Academician at Unissula Welcomes Commission III’s Openness in the Bill Dialogue

RRI.CO.ID, Jakarta - The agreement between the House of Representatives of the Republic of Indonesia (DPR RI) and the Government to complete deliberations on the Asset Forfeiture Bill by the deadline of December 15, has triggered a wave of controversy among the public. The situation was further heated by the August 27, 2026 protest, when the DPR RI even met with the United Pati Community Alliance (AMPB) and agreed to the same deadline.

The relatively tight target for the bill’s passage has raised public concerns, particularly regarding the substance of the draft, which is considered potentially capable of creating vague or broadly interpreted provisions if it is not deliberated thoroughly and transparently.

In response to these concerns, Chairman of Commission III of the DPR RI Habiburokhman, said that the drafting of the Asset Forfeiture Bill was based on extensive research and comparative studies of non-conviction-based forfeiture mechanisms in various countries, including the United States and the United Kingdom.

He also explained that the scope of asset forfeiture was specifically designed to target 13 categories of economically motivated crimes, including corruption, narcotics offenses, taxation crimes, and environmental crimes. The provisions would apply equally to all citizens in accordance with the principle of equality before the law. Nevertheless, the House has assured the public that the regulation will not become an arbitrary instrument of power.

“What must not happen is the arbitrary enforcement of asset forfeiture laws against the public. The Asset Forfeiture Law must not become a tool of power to extort members of the public, criminalize political opponents, or silence those who are critical,” the Lawmaker stressed.

He added that Commission III is currently formulating strict oversight mechanisms, including ethical and criminal sanctions for law enforcement officials who abuse their authority.

Meanwhile, legal expert, Prof. Dr. Henry Indraguna,SH.,M.H. said that public and civil society concerns over the expansion of the scope of offenses covered by the bill are entirely reasonable and should be objectively accommodated.

“It is understandable that people are reacting strongly because there are concerns about the potential abuse of power under certain provisions. The state must not rush to seize citizens’ civil rights without evidence that has been thoroughly and properly established,” Prof. Henry conveyed in Jakarta recently.

The Professor and Academician at Sultan Agung Islamic University in Semarang positively welcomed the openness shown by Commission III of the DPR RI in opening the dialogue and encouraging all parties to take a rational approach in overseeing the bill. According to him, Parliament’s initiative to engage the public in discussions is a positive signal for reducing mutual suspicion between state institutions and society.

“The dialogue opened by the House provides an opportunity to refine the legislation. Let us respond with common sense, rather than merely emphasizing suspicion, so that this law is ultimately enacted with strong public legitimacy,” Prof. Henry said. The legal expert further analysed that the ideal substance of the Asset Forfeiture Law must remain grounded in the principle of due process of law and the protection of human rights.

Prof. Henry also explained the ideas of British philosopher and legal scholar Jeremy Bentham regarding utilitarianism and the importance of proportional justice in civil law, which have significantly influenced the concept of proceeds of crime in the United Kingdom, particularly under the UK Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. “The legal doctrine of utilitarianism taught by British philosopher Jeremy Bentham holds that the law must deliver the greatest benefit without sacrificing fundamental individual justice,” the Deputy Chairman of the Board of Trustees of the Indonesian Advocates Congress (KAI) conveyed.

Moreover, Henry said that the concept of non-conviction-based asset forfeiture, in the United Kingdom can work effectively because the law firmly targets the proceeds of crime. “At the same time, however, it also guarantees legal protection for bona fide third parties acting in good faith,” Prof. Henry mentioned.