The Urgency of the Public Prosecutor’s Intelligence Wiretapping Authority on Disclosure of Corruption Crimes in the Perspective of Human Rights

Abstract

— This study aims to examine the formulation of the authority of the Public Prosecutor's Intelligence wiretapping for the disclosure of corruption in the perspective of human rights. Basically, in terms of wiretapping on the disclosure of criminal acts of corruption, the only authority given by the government is the KPK, but the facts on the ground in disclosing the Corruption Crimes of the Attorney General's Office work after the crime took place. The prosecutor's intelligence as a tool to strengthen and support the success of law enforcement operations has a very important role. This means that the intelligence of the Prosecutor's Office is part of the sustainability of the security, order, and welfare of the Indonesian state. Based on this, it is important to reformulate the authority of the Prosecutor's Intelligence on wiretapping which began with the alleged corruption crime committed by certain individuals. In the formulation of authority, it is necessary to take into account the privacy rights of the person who committed the corruption crime which cannot be separated from the violation of one's human rights. If viewed from the perspective of human rights, wiretapping can be categorized as a form of violation of human rights, especially personal rights (privacy). What is meant by human rights violations here, according to Article 1 point 6 of Law no. 39 of 1999 concerning Human Rights is an act of a person or group of people including state apparatus, whether intentional or unintentional or negligence which unlawfully reduces, hinders, limits, and or revokes the human rights of a person or group of people. Wiretapping is a form of violation of human rights, especially the right to privacy, but restrictions on privacy rights can be limited by law, of course by fulfilling certain conditions that make the wiretapping action possible. Without the fulfillment of these conditions, the act of wiretapping is a form of arbitrariness. especially the right to privacy, but the right to privacy can be limited by law, of course by fulfilling certain conditions that make the wiretapping action possible. Without the fulfillment of these conditions, the act of wiretapping is a form of arbitrariness. especially the right to privacy, but the right to privacy can be limited by law, of course by fulfilling certain conditions that make the wiretapping action possible. Without the fulfillment of these conditions, the act of wiretapping is a form of arbitrariness.