DPR Warns that the Asset Forfeiture Bill Must Not Violate Human Rights

Member of the House of Representatives Commission III, Soedeson Tandra, has provided critical notes on the drafting of the Asset Forfeiture Bill. He asserted that every regulation produced in Indonesia must be based on the 1945 Constitution, which guarantees the property rights of every citizen.

Soedeson is concerned that the application of the asset forfeiture mechanism without criminal prosecution or Non-Conviction Based (NCB) could harm Human Rights (HAM). This is because, in that mechanism, the standard of proof is often based only on probability or presumption, not on highly convincing legal principles.

“If this law introduces the NCB concept where the standard of proof is only probability or presumption, it certainly tends to violate human rights. Meanwhile, our constitution clearly guarantees property rights,” said Soedeson during the General Opinion Hearing Meeting (RDPU) at the Parliamentary Complex, Senayan, on Monday (30/3/2026).

This Golkar Party politician reminded of the principle of contrarius actus or balanced action in law. According to him, if the state accuses someone of possessing unlawful or excessive assets, the initial burden of proof must still lie with the state.

He emphasised that the principle of reversing the burden of proof must not violate the Judicial Power Law, which states that a person cannot be declared guilty except by the force of a final court decision.

“The state must prove it first. A person must not be declared guilty without a court decision. Any law enforcement that violates human rights, in my opinion, is not right,” he stressed.

Furthermore, Soedeson highlighted the reality on the ground where there are frequent abuses of power regarding seized assets. He criticised that there are still rogue officials who do not return citizens’ assets even though the court has ordered their return.

“In practice, we see various abuses occurring. People are deprived, seized, even though the court decision has requested return, it is still not returned. Therefore, in the new Criminal Code, it has been emphasised that after a certain period, assets must be returned,” said Soedeson.