The Judicial Commission (KY) proposes that wiretapping rules be confirmed in the Draft Criminal Procedure Code (RKUHAP).
The reason is, wiretapping material has not been regulated in the Criminal Procedure Code but is in several laws such as the Information and Electronic Transactions Law (UU ITE), the Corruption Crime Law (Tipikor) and several other laws.
"The wiretapping material has not been regulated within the Criminal Procedure Code, where this regulation is spread across several laws, including information laws and electronic transactions, criminal acts," said KY Chairman Amzulian Rifai in a joint working meeting with Commission III of the House of Representatives, Monday, February 10.
According to Amzulian, if referring to some of these laws, it is very possible to enforce criminal law for wiretapping carried out in the context of investigations and investigations in the enforcement of criminal law.
"For this reason, the Judicial Commission proposes that in changes to the Criminal Procedure Code, it is necessary to emphasize other provisions that are not in sync with the rules contained in the Criminal Procedure Code, especially related to regulations regarding wiretapping and forced summons outside the interests of law enforcement," said Amzulian.
"This needs to be strictly regulated so as not to cause confusion for the community in order to make regulations that are not in harmony with each other," he continued.
In addition to law enforcement interests, Amzulian continued, wiretapping also provides opportunities for its use in the interests of disciplinary enforcement and ethical violations.
For example, the Judicial Commission law regulates this matter. In fact, according to him, the Judicial Commission is not a law enforcement institution, but an institution tasked with supervising judges.
"The implementation of this provision cannot be realized. Given the inequality of the rules used as a basis, the law enforcement apparatus is adamant that wiretapping activities only aim for the benefit of law enforcement," said Amzulian.
"Meanwhile, the interests contained in the Judicial Commission Law are only used to prove allegations of violating the code of ethics or the judge's applicable guidelines," he continued.
Then also the arrangement regarding forced efforts in the Judicial Commission Law, especially for witnesses who did not attend the KY summons three times. In the new Criminal Procedure Code, explained Amzulian, Law number 1 of 2023, is regulated regarding the legal consequences borne by witnesses who are absent from the summons.
SEE ALSO:
"However, the rules contained in the Judicial Commission Law do not allow to pose a threat to witnesses. Apart from the focus being on enforcing the code of ethics of the judge's applicable guidelines, the sanctions given to judges who violate are only administrative in nature," he concluded.
The English, Chinese, Japanese, Arabic, and French versions are automatically generated by the AI. So there may still be inaccuracies in translating, please always see Indonesian as our main language. (system supported by DigitalSiber.id)
