Expert: Asset Forfeiture Bill Must Ensure Economic Value to the State

The Chairman of the Anti-Corruption Study Centre (Pukat) at the Faculty of Law, Universitas Gadjah Mada (UGM), Oce Madril, hopes that the Asset Forfeiture Bill will not only regulate seizure but also ensure that asset management provides economic value to the state.

“Then the second approach that will be used, in my opinion, is an approach that more balances the protection of property while also serving the state’s interest in upholding the law,” he said during a Public Hearing (RPDU) with Commission III of the House of Representatives (DPR RI) in Jakarta on Monday (6/4).

“So, I hope that this Bill, in my view, does not only regulate law enforcement but also how these assets are managed so that they provide added value to the state, to the economy, perhaps to the public more generally,” he continued.

Furthermore, Oce also addressed the need for the Asset Forfeiture Bill to balance the state’s interest in upholding the law with the rights of individual citizens.

Oce reminded of the protection of property as regulated in Article 28G of the 1945 Constitution (UUD). In his view, the DPR must be careful because the Asset Forfeiture Bill could touch on discussions regarding human rights.

“The second thing we need to remember is the constitutional guarantee of property protection. This is in Article 28G of the 1945 Constitution, which states that everyone has the right to protection,” said Oce.

“This is protection of property under their control. So, because this is part of human rights, but if we look at its category, it is certainly a derogable human right, one that can be limited or further regulated in law, so it does not fall into the category of non-derogable rights,” he added.

This is important because Oce believes there must be a balance between protecting citizens’ rights to their property and the interest in upholding the law.

At the same venue, a Criminal Law academic from the Faculty of Law at Universitas Tarumanegara, Hery Firmansyah, reminded the DPR that the Asset Forfeiture Bill should not violate private property rights.

“The emphasis in the context of the rule of law principle in the Asset Forfeiture Bill concept is that we stress equality in law enforcement and legal protection for private property rights,” said Hery.

This is because Hery highlighted that achieving the Asset Forfeiture Bill is difficult due to persistent issues with equality in law enforcement.

“Because as far as my knowledge and experience go, what is indeed difficult to achieve in law enforcement is the issue of equality,” said Hery.

Hery stated that the Asset Forfeiture Bill is capable of realising the formation of justice and welfare for all society.

“Seizing and forfeiting the proceeds and instruments of criminal acts from perpetrators not only transfers a certain amount of wealth from criminals to society but also increases the likelihood of society achieving the common goal of forming justice and welfare for all members of society,” he said.

However, guarantees of legal protection and private ownership, as stated in Article 28D paragraph 1 and Article 28H paragraph 4 of the 1945 Constitution, must also be considered in the discussion process.

“But of course, we must not forget the continuation of that statement, namely that Article 28D paragraph 1 of the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia states that everyone has the right to recognition, guarantee, protection, and fair legal certainty, as well as equal treatment before the law,” said Hery.

“Meanwhile, Article 28H paragraph 4 states that everyone has the right to personal property rights, and such property rights shall not be arbitrarily taken over by anyone,” he continued.