Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
The flourish of information and communication technology allows everyone to use the widest possible cyberspace. However, cyberspace is also the sources of problems and serious threats posed when its scope is used to committed intentionally crimes, especially, exploited cyberspace "with a motive for corruption". So, why the State based on Article 12 paragraph (1) of Law Number 30, 2002 about Commission against Corruption (KPK), gives authority to use cyberspace for "wiretapping" of people suspected of corruption. According to the principle of "the rule of law", wiretapping it’s unlawful. Wiretapping must be guaranteed the realization of the "due process of law" that given by the state when deprivation of one's rights individually. Its a cause of revised that "the authority of wiretapping is carried out after obtaining written permission from the Supervisory Board". However, after the revision of the KPK Law raises the pro-contra, especially, there are extensive protests from students. Generally, pro of the revision of KPK Law is seen as weakening the duties and authority of the KPK and understood as pro-corruptors. The problem is "how can wiretapping guarantee the realization of the "due process of law" in efforts to corruption combating. The aim of this study is trying to figure out the principle of "due process of law" as a basis for enforcement corruption cases by KPK. Method "doctrinal research” used to obtain sources of available data through “library-based study”. Evaluating based on the principle and theory of “Due Process of Law” through “analytical and critical approach". The results show that the KPK's law enforcement hasn't provided guarantee on the "due process of law", tends to be "arbitrary process", not as the standard of criminal law enforcement policies.
Elstonsius Banjo (Mon,) studied this question.