Chairman of Commission III of the DPR RI, Habiburokhman.

progresifjaya.co.id, JAKARTA – Habiburokhman, Chairman of Commission III of the House of Representatives (DPR RI), addressed public perceptions that the House has been slow to respond to the proposed Asset Recovery Bill. He noted that while the proposal has existed since 2008, it was only included in the House’s National Legislation Program (Prolegnas) in 2025.

“We need to clarify a few points. First, regarding the claim that we were slow to respond: the Financial Transaction Reports and Analysis Center (PPATK) submitted the proposal back in 2008. However, it was only included in the Prolegnas and deliberated last year—specifically, in September of last year,” Habiburokhman said during a Commission III meeting with legal experts regarding the Asset Recovery Bill at the DPR Building in Senayan, Jakarta, on Monday, September 7, 2026.

He then compared the legislative process for the Asset Recovery Bill to that of the Criminal Procedure Code (KUHAP) and the Criminal Code (KUHP), which were deliberated only a few years ago—despite the fact that those two laws serve as the primary legal framework for the Asset Recovery Bill.

“If we compare it to the KUHP—regarding the proposal, the KUHP proposal dates back to 1963, in fact. The KUHAP proposal dates back to the beginning of the Reform Era,” Habiburokhman explained.

The Gerindra Party Deputy Chairman also touched upon the mixed reactions that arose when the 13 types of criminal offenses falling under the scope of the Asset Recovery Bill were announced.

“Yet, those 13 offenses share characteristics similar to corruption—specifically, causing financial loss to the state or significant harm to the public on a massive scale. And this has long been a challenge for us, hasn’t it? The issue of asset recovery,” Habiburokhman said. 

Furthermore, he also touched upon the integrity of law enforcement officials in Indonesia, emphasizing the need to ensure that the Asset Recovery Bill does not become a tool for criminalization once implemented.

“We can look at examples like the United States or the UK. But what we must also consider is whether our own law enforcement officials—who would be the ones implementing this—possess the same level of integrity as those in developed nations, especially given the broad scope of the regulations,” said Habiburokhman.

“It works fine in developed countries, of course. Their law enforcement officials likely have integrity; they don’t take bribes, and they don’t criminalize political opponents or critics,” he added. (Bembo)