Reasons Why This DPR Member Says the Asset Confiscation Bill Could Violate the Constitution

A member of Commission III of the House of Representatives, Soedeson Tandra, has revealed the reasons why the Asset Confiscation Bill could potentially violate several legal principles and the 1945 Constitution.

The Asset Confiscation Bill is currently in the process of absorbing aspirations from various parties, including experts, academics, and students in Commission III of the House of Representatives. The bill must first be established as an initiative proposal before it can be officially discussed with the government.

According to Soedeson, the mechanisms outlined in the current draft of the Asset Confiscation Bill could harm the character of Indonesian law, which adheres to a civil law system and is in personam (focused on the person) rather than in rem (focused on the thing).

“This has been a concern of mine from the start. Because asset confiscation focuses on in rem, on the property. Yet our character is civil law, ‘whoever’, in personam,” said Soedeson in his statement on Thursday (9/4).

He particularly highlighted the mechanism for asset confiscation that can be carried out without a criminal court decision or on a non-conviction basis.

Soedeson explained that the mechanism for confiscation without criminal proceedings risks violating Article 28 of the 1945 Constitution. Every citizen, without exception, is entitled to protection of their property. He referred to Article 6 of the Law on Judicial Power, 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,” said the Golkar politician.

Soedeson also examined the asset confiscation mechanism from the perspective of civil law, which could potentially violate regulations.

He stated that the transfer of property rights in Indonesia has rigid procedures, from agreements to administrative handover processes (levering).

Soedeson is concerned that if the Asset Confiscation Bill ignores these processes, the state will take actions that are legally considered premature.

“Seize first, then confiscate after the decision. Even the word ‘confiscate’ without due process is wrong to me. Law is a process; it can’t suddenly be taken just because (the assets) are excessive. That’s very dangerous,” he said.