A Double-Edged Sword? Legal Certainty and the Perils of Authority in Indonesia’s Draft Asset Deprivation Act
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.15294/pandecta.v19i2.2939Keywords:
Legal Certainty, Abuse of Authority, Asset DeprivationAbstract
The urgency of enacting the Draft Asset Deprivation Act in Indonesia stems from the need to recover assets linked to criminal activities, even in the absence of a conviction. This approach is seen as a preventive measure to safeguard illicitly acquired assets; however, its implementation raises serious legal concerns. The potential violation of property rights—recognized as fundamental human rights—poses risks to justice and legal certainty. The lack of clear procedural safeguards could lead to authority abuse, arbitrary asset seizures, and disproportionate impacts on individuals. This study identifies critical inconsistencies within the draft law. First, the phrase "asset deprivation is only carried out once" in the explanation of Article 3 contradicts Article 5(1)(c), which allows additional asset deprivation if previously seized assets are insufficient. This antinomy undermines legal certainty and fairness. Second, Article 56 permits the auctioning of assets before a final court decision without specifying clear conditions for its application. The absence of rigid legal criteria opens avenues for abuse of authority, further exacerbating risks of injustice. The novelty of this research lies in its critical legal analysis of these contradictions and their implications for property rights and procedural fairness. This research contributes to the global discourse on asset deprivation laws by critically examining the tension between crime prevention and fundamental human rights. The study highlights how ambiguities in legal drafting and the absence of clear procedural safeguards can lead to authority abuse, a challenge faced by many jurisdictions implementing non-conviction-based asset forfeiture (NCB) frameworks. By comparing Indonesia’s Draft Asset Deprivation Act with international best practices, this research offers valuable insights into the legal balance between state power and individual rights, which is crucial in developing laws that do not unduly compromise fundamental freedoms.
References
Achmad Taufan Soedirjo et al. “Reform of Corruption Criminal Law: A Study of Corruptor Asset Application Law in Indonesia.” Journal of Social Research 2, no. 9 (2023): 2942–2954. https://doi.org/10.55324/josr.v2i9.1346.
Adex Yudiswan et al. “The Concept of Abuse of Authority in Corruption in Indonesia After the Enactment of Law Number 30 of 2014 Concerning Government Administration.” Jilin Daxue Xuebao (Gongxueban)/Journal of Jilin University (Engineering and Technology Edition) 42, no. 11 (2023): 310–320. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.10183628.
Adriano et al. Eksistensi, Fungsi, Dan Tujuan Hukum Dalam Perspektif Teori Dan Filsafat Hukum: Dalam Rangka Memperingati 80 Tahun Guru Kami Prof. Dr. Frans Limahelu, S.H., LL.M. Jakarta: Kencana, 2020.
Agus Budianto. “Legal Research Methodology Reposition in Research on Social Science.” International Journal of Criminology and Sociology 9 (2020): 1339–1346. https://doi.org/10.6000/1929-4409.2020.09.154.
Agus Pranoto et al. “Kajian Yuridis Mengenai Perampasan Aset Korupsi Dalam Upaya Pemberantasan Tindak Pidana Korupsi Menurut Hukum Pidana Indonesia.” Legalitas: Jurnal Hukum 10, no. 1 (2018): 91–121. https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.33087/legalitas.v10i1.158.
Andrie Wahyu Setiawan et al. “Problematics of Execution of Assets of Convictions in Efforts Recovery of State Losses.” Scholars International Journal of Law, Crime and Justice 7, no. 2 (2024): 91–96. https://doi.org/10.36348/sijlcj.2024.v07i02.005.
Arizon Mega Jaya. “Implementasi Perampasan Harta Kekayaan Pelaku Tindak Pidana Korupsi.” Cepalo 1, no. 1 (2017): 21–30. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.25041/cepalo.v1no1.1752.
Arma Dewi. “Penyalahgunaan Wewenang Dalam Perspektif Tindak Pidana Korupsi.” Jurnal Rechten : Riset Hukum Dan Hak Asasi Manusia 1, no. 1 (2019): 24–40. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.52005/rechten.v1i1.4.
Asep Bambang Hermanto and Bambang Slamet Riyadi. “Constitutional Law on The Discretionary of Prosecutor’s Power Against Abuse of Power Implications of Corruption Culture in The Prosecutor’s Office Republic of Indonesia.” International Journal of Criminology and Sociology 9 (2020): 763–772. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.6000/1929-4409.2020.09.71.
Asmuni. “The Abuse of Power Philosophy in Government Administration.” Media of Law and Sharia 5, no. 2 (2024): 119–125. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.18196/mls.v5i2.95.
Badan Pembinaan Hukum Nasional. “Hasil Penyelarasan Naskah Akademik Rancangan Undang-Undang Tentang Perampasan Aset Terkait Dengan Tindak Pidana.” Jakarta, 2022.
Bernard L. Tanya et al. Teori Hukum: Strategi Tertib Manusia Lintas Ruang Dan Generasi. Yogyakarta: Genta publishing, 2013.
Boy Nurdin and Dwi Asmoro. “Imposition of Criminal Sanctions on Corporations and/or Corporate Control Personnel Who Commit Money Laundering Crimes.” Journal of Indonesian Social Science 5, no. 1 (2024): 27–34. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.59141/jiss.v5i1.938.
Dewan Perwakilan Rakyat Republik Indonesia. “DPR Akan Bahas RUU Perampasan Aset Usai Masa Reses.” 11 Mei, 2023. https://www.dpr.go.id/berita/detail/id/44464/t/DPR Akan Bahas RUU Perampasan Aset Usai Masa Reses.
Disiplin F. Manao. “Penyelesaian Penyalahgunaan Wewenang Oleh Aparatur Pemerintah Dari Segi Hukum Administrasi Dihubungkan Dengan Tindak Pidana Korupsi.” Wawasan Yuridika 2, no. 1 (2018): 1–22. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.25072/jwy.v2i1.158.
Edi Setiadi and Dian Andriasari. “The Correlation and Cohesion of Criminal Act of Money Laundering (TPPU) and Criminal Act of Human Trafficking (TPPO) Perceived from the Perspective of Criminal Law Reform in Indonesia.” In Proceedings of the 2nd Social and Humaniora Research Symposium, edited by Atie Rachmiatie et al, 553–556. Amsterdam: Atlantis Press, 2020. https://doi.org/10.2991/assehr.k.200225.120.
Fajar Nurhardianto. “Sistem Hukum Dan Posisi Hukum Indonesia.” Jurnal Tapis 11, no. 1 (2015): 34–45. https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.24042/tps.v11i1.840.
Gbenga Oduntan. “International Moral Legalism and the Competence over Prosecution of Corruption Crimes.” African Journal of Law and Criminology 1, no. 1 (2011): 78–99. https://doi.org/https://kar.kent.ac.uk/28637/.
Imelda F.K. Bureni. “Kekosongan Hukum Perampasan Aset Tanpa Pemidanaan Dalam Undang-Undang Tindak Pidana Korupsi.” Masalah-Masalah Hukum 45, no. 4 (2016): 292–298. https://doi.org/10.14710/mmh.45.4.2016.292-298.
Irwan Hafid. “Perampasan Aset Tanpa Pemidanaan Dalam Perspektif Economic Analysis of Law.” Lex Renaissance 6, no. 1 (2021): 465–480. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.20885/JLR.vol6.iss3.art3.
Izabela Skoczen. “Minimal Semantics and Legal Interpretation.” International Journal for the Semiotics of Law 29 (2016): 615–633. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11196-015-9448-3.
Johari and Teuku Yudi Afrizal. “The Criminal Acts of Corruption as Extraordinary Crimes in Indonesia.” International Journal of Law, Social Science and Humanities (IJLSH) 1, no. 1 (2024): 17–27. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.70193/ijlsh.v1i1.141.
Joyce Manna Janto and Lucinda D. Harrison-Cox. “Teaching Legal Research: Past and Present.” Law Library Journal 84, no. 2 (1992): 281–298. https://doi.org/https://heinonline.org/HOL/Print?collection=journals&handle=hein.journals/llj84&id=291.
Mahrus Ali et al. “Corruption, Asset Origin and the Criminal Case of Money Laundering in Indonesian Law.” Journal of Money Laundering Control 25, no. 2 (2022): 455–466. https://doi.org/DOI 10.1108/JMLC-03-2021-0022.
Marfuatul Latifah. “Urgensi Pembentukan Undang-Undang Perampasan Aset Hasil Tindak Pidana Di Indonesia.” Negara Hukum 6, no. 1 (2015): 17–30. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.22212/jnh.v6i1.244.
Neil N. Bernstein. “The Supreme Court and Secondary Source Material: 1965 Term.” Georgetown Law Journal 57, no. 1 (1968): 55‐80. https://doi.org/https://heinonline.org/HOL/Print?collection=journals&handle=hein.journals/glj57&id=71.
Oly Viana Agustine. “RUU Perampasan Aset Sebagai Peluang Dan Tantangan Dalam Pemberantasan Korupsi Di Indonesia.” Hukum Pidana Dan Pembangunan Hukum 1, no. 2 (2019): 1–6. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.25105/hpph.v1i2.5546.
Peter Mahmud Marzuki. Penelitian Hukum. Jakarta: Kencana, 2005.
———. Pengantar Ilmu Hukum. Jakarta: Kencana, 2015.
———. Teori Hukum. Jakarta: Kencana, 2020.
Philiphus M. Hadjon dan Tatiek Sri Djatmiati. Argumentasi Hukum. Yogyakarta: Gadjah Mada University Press, 2005.
Philipus M. Hadjon. “Potret Sistem Hukum Indonesia Era Reformasi: Kegagalan Dalam Pembentukan Peraturan Perundang-Undangan Hukum Administrasi.” In Prosiding Seminar Nasional Oleh UBAYA Dan Badan Pengkajian MPR RI, 1945:68–78. Surabaya, 2019.
Refki Saputra. “Tantangan Penerapan Perampasan Aset Tanpa Tuntutan Pidana (Non-Conviction Based Asset Forfeiture) Dalam RUU Perampasan Aset Di Indonesia.” Integritas: Jurnal Antikorupsi 3, no. 1 (2017): 115–130. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.32697/integritas.v3i1.158.
Ridwan Arifin et al. “Collaborative Efforts in ASEAN for Global Asset Recovery Frameworks to Combat Corruption in the Digital Era.” Legality : Jurnal Ilmiah Hukum 31, no. 2 (2023): 329–343. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.22219/ljih.v31i2.29381.
Sadjijono and Bagus Teguh Santoso. “Misconception on the Authority Abuse of Power in the Law Enforcement against Corruption.” Asian Social Science 13, no. 9 (2017): 51–62. https://doi.org/10.5539/ass.v13n9p51.
Seno Wibowo Gumbir and Ratna Nurhayati. “An Overview on the Abuse of Power in the Perspective of Corruption Law and Government Administration Law in Indonesia Based on the Criminal Justice System and the State Administration of the Justice System.” Yustisia 5, no. 3 (2016): 581–606. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.20961/yustisia.v5i3.8798.
Supardi. Perampasan Harta Hasil Korupsi: Perspektif Hukum Pidana Yang Berkeadilan. Jakarta: Kencana, 2018.
Susan Drisko Zago. “Secondary Sources: Top Ten.” Legal Information Alert 24, no. 3 (2005): 4–6. https://doi.org/https://scholars.unh.edu/law_facpub/54/.
Teuku Isra Muntahar et al. “Perampasan Aset Korupsi Tanpa Pemidanaan Dalam Perspektif Hak Asasi Manusia.” Iuris Studia: Jurnal Kajian Hukum 2, no. 1 (2021): 49–63. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.55357/is.v2i1.77.
Tunggul Ansari Setia Negara. “Normative Legal Research In Indonesia: Its Origins And Approaches.” Audito Comparative Law Journal 4, no. 1 (2023): 1–9. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.22219/aclj.v4i1.24855.
Vanggy Poli et al. “Analisis Yuridis Implementasi Asas Nebis In Idem Dalam Perkara Perdata (Studi Kasus Putusan Nomor: 145/PDT.G/2017/PN.THN).” Lex Privatum 9, no. 4 (2021): 120–129. https://doi.org/https://ejournal.unsrat.ac.id/index.php/lexprivatum/article/view/33351.
Vivi Arfiani Siregar and Feni Puspitasari. “Alternative Return For State Losses In Crime Cases.” International Journal of Multidisciplinary Research and Literature 2, no. 4 (2023): 481–491. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.53067/ijomral.v2i4.137.
Yunus Husein. “Penjelasan Hukum Tentang Perampasan Aset Tanpa Pemidanaan Dalam Perkara Tindak Pidana Korupsi.” Jakarta, 2019.
Downloads
Article ID
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2024 Hisbul Luthfi Ashsyarofi, Arfan Kaimuddin, R.B. Muhammad Zainal Abidin, Ahmad Bastomi (Author)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
The Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License (CC BY-SA 4.0) is an open-access license that facilitates the sharing and adaptation of creative works while ensuring proper attribution and preserving the same freedoms for derivative works. This license is designed to be user-friendly and applicable globally, making it a popular choice for a wide range of content, from academic articles to creative arts.
At its core, the Attribution component of the CC BY-SA 4.0 license requires users to give appropriate credit to the original creator of the work. This includes providing a clear citation, linking to the license, and indicating any modifications made. The attribution must be done in a way that does not imply endorsement by the creator of the new use or its creator. This ensures that the original authors are acknowledged for their contributions while allowing their work to be freely used and disseminated.
The ShareAlike aspect of the license mandates that any derivative works or adaptations created from the original must be licensed under the same CC BY-SA 4.0 terms. This means that new works based on the original content must also be freely available and shareable under the same conditions. This provision helps to promote a culture of collaboration and continuous improvement, as it ensures that all adaptations remain accessible to the public and contribute to the collective pool of knowledge and creativity.
