Asset Forfeiture Bill, DPR Member: Citizens, Including Criminals, Have Their Property Protected by the Constitution

JAKARTA - A member of the House of Representatives Commission III from the Golkar faction, Soedeson Tandra, has reminded of the potential for philosophical legal conflicts in the Asset Forfeiture Bill (RUU Perampasan Aset), particularly regarding the shift in legal focus from the subject to the object.

According to him, the mechanism of asset forfeiture without a criminal court decision (non-conviction based), which prioritises the in rem principle (focus on the property), could undermine the character of Indonesian law, which adheres to a civil law system that is in personam (focus on the person).

“This is an issue that has been on my mind from the start. Because this asset forfeiture focuses on in rem, on the property. Whereas our character is civil law, whoever it is, in personam,” said Soedeson in his statement on Wednesday (8/4/2026).

This is because he emphasised that every citizen, even including criminals, has the right to protection of their assets and wealth.

Soedeson also touched on Article 6 of the Judicial Power Basic Law, which states that a person cannot be declared guilty without a valid judge’s decision.

“Citizens, including their criminals, have their assets protected by the Constitution. A person cannot be declared guilty without a judge’s decision. That’s clear,” he said.

Furthermore, from a civil law perspective, Soedeson explained that the transfer of property rights in Indonesia has rigid procedures, starting from agreement to the administrative process of handing over rights.

“Seize first, then forfeit after the decision. The word ‘forfeit’ alone without due process is wrong in my view. Law is a process, it can’t suddenly be taken just because (the assets) are excessive. That’s very dangerous,” explained Soedeson.

Meanwhile, besides the forfeiture issue, Soedeson issued a strong warning regarding the discourse on eliminating the ‘state loss’ element and focusing only on the fraud offence.

He assessed that without clear boundaries for state loss, law enforcement could become uncontrolled and massively target civil servants.

“If state loss is eliminated and only fraud is addressed, we’re all in trouble. This could mean all civil servants could be arrested by the police. State loss provides boundaries, provides something concrete against unlawful actions,” added Soedeson.