<![CDATA[This research explores the constitutional review of asset confiscation conducted by law enforcement agencies on pre-office property owned by state officials in gratification cases. The issue is crucial since it relates to the protection of individual property rights and the limitation of institutional authority in combating corruption. This study aims to analyze how the seizure of assets acquired before assuming public office can be assessed from a constitutional law perspective. Using a normative juridical method complemented by case and conceptual approaches, along with interviews with legal practitioners and academic experts, this research evaluates the principles of legality, proportionality, and human rights protection in asset confiscation practices. The findings indicate that the seizure of pre-office assets without sufficient proof of connection to criminal acts violates constitutional principles, particularly the right to private ownership and legal certainty. Furthermore, such actions contradict the presumption of innocence and due process of law, potentially eroding public trust in the justice system. The study highlights the need for a clear and strict legal framework that defines the boundaries and procedures of asset confiscation to ensure that anti-corruption efforts remain effective without undermining citizens’ constitutional rights. Establishing such a framework would strengthen the legitimacy of law enforcement institutions and uphold the balance between justice enforcement and the protection of individual constitutional guarantees.]]>
Copyrights © 2025
