Legal protection for Indonesian citizens is constitutionally guaranteed under Article 28D paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution, ensuring equality before the law. However, in practice, the management of state-seized assets stored in Rupbasan (State Seized Property Storage House) remains inadequate. This study adopts a normative legal research method with a qualitative, descriptive-analytical approach to examine the legal and practical dimensions of protecting seized objects within Rupbasan. The research highlights critical issues, including limited human resources, inadequate infrastructure, and a lack of professional capacity to secure and preserve assets effectively. Although Article 44 paragraph (2) of the Indonesian Criminal Procedure Code (KUHAP) stipulates that seized goods cannot be used by any party, it does not provide procedural sanctions for non-compliance. Administrative enforcement relies on internal regulations from investigative bodies, such as the police or the public prosecutor's office. The findings underscore the need for systematic improvements, including legal clarity on sanctions, enhanced professional capacity of Rupbasan personnel, sufficient storage facilities—especially for motor vehicles—and stronger security protocols. These enhancements are vital to ensure the state's obligation to protect assets as part of broader legal protection for its citizens.
Machpudj et al. (Wed,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: