DEBAT! Abraham Samad VS Gayus: RUU Perampasan Aset hingga Haruskah Koruptor Dihukum Mati? |ROSI

Overview

The discussion centers on Indonesia’s upcoming draft law on asset confiscation (RUU Perampasan Aset), including whether it should be fast-tracked, expanded to many crimes, and paired with calls that corruptors receive the death penalty.

Core positions

1) DPR’s commitment vs. calls to delay (Abraham Samad)

• Supports the principle that corruptors should be impoverished and their assets taken, framing it as a shift from crime-control to architectural/asset recovery.
• Opposes rushing the bill because key concepts in the draft are still unclear and require deeper public and expert input.
• Notes that public understanding is often limited to macro anger toward corruption (e.g., slogans about death penalty and confiscation), rather than detailed provisions of the draft.

2) Constitutional/legal process arguments for moving quickly (Gayus Lumbun)

Gayus argues delay is unnecessary if the bill meets the three “pillars” of legislation:

• Philosophical foundation
• Sociological support (public backing)
• Juridical basis (legal structure aligned with regulations)

Key points he adds:

• Emphasizes “justice delayed is justice denied”, and that deadlines—DPR targeting by Dec 15, 2026—should be honored.
• Reframes “asset confiscation” as more precise when it targets the proceeds of crime (not all assets indiscriminately), with clarity developed through judicial process and due process.

Key technical concerns raised (Samad)

Samad’s main critique is that the draft’s mechanisms may cause problems if concepts are not carefully defined and implemented:

• NCB (non-conviction based) mechanism

  • Worries about its design when paired with a limited reverse burden of proof.
  • Contrasts this with Malaysia’s approach, where NCB uses a broader reverse burden model—inconsistent asset declarations can trigger stronger administrative/judicial follow-up.

• Unexplained wealth vs. illicit enrichment

  • Illicit enrichment: increased wealth suspected to result from corruption by specific officeholders/state officials/law enforcement.
  • Unexplained wealth: wealth that cannot be explained (potentially broader and more general).
  • Samad fears Indonesia’s draft may be too broad or become a tool to target certain groups while protecting others—especially if illicit enrichment is not explicitly included.
  • He warns this could produce more victims and lead to politicized or selective enforcement.

Concerns about abuse of power and institutional independence

Both discuss risks, but Samad is especially focused on the danger of abuse of authority in implementation:

• Cites the World Justice Project (2025), which ranks Indonesia’s law enforcement/corruption-related justice system poorly—highlighting issues such as lack of independence and abuse of power/judicial corruption.
• Warns that an overly broad confiscation regime—or an “interpretive” law that can be misused—could allow enforcement to expand beyond the intended target.

Gayus responds with an institutional optimism argument:

• Even if there are risks in structure, culture, or legal substance, the state should trust existing mechanisms and institutions to apply the law properly.
• Disputes can be handled through legal checks (e.g., judicial review and formal procedures).

Expansion of confiscation to many crimes

A key debate is that the draft reportedly expands beyond corruption into 13 categories of criminal acts, including:

• narcotics/psychotropics,
• terrorism,
• human trafficking,
• maritime/fisheries issues,
• and other extraordinary crimes.

Views differ:

• Gayus: sees this positively—educating the public about the scale of “extraordinary crimes,” not only corruption.
• Samad: worries expansion may be too broad and not well-targeted, creating enforcement difficulties and inconsistent asset seizure direction.

Death penalty for corruption: yes in some cases, but deterrence is not guaranteed

The discussion also addresses mass demands for capital punishment for corruptors.

Gayus’s view

• The death penalty is legally possible and remains relevant, given affirmation by Indonesia’s Constitutional Court in certain frameworks.
• However, deterrence depends on more than whether the punishment is death:
  • severe and consistent punishment (not necessarily always death),
  • asset deprivation/confiscation as a restorative measure,
  • social sanctions.
• He criticizes inconsistencies such as remission policies and potential corruption within correctional systems that may reduce actual sentence time and weaken deterrence.
• Notes that “good behavior” and remission rules can be inconsistent if not aligned with the seriousness of corruption and recovery/repair expectations.

Samad’s framing

• Emphasizes deterrence and restorative punishment (impoverishment/asset recovery).
• Argues that if the goal is deterrence, policies must be consistent and not undercut by other regulations.
• While not against the death penalty in principle, he stresses it is not the only—or necessarily most effective—solution if the system remains vulnerable to misuse.

Ending thrust: what should be prioritized

• Samad: prioritize a careful, precise asset recovery model (clarify NCB, wealth concepts, and limits), strengthen public/expert understanding, and prevent selective targeting due to institutional weaknesses.
• Gayus: proceed with enactment given legal/sociological foundations and deadlines, trust institutions, and focus on overall enforcement and punishment consistency—death penalty is only one possible tool.

Presenters / contributors

• Moderator/host: Tif Salesa (ROSI / Kompas TV)
• Gayus Lumbun (Supreme Court Justice period 2011–2018)
• Abraham Samad (Chairman of KPK period 2011–2015)