DPR Member Warns Bill on Asset Forfeiture Must Not Violate Constitutional Principles

A member of the Indonesian House of Representatives’ Commission III, Soedeson Tandra, has warned of potential philosophical conflicts in the law within the Asset Forfeiture Bill (RUU Perampasan Aset), particularly regarding the shift in legal focus from the subject to the object. Soedeson assesses that the mechanism for asset forfeiture without a criminal court decision or 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’, in personam,” said Soedeson during the General Opinion Hearing (RDPU) of Commission III of the DPR RI with constitutional law expert Muhammad Rullyandi and former KPK Chairman Chandra Hamzah at the parliamentary complex in Senayan, Jakarta, on Wednesday (8/4/2026). According to Soedeson, forcing the asset forfeiture mechanism without a criminal legal process risks violating Article 28 of the 1945 Constitution (UUD). He emphasised that every citizen, without exception, has the right to protection of their property. He also alluded to 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 criminals, have their property protected by the Constitution. A person cannot be declared guilty without a judge’s decision. That’s clear,” he stressed. Furthermore, Soedeson provided substantive arguments from a civil law perspective. He explained that the transfer of rights over movable property in Indonesia has rigid procedures, starting from agreement to the administrative process of transferring rights (levering). He is concerned that if this bill ignores those processes, the state will take actions that are legally considered premature. “Seize first, then forfeit after the decision. The word ‘forfeit’ alone without a legal 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,” he stated. Besides the forfeiture issue, Soedeson issued a stern warning regarding the discourse on eliminating the element of state losses and focusing only on fraud offences. He assesses that without clear boundaries on state losses, law enforcement could become uncontrolled and massively target civil servants. “If state losses are removed and only fraud is addressed, woe to us all. This could mean all civil servants could be arrested by the police. State losses provide boundaries, provide something concrete against unlawful actions,” he added.