JAKARTA - The wave of corruption cases that continues to occur in Indonesia increasingly shows the weakness of the law enforcement system in dealing with rasuah practices. The public was again furious with various corruption scandals worth trillions of rupiah, such as the alleged mega-corruption case of PT Pertamina which is estimated to be detrimental to the state until 2023 amounting to Rp193.7 trillion.
If the pattern of corruption lasts during 2018-2023, the potential loss to the state could reach Rp968.5 trillion, almost 1 quadrillion. This case adds to the series of other major scandals, ranging from BLBI, Jiwasraya, ASABRI, to PT Timah.
In the midst of a crisis of trust in eradicating corruption, there is one legal instrument that is considered to be a powerful solution, namely the Asset Confiscation Bill (RUU). Unfortunately, until now the discussion is still adrift in the DPR.
Legal and Development Observer Hardjuno Wiwoho considers that the slow ratification of the Asset Confiscation Bill shows the country's inequality in fighting corruption seriously.
"I think the ratification of the Asset Confiscation Bill is a fixed price law. It should not be postponed any longer," said Hardjuno, in Jakarta, Thursday, March 6.
According to him, confiscation of assets is one of the most effective ways to provide a deterrent effect to corruptors.
"If you only rely on prison sentences, it will not be enough. We have seen many cases, corruptors who are found guilty can still live comfortably after being released from detention because their assets are not touched. Therefore, confiscation of assets must be the main weapon in eradicating corruption," he said.
This Airlangga University (Unair) doctoral candidate explained that the strategy to eradicate corruption must run in three main aspects, namely prevention, prosecution, and asset recovery. So far, aspects of asset recovery have often been neglected due to complicated legal mechanisms.
The asset recovery process as a result of corruption still relies on conventional mechanisms based on criminal decisions. This means that law enforcers can only confiscate assets after a court decision has permanent legal force (inkracht). The problem is, this process can take years, providing gaps for corruptors to eliminate or disguise their assets," he explained.
Hardjuno added that the Asset Confiscation Bill brought an important breakthrough by introducing a non-conviction based asset forfeiture mechanism, which allows the confiscation of assets without the need to wait for a criminal decision. This model has been implemented in various countries, such as the United States with Civil Assets Forfeiture and the UK through the Proceeds of Crime Act.
This RU will allow the state to confiscate corrupt assets since the investigation, as long as there is sufficient evidence that the wealth comes from a criminal act. In addition, there is also the concept of illiteracy investment, where officials whose assets have increased unnaturally can be directly examined and their assets confiscated if they cannot prove their valid origins," said Hardjuno.
Although it has long been discussed, the discussion of the Asset Confiscation Bill continues to be deadlocked. The government has proposed this draft rule since 2003 as an initiative of the Financial Transaction Reports and Analysis Center (PPATK). However, until now, the bill has not yet entered the discussion stage in the DPR seriously.
The stagnation of the Asset Confiscation Bill is not without reason. There are strong indications that the interests of the political elite are playing. How is it possible that the rules that can impoverish corruptors will be easily ratified, while many elites may be affected? " said Hardjuno.
He also underlined the fact that so far there have been many corruption cases closely related to natural resources, such as the PT Timah case and other mining governance scandals. In fact, the 1945 Constitution Article 33 Paragraph (3) has emphasized that natural resources must be used as much as possible for the prosperity of the people, not become land for the corruptors.
"Corruption in the natural resource sector is ironic. The state wealth that should be used for the benefit of the people is even controlled by a handful of people. If the Asset Confiscation Bill is passed, this could be a strategic step to restore the looted state assets," he explained.
Hardjuno emphasized that the effective eradication of corruption is not enough just to ratify the Asset Confiscation Bill. There are two main conditions so that this rule really runs, namely a strong political commitment and the independence of the legal apparatus.
This Asset Confiscation Bill is like a sharp knife. If you are in the right hands, it can be used to clean corruption from the roots. But if law enforcers can still intervene, this rule could be barren or even misused," he said.
He also emphasized the importance of strengthening anti-corruption institutions, such as the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK), which in recent years has experienced a systematic weakening.
"In addition to encouraging the ratification of the Asset Confiscation Bill, we also need to restore the independence of the KPK which has been eroded so far. Without a strong and independent KPK, any rules will not be effective," he said.
Closing his statement, Hardjuno invited the public to continue to oversee this issue so as not to sink back into the political dynamics of interest.
"We must not remain silent. Corruption is so rooted, and if there is no pressure from the public, the ratification of the Asset Confiscation Bill can continue to be carried out without certainty," 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)
