership rights. This clarity is important so that there are no errors in law enforcement practices that could result in violations of civil rights.
Meanwhile, the government has shown its commitment to pushing for strategic discussion of this bill. Minister of Law, Supratman Andi Agtas, said that President Prabowo Subianto had discussed the Asset Confiscation Bill with the general chairmen of political parties as a form of support for the ratification of the regulation. According to him, the President considers this bill as an important part of the reform of the national legal system, especially in eradicating corruption and increasingly complex economic crimes.
The preparation of this bill not only requires a strong legal basis, but also solid political support so that the legislative process can run smoothly. The Director General of Legislation and other ranks of the Ministry of Law continue to communicate with the DPR and DPD Legislative Bodies in order to re-draft the National Legislation Program (Prolegnas) so that this bill can be included in the priority discussion.
Furthermore, Supratman said that although the Asset Confiscation Bill has not been included in the 2025 Priority Prolegnas, this does not reduce the government’s seriousness in fighting for it. He said that the most important thing is that the law can be formulated comprehensively and legally valid. Clarity of norms and alignment with criminal procedure law are key so that its implementation does not cause polemics or even give birth to new injustices.
On the other hand, Member of Commission III of the Indonesian House of Representatives, Nasir Djamil, said that although the Asset Confiscation Bill has not been included in the annual priority, the mechanism in the DPR allows it to be re-inserted into the priority list if there is agreement between the factions and a decision in a plenary meeting. He emphasized that this bill is not ignored, but needs to be integrated with the revision of Law Number 8 of 1981 concerning Criminal Procedure Code (KUHAP) which is currently being discussed by the DPR.
The Criminal Procedure Code is the main basis for law enforcement, so that updates to the Criminal Procedure Code will provide procedural clarity for the implementation of the Asset Confiscation Bill. Alignment between the Criminal Procedure Code and this bill needs to be done to avoid things that can disrupt legal stability and justice. Discussion of this bill will also be accompanied by increasing the integrity and professionalism of law enforcement officers, from investigators, prosecutors, to judges.
Nasir also highlighted the public’s fear of the current legal system. He said that many residents are reluctant to be involved as witnesses in legal cases, even in traffic accidents, because they are worried about how the authorities will treat them. According to him, this is a reflection that public trust in the legal system is still not solid and will continue to be improved comprehensively.
Although in principle the Asset Confiscation Bill is needed to close legal loopholes in eradicating economic crimes, it must be designed with great care. A hasty discussion, without careful norm arrangement, will actually makenew risks in the form of abuse of authority by the authorities. Therefore, from both the academic, executive, and legislative sides, the discussion of this regulation must focus on protecting citizens’ human rights, alignment with the national legal system, and strengthening institutional integrity.
Thus, the discussion of the Asset Confiscation Bill is not only part of legal reform, but also a benchmark for whether Indonesia truly makes the law a protector of justice for all its people. A careful legal strategy, based on clear norms, and implemented by officers with integrity will be the main bulwark to prevent abuse of authority in the future.
*) The author is a Social and Community Observer
