Three Legal Paths to a Clean Indonesia: Between the Death Penalty, Asset Confiscation, and Post-Service Investigations
Three Legal Paths to a Clean Indonesia:
Between the Death Penalty, Asset Confiscation, and Post-Service Investigations
By: Dr. Budi Rianto, Drs. M.Si, Postgraduate Lecturer, Hang Tuah University, Surabaya
“The fight against corruption is not just about punishing the perpetrators, but about restoring the public's trust that this country can still be honest.”
Corruption remains a chronic disease of the nation, and Ong Hoo Kam, in Prisma magazine, even stated that corruption has become a culture in Indonesia. From major scandals at the central level to petty extortion in the regions, the practice of enriching oneself through official positions continues to haunt our bureaucracy. It's understandable that the public is increasingly angry and demanding extraordinary action. In this situation, three major legal ideas have emerged that are being widely discussed: the death penalty for corruptors, the confiscation of assets obtained from corruption, and post-service investigations of officials.
However, of these three, which is most relevant and beneficial for realizing good and clean governance in this era of public transparency?
The Death Penalty: A Symbol of Firmness, Not a Systemic Solution
For some, the death penalty is the most decisive answer. Amidst the growing disgust over corrupt behavior by officials, the threat of death is considered commensurate with the damage caused by corruption. The death penalty also seems to align with the moral values of religious Indonesian society: corruptors are considered traitors to the nation.
However, beneath this moral resonance, the death penalty harbors significant problems. It fails to address the deeply rooted culture of corruption that is deeply ingrained in our social system—from small gratuities and thank-you notes to nepotism. Furthermore, in a legal system still vulnerable to interference by those in power, the death penalty can be transformed into a political weapon.
Furthermore, the international community is moving toward abolishing the death penalty. Such an extreme policy could tarnish Indonesia's commitment to human rights.
The death penalty may create a shock effect, but it only serves to frighten, not to reform.
Asset Confiscation: Getting to the Heart of the Problem
Unlike the death penalty, the Asset Confiscation Law for Corruptors offers a more substantial approach. It goes beyond punishment to restitution of state losses. Every rupiah taken from the people must be returned to the people.
This approach has strong logic: corruption is an economic crime, so the answer must also be economic. Many corruptors are not afraid of facing prison, but fear losing their ill-gotten gains. With increasingly sophisticated digital asset tracking systems (through the State Finance Report (LHKPN), Financial Transaction Reports and Analysis Center (PPATK), and e-audit), this law aligns with the spirit of the era of transparency and public accountability.
However, it is important to remember that asset confiscation can be a dangerous tool if not balanced with strong legal oversight. Without a public oversight mechanism, this policy can be misused to suppress political opponents or those who disagree with those in power. Therefore, public and media oversight are key to the success of this law.
If implemented openly and fairly, asset confiscation can actually become the foundation for public financial governance reform—more grounded and more beneficial to the people.
Post-Service Investigations: Building a Culture of Accountability
The idea of the Post-Service Investigation Law embodies a noble spirit: public officials should remain open to investigation after leaving office. Many corruption cases only come to light after a person is no longer in power. With this regulation, there is no longer a "safe zone" for those who abuse their power.
However, implementation is not easy. Indonesia's public administration and documentation systems remain weak. Without a truly independent institution, post-election investigations could become a tool for political revenge.
Nevertheless, this idea is important as a long-term moral foundation—fostering awareness that public office is not just an honor, but also a mandate that leaves a legal and moral imprint.
Comparison and General Conclusions
Aspects of the Death Penalty Law, Asset Confiscation Law, Post-Court Investigation Law
Moral deterrent effect: Very high, High, Medium
Long-term systemic effect: Low, Very high, High
Potential for political abuse: Medium, Medium–High, High
Compatibility with Indonesian culture and values: High (emotional), High (social justice), Medium
Relevance to the era of digital transparency: Low, Very high, High
Support for Good & Clean Governance: Symbolic, Substantive, Structural
Searching for a Realistic Path
Of the three ideas, the Asset Confiscation Law is the most realistic and effective for Indonesia's current situation. It does not rely on the morals of individuals or leaders, but instead builds a systemic mechanism that can be monitored by the public. This approach emphasizes social justice: returning what was confiscated for the welfare of the people.
Meanwhile, the death penalty is more appropriate as a symbol of moral firmness, not a major policy. And post-election investigations are worth developing in the future, when our legal system is more mature and free from political interests.
In the effort to realize good and clean governance, this nation needs not merely "scary punishments," but a system that makes it impossible for anyone to corrupt without being caught. Transparency, institutional integrity, and public participation are the real keys.