Observer: Acceleration of Asset Forfeiture Bill must be balanced with caution

Jakarta (ANTARA) - Professor at Trisakti University and Public Policy Observer Trubulus Rahardiansah has warned that the drive to finalise the Asset Forfeiture Bill (RUU Perampasan Aset) must be balanced with caution when formulating the powers to be granted to the state.

“The public pressure for the Asset Forfeiture Bill to be completed immediately is understandable. The community wants the state to be more effective in pursuing the proceeds of crime and returning them for the public interest. However, the quality of a law cannot be measured solely by how quickly it is passed,” said Trubus in a statement in Jakarta on Saturday.

According to him, caution is increasingly important because the Asset Forfeiture Bill will grant significant authority to the state to trace, freeze, seize, and ultimately forfeit assets.

For a bill that grants such vast powers to the state, he noted that caution does not mean hindering the eradication of corruption or protecting criminals.

“On the contrary, caution is necessary to ensure that this crime-fighting instrument has legitimacy, can be implemented effectively, and is not easily challenged for violating the rights of citizens,” he said.

Trubus identified at least three balances that need to be maintained during the discussion of the Asset Forfeiture Bill.

“There are at least three balances that must be maintained in further discussions: the effectiveness of asset recovery versus the protection of citizens’ rights; the authority of officials versus the strength of oversight; and the need to accelerate the formation of the law versus the obligation to produce precise regulations,” he stated.

The first balance concerns the state’s ability to perform asset recovery without neglecting the rights of citizens. Second, the authority held by officials must be accompanied by an adequate oversight system. Third, the demand to expedite the bill’s completion must proceed alongside the obligation to produce precise rules.

According to Trubus, the discussion of the bill should not merely address the types of assets that can be forfeited.

“The discussion of this bill should not stop at the question of which assets can be seized, but also who is authorised to seize them, based on what standards of proof, through what procedures, how oversight is conducted, and how citizens can defend their rights in the event of error or abuse of authority,” he said.

Trubus summarised this principle by emphasising the need for a balance between state power and legal limitations.

“The state must be strong in facing the proceeds of crime, but the power of the state itself must also be limited by the law,” he said.

“At this point, the process of gathering input by the House of Representatives (DPR) becomes crucial. The ultimate measure is certainly not how many public hearing sessions are held or how many opinions are received, but to what extent that input is reflected in the construction of the articles that are eventually agreed upon,” said Trubus.

He previously emphasised that public participation in drafting the regulation should not stop at merely fulfilling formal procedures.

“Public participation should not be understood merely as a formality to satisfy the procedures of law-making. For a regulation with powers as significant as asset forfeiture, meaningful participation is actually one of the mechanisms to prevent policy design errors,” he said.

In his view, the vast amount of input received by the DPR must be translated into provisions capable of addressing the concerns of the public.