<![CDATA[This article analyzes the legislators' response to demonstrations demanding the ratification of the Asset Forfeiture Bill (RUU Perampasan Aset) and its impact on public perception, while also explaining the legislators' stance through the perspective of legal positivism. Using a normative legal research method and a descriptive qualitative approach based on secondary data, this study finds that the legislators' response is accommodative yet conditional. The House of Representatives (DPR) openly accepted public aspirations but postponed the deliberation of the Asset Forfeiture Bill, citing procedural justifications—namely, the necessity of completing the revision of the Criminal Procedure Code Bill (RUU KUHAP) first to prevent regulatory overlap and maintain legal harmonization. This "stagnant" stance is explained by the view of legal positivism, which strictly separates formally enacted law (das Sein) from public moral demands or social justice (das Sollen). For these legislators, legal validity stems from absolute adherence to established procedures, not from mass pressure. In conclusion, the bill's delay is not a substantial rejection but rather a form of obedience to positive law (procedure) that overrides the demands for justice, ultimately creating a gap between formal legal certainty and the public's perception of political commitment to eradicating corruption.]]>
Copyrights © 2025
