Legal Literacy-Corruptioneradication in Indonesia is often hampered by the slow legislative process in the House of Representatives (DPR). One concrete example is the discussion of the Draft Law on Asset Forfeiture which has not been completed. Corruption that continues to erode state finances and public trust demands quick and decisive action. In this situation, the President has a strong constitutional instrument, namely Government Regulations in Lieu of Laws (Perppu). Instead of waiting for uncertain DPR approval, the President should immediately issue a Perppu on Asset Forfeiture to show a serious commitment to fighting corruption. According to Article 22 paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution, the President has the right to stipulate Perppu in "matters of compelling urgency." Although the 1945 Constitution does not specifically explain 'compelling urgency', the Constitutional Court (MK) in Decision Number 138/PUU-VII/2009 has stipulated at least three objective requirements for the president to issue a Perppu, namely:
  1. There is an urgent need to resolve legal problems quickly.
  2. There is a legal vacuum or the existing laws are inadequate.
  3. The legal vacuum cannot be overcome through ordinary legislative procedures because it takes a long time.
Corruption in Indonesia has indeed reached an alarming level, and the biggest challenge is how to recover state losses incurred. Although the Law on Corruption Crimes (UU Tipikor) already exists, there are still legal loopholes that make asset recovery difficult. One of the main loopholes is the principle of "reverse burden of proof" which has not been applied thoroughly and effectively. In corruption cases, it is often difficult for prosecutors to prove that the assets owned by the suspect come from the proceeds of corruption, especially if the assets have been transferred to other parties. The current law, especially Law Number 31 of 1999 as amended by Law Number 20 of 2001, does regulate additional penalties in the form of "replacement money payments". However, its execution is often hampered because it has to wait until the court decision has permanent legal force (inkracht). This is a big problem, especially if the suspect flees or the assets have changed hands. Another problem is that the usual legislative procedure through the DPR often takes years. The Draft Law on Asset Forfeiture, for example, has been a protracted discussion that has even reached two decades. This delay is exploited by corruptors to hide their illegal assets. This condition creates a significant legal vacuum and has the potential to harm the state trillions of rupiah.