DPR Warns of Risk of Violation of Constitutional Rights in the Asset Confiscation Bill

Member of Commission III of the Indonesian House of Representatives, Soedeson Tandra, launched a harsh criticism of the Draft Law on Asset Confiscation which is currently in the public spotlight. He assessed that there was a potential for a clash of fundamental legal philosophy, especially regarding the shift of the focus of the law from the subject (person) to the object (goods).

Tandra is concerned that the mechanism of asset confiscation without a criminal court ruling or non-conviction based (NCB) which emphasizes the principle of in rem can damage the legal character of Indonesia.

Tandra explained that the civil law legal system adopted by Indonesia so far is in personam or focuses on the actions of the subject of law.

"This is a problem that has been on my mind since the beginning because the confiscation of assets focuses on in rem, on goods. In fact, our character is civil law, 'whoever', in personam," said Tandra, quoted from ANTARA, Thursday, April 9, 2026.

According to him, imposing a confiscation mechanism without a criminal process risks colliding with the constitution, especially Article 28 of the 1945 Constitution which guarantees the right to protect the property of citizens.

Furthermore, this politician reminded that Article 6 of the Basic Law on the Judiciary confirms that a person should not be declared guilty without a valid judge's decision. He assessed that the term "seized" without legal process is a mistake in legalistic procedure.

"Sita dulu, setelah putusan baru rampas. Kata 'rampas' ini saja tanpa proses hukum bagi saya sudah salah. Hukum ini adalah proses, tidak bisa tiba-tiba karena harta berlebihan langsung diambil. Itu berbahaya sekali," tegasnya.

Tandra also highlighted the complexity of the transfer of property rights in Indonesia which involves administrative or levering processes. If this bill ignores these stages, he is worried that the state will take premature legal action.

In addition, he urged that the Asset Confiscation Bill still include clear limits on state losses. For him, if the limit is removed and only uses the term fraud, then law enforcement is feared to target ASN massively and uncontrollably.

"The state's loss provides a limit, provides something concrete against illegal actions," he concluded.