Limits on surveillance and independent oversight
In a statement quoted by Kompas.com on November 5, 2026, YLBHI said the cases underscored the urgency of regulating wiretapping. The foundation warned that surveillance without limits violates privacy and human rights.
YLBHI wants the law to restrict the purposes for which wiretapping is permitted and require grounds and individual justifications that can be tested. It also called for independent authorization, limits on duration, safeguards for private communications, oversight of the use of intercepted material and a right to recovery for victims. Any emergency exceptions should be narrowly drawn and subject to independent review, it said.
The proposed safeguards should extend beyond the content of conversations to metadata, device access and other surveillance technologies, YLBHI said. That scope would prevent authorities from evading protections simply by renaming a practice or changing how it operates.
"Every access must be recorded in an audit system protected from manipulation. Misuse must be accompanied by effective sanctions," the foundation said.
A separate law ordered by the Constitutional Court
YLBHI said the National Police's reliance on Police Regulation No. 5 of 2010, which governs wiretapping at the police Monitoring Center, does not reflect legal developments or comply with the Constitutional Court's mandate. It urged the president and the House of Representatives (DPR) to draft and deliberate the bill promptly.
The foundation cited Constitutional Court Decision No. 5/PUU-VIII/2010, which required a separate law to govern wiretapping mechanisms and procedures. That ruling followed a challenge by three advocates, Anggara, Supriyadi Widodo Eddyono and Wahyudi, to Article 31, Paragraph (4) of Law No. 11 of 2008 on Electronic Information and Transactions.
The advocates argued that the provision posed a substantial risk to constitutional protections for personal security and privacy. On February 24, 2011, the court granted their petition in full.
Three suspects in the police investigation
The National Police Criminal Investigation Agency (Bareskrim Polri) named three suspects on November 3, 2026: Presidential Chief of Staff and former National Police chief Listyo Sigit Prabowo; National Police Legal Affairs Division head Insp. Gen. Ahrie Sonta Nasution; and Insp. Gen. Eko Hadi Santoso. Bareskrim chief Comr. Gen. Asep Safrudin said a fourth person, identified as SU, remained under questioning as a witness, according to detikNews.
Asep described alleged surveillance spanning 2025 and 2026. He said the suspects directed that phone numbers be added to the police's Lawful Interception Management System (LIMS) without verification, then intercepted communications with no connection to a lawful investigation or prosecution.
The reported targets included the president's phone number, state officials, political figures, media, mass-organization figures, nongovernmental organizations and businesspeople. Around October 2026, the suspects allegedly ordered files containing interception results deleted from the LIMS computer system. A police report was filed on October 30.
The suspects face charges under Article 258 of Law No. 1 of 2023, the Criminal Code, carrying a maximum prison term of 10 years; Article 332 of the same law, carrying up to six years; and Law No. 11 of 2008 on Electronic Information and Transactions, carrying up to eight years. They were detained at the National Police Headquarters detention center.
Investigators examined 10 witnesses and three expert witnesses. They also seized 11 mobile phones, one iPad and four flash drives as evidence.
December deliberations remain a possibility
House Commission III chair Habiburokhman said on November 5 that the Wiretapping Bill was still being drafted and that the alleged surveillance case would inform its preparation. He placed it alongside the Judicial Office Bill and the Advocates Bill as three priorities to follow completion of the Asset Forfeiture Bill, according to reports by detikNews and merdeka.com.
Habiburokhman estimated that deliberations on the three bills could start in December 2026. He also drew a comparison with the US Watergate scandal, citing its politically motivated wiretapping, and suggested that the Indonesian case could be described as an Indonesian Watergate if political interests were involved.
He said the legislation must protect all Indonesian citizens from illegal wiretapping, not only the president and other state officials.
