JAKARTA, LITERASIHUKUM.COM — Commission III of the Indonesian House of Representatives (DPR RI) has emphasized that it does not want the Bill on Asset Forfeiture to become a tool for abuse of power by law enforcement officials. This warning was conveyed when Commission III held a meeting with academics to gather input on the draft law at the parliament complex, Jakarta, Monday (6/4/2026).

Deputy Chairman of Commission III of the DPR RI Ahmad Sahroni emphasized that the main spirit of forming this regulation must remain directed at eradicating corruption and recovering the proceeds of crime, not opening up space for manipulative practices or arbitrary actions. Therefore, he reminded the importance of internal supervision within law enforcement agencies so that the application of this law does not deviate from its original objectives.

Similar concerns were also expressed by Member of Commission III of the DPR RI Bimantoro Wiyono. According to him, the Bill on Asset Forfeiture must clearly ensure that the assets confiscated genuinely originate from criminal acts. He warned against the possibility of someone's rights being taken when the assets are not related to a crime, especially if an asset has already been labeled negatively in the public sphere before any legal certainty.

Therefore, Bimantoro believes that this draft law must also regulate a clear mechanism for the return of assets if it is later proven that the goods that were confiscated were not the result of a criminal act. According to him, the problem is not only about physical return, but also about the stigma that has already been attached and can cause the asset to lose its economic value in the eyes of the public.

Commission III's cautious attitude is in line with the line of discussion on the Bill on Asset Forfeiture since the beginning of 2026. The DPR had previously begun discussing the formation of the draft with the Expertise Body of the DPR, with the emphasis that this regulation is important to strengthen the recovery of state losses, but must still uphold justice, legal certainty, proportionality, and the protection of human rights. In addition, a number of members of Commission III have also reminded that this draft must be aligned with the new Criminal Code (KUHP) so as not to create legal paradoxes.

Thus, the debate over the Bill on Asset Forfeiture no longer stops at the need to punish corruptors and confiscate the proceeds of crime. The issue that emerges is actually more fundamental: how to design strong rules to impoverish criminals, but remain safe from potential abuse of authority against citizens whose rights are not necessarily tainted by criminal acts. At this point, Commission III seems to want to ensure that the spirit of anti-corruption does not turn into an instrument that injures the principle of the rule of law.