Prosecutor's Bill, Dpr Worries That The Authority Of Tapping Is Too Extensive And Dangerous

Prosecutor's Bill, DPR Worries that the Authority of Tapping is Too Extensive and Dangerous

A member of the DPR Legal Commission from the Nasdem Faction, Taufik Basari, was met at the Parliament Complex, Senayan, Jakarta, Monday, November 4, 2019. TEMPO / Putri.

A member of the DPR Legal Commission from the Nasdem Faction, Taufik Basari, was met at the Parliament Complex, Senayan, Jakarta, Monday, November 4, 2019. TEMPO / Putri.

, Jakarta - A Harmonization Committee bill Prosecutor Legislation Agency Taufik Basari Parliament questioned the existence of authorized wiretaps included in the context of public order in the Bill.

"The rules regarding wiretapping in the Prosecutor's Bill are contained in Article 30, there are two problems, namely the layout and legal politics," said Taufik Basari at a Panja Meeting on Harmonization of the Prosecutor's Bill at the DPR RI complex, Jakarta, Thursday, September 17, 2020.

First, he continued, related to the layout of the wiretapping authority, it was placed under the authority related to public order. It is immense and dangerous.

According to him, even if there is wiretapping authority possessed by various agencies, the context must be law enforcement so it would be a mistake to place it in the realm of public order.

The NasDem Party faction politician assessed that the wiretapping authority is placed under the realm of public order so that everyone can be tapped to find out someone's actions.

"Even if there is wiretapping authority, it must be in the realm of law enforcement," he said.

Second, according to Taufik, is related to legal politics. He referred to the opinion of the Constitutional Court (MK) which was consistent in its stance that tapping was an act against the law because it violated the rights of privacy and human rights which could be limited by a law.

Taufik Basari said that the Constitutional Court was worried about being given wiretapping authority without clear mechanisms such as the reasons for wiretapping, time limits, and the treatment of wiretapping results.

Before being granted wiretapping authority in the Draft Prosecutor's Office, he said, make sure that the Tapping Bill is passed into law.

Thus, matters of concern can be minimized and regulated in law, not internal regulations of the Attorney General's Office and the National Police.

"The limits on human rights are permissible but the mechanism must be clearly regulated in a law," he said.

He suggested that the granting of wiretapping authority in the Prosecutor's Bill could be postponed until the special law related to wiretapping was passed and ensure that the mechanism was detailed so that it was not misused.

The granting of wiretapping authority in the Draft Law on the Prosecution is stated in Article 30 Paragraph (5) Letter g, namely In the field of public order and peace, the Prosecutor's Office shall conduct investigations, security and mobilization to support law enforcement activities and policies which include wiretapping and running a monitoring center.

AMONG

Post Feedback