Zapisane w:
| Główni autorzy: | , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Recurso digital |
| Język: | Język staroangielski |
| Wydane: |
Zenodo
2026
|
| Hasła przedmiotowe: | |
| Dostęp online: | https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.18150268 |
| Etykiety: |
Dodaj etykietę
Nie ma etykietki, Dołącz pierwszą etykiete!
|
Spis treści:
- <p>Wiretapping is an intrusive law enforcement instrument that has an impact on the restriction of citizens' constitutional rights, particularly the right to privacy. In the context of combating corruption as an extraordinary crime, the Attorney General's Office of the Republic of Indonesia is required to have effective and responsive investigative powers against increasingly sophisticated and covert modes of crime. However, the wiretapping powers stipulated in Article 30C letter i of LawLaw Number 11 of 2021 concerning Amendments to Law Number 16 of 2004 concerning the Attorney General's Office are still general in nature and do not meet constitutional standards as affirmed by the Constitutional Court, thus raising issues of legal certainty, accountability, and potential abuse of authority. This study aims to analyse the legal implications of the implementation of wiretapping powers by the Attorney General's Office in handling corruption cases and to formulate an ideal regulatory model in line with the principles of the rule of law, protection of human rights, and best practices in ASEAN countries. This study uses a legal-normative method with a legislative, conceptual, and comparative approach. The results of the study show that the fragmentation of wiretapping regulations and the absence of a clear judicial authorisation and oversight mechanism have the potential to lead to violations of constitutional rights and undermine the legitimacy of law enforcement. Therefore, it is necessary to reconstruct the regulation of the Attorney General's Office's wiretapping authority through the formation of a Special Wiretapping Law (lex specialis) that contains limitations on authority, judicial control mechanisms, operational standards, and internal and external accountability systems to ensure that the effectiveness of corruption eradication remains in line with the principles of justice, legal certainty, and respect for human rights.</p>