JAKARTA |isnews.net| — Dunia penegakan hukum Indonesia diguncang perkara serius. Bareskrim Polri menetapkan tiga perwira tinggi kepolisian berinisial LSP, ASN, dan EH sebagai tersangka dugaan penyadapan ilegal, akses ilegal, serta penghapusan data elektronik. Ketiganya dilaporkan telah ditahan di Rumah Tahanan (Rutan) Bareskrim Mabes Polri setelah penyidik mengembangkan perkara yang diduga berlangsung sepanjang 2025–2026. Salah satu nama yang diidentifikasi dalam pemberitaan adalah Listyo Sigit Prabowo, mantan Kapolri yang kini menjabat Kepala Staf Kepresidenan. Dua tersangka lainnya diidentifikasi sebagai Irjen Ahrie Sonta dan Irjen Eko Hadi Santoso.
Kasus ini bukan perkara biasa. Dugaan penyadapan yang menyasar nomor telepon Presiden Republik Indonesia, pejabat negara, tokoh politik, media, organisasi kemasyarakatan (ormas), lembaga swadaya masyarakat (LSM), hingga pengusaha menyentuh persoalan mendasar: batas kewenangan aparat, perlindungan privasi, dan kepatuhan terhadap hukum di dalam institusi yang diberi mandat untuk menegakkan hukum.
Jika dugaan tersebut terbukti di pengadilan, perkara ini dapat menjadi pukulan serius terhadap kepercayaan publik. Sebab, kewenangan penyadapan yang seharusnya digunakan untuk kepentingan penegakan hukum justru diduga dijalankan tanpa prosedur yang semestinya. Namun, status tersangka bukanlah putusan bersalah. Pembuktian tetap harus dilakukan melalui proses hukum yang adil dan terbuka.
Kepala Bareskrim Polri Komjen Pol. Asep Safrudin menyampaikan bahwa penyidik telah menetapkan tiga orang sebagai tersangka berdasarkan hasil penyelidikan dan penyidikan, termasuk pemeriksaan saksi serta saksi ahli.
Dalam keterangannya, Asep mengungkapkan bahwa para tersangka diduga memerintahkan penyadapan tanpa surat permohonan dari penyidik maupun lampiran laporan polisi. Aktivitas tersebut juga diduga tidak berkaitan dengan proses penyelidikan atau penyidikan tindak pidana sebagaimana mestinya.
Salah satu aspek yang menjadi sorotan ialah penggunaan sistem Lawful Interception Management System (LIMS). Menurut keterangan penyidik yang diberitakan media, sejumlah nomor telepon diduga dimasukkan ke dalam sistem tersebut tanpa melalui verifikasi dan tanpa dasar penegakan hukum yang sesuai.
Di sinilah pertanyaan mendasar muncul: bagaimana mekanisme pengawasan bekerja apabila fasilitas yang dirancang untuk mendukung penegakan hukum diduga digunakan di luar prosedur?
Penyadapan bukan kewenangan tanpa batas. Penggunaannya harus memiliki dasar hukum, tujuan yang sah, serta mengikuti prosedur dan mekanisme pengawasan yang berlaku. Ketika prosedur diduga diabaikan, persoalannya tidak berhenti pada siapa yang memerintahkan atau siapa yang menjalankan. Penyelidikan juga harus menelusuri sistem persetujuan, pencatatan aktivitas, pengawasan akses, dan pertanggungjawaban setiap pihak yang terlibat.
Kewenangan yang besar tanpa pengawasan yang efektif berisiko berubah menjadi instrumen penyalahgunaan kekuasaan. Karena itu, penanganan perkara ini harus mengungkap bukan hanya pelaku yang diduga terlibat, tetapi juga bagaimana aktivitas tersebut dapat berlangsung dan apakah terdapat kelemahan sistem yang memungkinkan penyimpangan.
Cakupan sasaran penyadapan yang diungkap penyidik membuat perkara ini semakin sensitif. Selain Presiden Republik Indonesia, nomor telepon pejabat negara, tokoh politik, media, tokoh ormas, LSM, dan pengusaha disebut dalam dugaan aktivitas tersebut.
Ketua Ruang Kita Center, Iskar menyayangkan kejadian seperti ini terjadi disaat institusi Polri sedang terus tumbuh dan memperbaiki diri.
“Kita tetap pada prinsip hukum Presumption of Innocence atau praduga tak bersalah, saat ini status mereka baru tersangka, masih ada tahapan-tahapan hukum dan pembuktian hingga menjadi terdakwa dan terpidana hingga ingkrah di pegadilan, yang terpenting kita terus pantau dan pastikan bahwa kasus ini bukan kasus politik dan “perang para bintang”.
Apabila dugaan itu terbukti, dampaknya berpotensi melampaui persoalan privasi individu. Penyadapan tanpa dasar hukum dapat mengganggu kebebasan berkomunikasi, menimbulkan ketakutan di kalangan masyarakat, serta memengaruhi hubungan antara negara dan warga.
Bagi jurnalis, perlindungan komunikasi menjadi bagian penting dari upaya memperoleh informasi dan menjaga kerahasiaan sumber sesuai ketentuan hukum dan etika jurnalistik. Bagi aktivis masyarakat sipil, keamanan komunikasi berkaitan dengan kebebasan menyampaikan pendapat, melakukan advokasi, dan mengawasi kebijakan publik.
Meski demikian, daftar sasaran yang disebut dalam keterangan penyidik tidak serta-merta membuktikan bahwa seluruh komunikasi pihak-pihak tersebut telah berhasil diakses atau direkam. Hal itu perlu dijelaskan melalui hasil pemeriksaan barang bukti digital, identifikasi nomor yang benar-benar menjadi target, serta pembuktian mengenai data yang diperoleh dan pihak yang mengaksesnya.
Publik berhak memperoleh penjelasan yang terang, tetapi penjelasan itu harus bertumpu pada bukti, bukan spekulasi.
Perkara ini juga memuat dugaan penghapusan data elektronik. Berdasarkan informasi yang disampaikan dalam pemberitaan, pada Oktober 2026 para tersangka diduga memerintahkan penghapusan berkas hasil penyadapan dari komputer yang berkaitan dengan sistem LIMS.
Jika dugaan tersebut benar, penyidik perlu menjelaskan siapa yang memberikan perintah, siapa yang melaksanakannya, data apa yang dihapus, serta apakah tindakan itu memengaruhi proses pengungkapan perkara.
Penghapusan data elektronik tidak boleh langsung ditafsirkan sebagai upaya menghilangkan barang bukti sebelum motif dan tindakan masing-masing pihak dibuktikan. Namun, dugaan tersebut cukup serius untuk diperiksa secara menyeluruh melalui analisis forensik digital, termasuk pemeriksaan log akses, metadata, salinan cadangan, dan jejak aktivitas sistem.
Dalam perkara yang melibatkan teknologi, bukti digital dapat menjadi kunci untuk menguji kesesuaian antara keterangan saksi, perintah yang diduga diberikan, dan aktivitas yang benar-benar berlangsung.
Penyidik juga perlu memastikan bahwa barang bukti diamankan dengan prosedur yang dapat dipertanggungjawabkan sehingga integritasnya terjaga dan dapat diuji dalam proses peradilan.
Selain tiga tersangka, seorang berinisial SU masih berstatus saksi dalam perkara ini. Menurut keterangan yang diberitakan, Bareskrim telah memeriksa 10 saksi dan tiga saksi ahli serta menyita sejumlah barang bukti elektronik, antara lain telepon genggam, satu unit iPad, dan empat flashdisk.
Pemeriksaan terhadap saksi dan analisis barang bukti diharapkan dapat membangun rangkaian peristiwa secara utuh. Publik perlu mengetahui bagaimana dugaan penyadapan dimulai, siapa yang mengusulkan target, siapa yang memberikan persetujuan, siapa yang mengoperasikan sistem, dan apakah hasil penyadapan pernah diserahkan atau digunakan oleh pihak lain.
Pertanyaan tersebut penting untuk mencegah penyidikan berhenti pada beberapa nama, sementara kemungkinan keterlibatan pihak lain atau kelemahan pengawasan belum terungkap.
Di sisi lain, status saksi tidak boleh dipelintir menjadi tuduhan. Setiap orang harus dinilai berdasarkan bukti dan perannya masing-masing, bukan karena jabatan, kedekatan, atau dugaan yang beredar di ruang publik.
Istilah “perang bintang” menggambarkan betapa seriusnya perkara yang menyeret nama-nama berpangkat tinggi. Namun, penanganan kasus ini seharusnya tidak diarahkan menjadi pertarungan antarelite, konflik kepentingan, atau ajang saling menjatuhkan.
Ukuran keberhasilan penegakan hukum bukanlah seberapa tinggi pangkat seseorang yang dijadikan tersangka. Ukurannya ialah apakah penyidikan berlangsung independen, bukti diuji secara objektif, seluruh pihak diperlakukan setara, dan hasil akhirnya dapat dipertanggungjawabkan.
Mabes Polri menghadapi ujian kredibilitas. Ketika aparat penegak hukum menangani dugaan pelanggaran yang melibatkan personelnya sendiri, transparansi dan pengawasan menjadi semakin penting. Penanganan yang profesional akan memperkuat kepercayaan publik; sebaliknya, proses yang tertutup tanpa penjelasan memadai berisiko memunculkan kecurigaan.
Hak jawab para tersangka dan pihak terkait juga harus dihormati. Mereka berhak mengetahui tuduhan yang disangkakan, memperoleh pendampingan hukum, mengajukan bukti tandingan, serta membela diri melalui mekanisme peradilan. Hingga ada putusan pengadilan berkekuatan hukum tetap, asas praduga tak bersalah tetap berlaku.
Kini, tantangan terbesar penyidik adalah memastikan perkara ini tidak berhenti pada pengumuman penetapan tersangka. Penjelasan mengenai dasar hukum, kronologi, peran masing-masing pihak, hasil pemeriksaan digital, serta kemungkinan keterlibatan pihak lain harus disampaikan secara bertahap tanpa mengganggu proses penyidikan.
Pada saat yang sama, institusi terkait perlu mengevaluasi tata kelola penyadapan, sistem otorisasi, audit akses, dan perlindungan data. Perbaikan tersebut diperlukan agar kewenangan yang sah tidak disalahgunakan dan pelanggaran serupa dapat dicegah.
Kasus ini mengingatkan bahwa tidak ada jabatan yang boleh menjadi tameng dari pemeriksaan hukum. Namun, tidak pula ada seseorang yang patut dinyatakan bersalah hanya karena namanya muncul dalam perkara besar.
Jika dugaan penyadapan ilegal ini terbukti, yang dipertaruhkan bukan semata reputasi sejumlah jenderal, melainkan integritas penegakan hukum dan kepercayaan masyarakat terhadap negara.
Pada akhirnya, publik tidak membutuhkan drama “perang bintang”. Publik membutuhkan kebenaran yang dibuktikan, hukum yang ditegakkan secara setara, dan institusi yang berani mengoreksi dirinya sendiri. Sebab, kewibawaan aparat tidak lahir dari pangkat dan seragam, melainkan dari kesetiaan terhadap hukum yang wajib mereka tegakkan.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________
JAKARTA | isnews.net | — Indonesia’s law enforcement community has been shaken by a serious case. The Criminal Investigation Agency (Bareskrim) of the Indonesian National Police (Polri) has named three senior police officers, identified by the initials LSP, ASN, and EH, as suspects in an alleged case involving illegal wiretapping, unauthorized access, and the deletion of electronic data. The three are reportedly being held at the detention facility of Bareskrim Headquarters following an investigation into alleged activities that took place throughout 2025–2026. One of the individuals identified in media reports is Listyo Sigit Prabowo, the former National Police Chief who now serves as Head of the Presidential Staff Office. The other two suspects have been identified as Inspector General Ahrie Sonta and Inspector General Eko Hadi Santoso.
This is no ordinary case. The alleged wiretapping, which reportedly targeted telephone numbers belonging to the President of the Republic of Indonesia, state officials, political figures, media organizations, community organizations, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), and businesspeople, raises fundamental questions about the limits of law enforcement authority, privacy protection, and compliance with the law within an institution entrusted with enforcing it.
If the allegations are proven in court, the case could deal a serious blow to public trust. The authority to conduct wiretapping, which should be exercised for legitimate law enforcement purposes, was allegedly used without following the required procedures. However, being named a suspect does not constitute a finding of guilt. The allegations must still be proven through a fair and transparent legal process.
The Head of Bareskrim, Police Commissioner General Asep Safrudin, stated that investigators had named three individuals as suspects based on the results of preliminary inquiries and formal investigations, including the examination of witnesses and expert witnesses.
In his statement, Asep revealed that the suspects allegedly ordered wiretapping without a formal request from investigators or an accompanying police report. The activities were also allegedly unrelated to any criminal inquiry or investigation conducted in accordance with proper legal procedures.
One aspect that has drawn particular scrutiny is the use of the Lawful Interception Management System (LIMS). According to statements by investigators reported in the media, several telephone numbers were allegedly entered into the system without verification and without an appropriate legal basis for law enforcement purposes.
This raises a fundamental question: how can oversight mechanisms function effectively when a system designed to support law enforcement is allegedly used outside established procedures?
Wiretapping is not an unlimited power. Its use must have a legal basis and a legitimate purpose and must comply with applicable procedures and oversight mechanisms. When those procedures are allegedly disregarded, the issue goes beyond who gave the orders or who carried them out. The investigation must also examine the approval process, activity records, access controls, and the accountability of every party involved.
Extensive authority without effective oversight risks becoming an instrument of abuse of power. Therefore, the handling of this case must establish not only who may have been involved, but also how the alleged activities were able to take place and whether systemic weaknesses enabled the irregularities.
The scope of the alleged surveillance targets disclosed by investigators makes the case even more sensitive. In addition to the President of the Republic of Indonesia, the telephone numbers of state officials, political figures, media organizations, community organization leaders, NGOs, and businesspeople were reportedly among the alleged targets.
Iskar, Chairperson of Ruang Kita Center, expressed regret that an incident of this nature had occurred at a time when the Indonesian National Police was continuing its efforts to develop and improve the institution.
“We must continue to uphold the legal principle of the presumption of innocence. At this stage, they are only suspects. There are still legal proceedings and evidentiary stages to be completed before a case proceeds to trial and a person is convicted, with the verdict eventually becoming legally binding. Most importantly, we must continue to monitor the case and ensure that it does not become a political case or a ‘war among the stars’—a power struggle among senior police officials.”
If the allegations are proven, the consequences could extend far beyond individual privacy violations. Wiretapping without a lawful basis can undermine freedom of communication, create fear among members of the public, and affect the relationship between the state and its citizens.
For journalists, the protection of communications is essential to gathering information and safeguarding the confidentiality of sources in accordance with applicable law and journalistic ethics. For civil society activists, communications security is closely linked to the freedom to express opinions, conduct advocacy, and monitor public policy.
Nevertheless, the list of targets mentioned in investigators’ statements does not automatically prove that all communications belonging to those individuals or organizations were successfully accessed or recorded. This must be clarified through an examination of digital evidence, identification of the telephone numbers actually targeted, and verification of what data was obtained and who accessed it.
The public is entitled to clear explanations, but those explanations must be based on evidence rather than speculation.
The case also involves allegations of electronic data deletion. According to information reported by the media, in October 2026 the suspects allegedly ordered the deletion of wiretapping-related files from a computer connected to the LIMS system.
If the allegation is accurate, investigators must clarify who issued the order, who carried it out, what data was deleted, and whether the action affected efforts to uncover the case.
The deletion of electronic data should not immediately be interpreted as an attempt to destroy evidence before the motives and actions of each party have been established. Nevertheless, the allegation is serious enough to warrant a comprehensive examination through digital forensic analysis, including reviews of access logs, metadata, backup copies, and system activity records.
In cases involving technology, digital evidence can be crucial in determining whether witness statements, alleged instructions, and the activities that actually occurred are consistent with one another.
Investigators must also ensure that all evidence is secured through accountable procedures so that its integrity is preserved and can be examined during judicial proceedings.
In addition to the three suspects, an individual identified by the initials SU remains a witness in the case. According to media reports, Bareskrim has examined 10 witnesses and three expert witnesses and seized several electronic items, including mobile phones, one iPad, and four USB flash drives.
The witness examinations and analysis of the seized evidence are expected to establish a comprehensive sequence of events. The public needs to know how the alleged wiretapping began, who proposed the targets, who authorized the activities, who operated the system, and whether the intercepted information was ever transferred to or used by other parties.
These questions are important to ensure that the investigation does not stop with a few names while possible involvement by other parties or weaknesses in oversight remain undiscovered.
At the same time, a person’s status as a witness must not be distorted into an accusation. Every individual must be assessed according to the available evidence and their respective role, not their position, personal connections, or allegations circulating in the public sphere.
The term “star war” reflects the gravity of a case involving individuals holding high-ranking positions. However, the investigation should not be allowed to turn into a battle among elites, a conflict of interests, or an opportunity for rival parties to undermine one another.
The measure of successful law enforcement is not how senior the rank of a suspect is. It is whether the investigation is conducted independently, evidence is assessed objectively, all parties are treated equally before the law, and the outcome can be justified and held accountable.
National Police Headquarters is facing a test of credibility. When law enforcement authorities investigate alleged misconduct involving their own personnel, transparency and oversight become even more important. A professional investigation will strengthen public trust. Conversely, a closed process without adequate explanations risks fueling suspicion.
The right of suspects and other relevant parties to respond must also be respected. They are entitled to know the allegations against them, obtain legal counsel, present counterevidence, and defend themselves through judicial proceedings. Until a court issues a final and legally binding verdict, the presumption of innocence remains in force.
The investigators’ greatest challenge now is to ensure that the case does not stop at the announcement that suspects have been named. Explanations regarding the legal basis, chronology of events, role of each individual, digital forensic findings, and possible involvement of other parties must be provided progressively without compromising the investigation.
At the same time, the relevant institutions must review their governance of wiretapping, authorization systems, access audits, and data protection measures. Such reforms are necessary to prevent the abuse of legitimate authority and ensure that similar violations do not occur again.
This case serves as a reminder that no official position should shield anyone from legal scrutiny. However, no individual should be declared guilty merely because their name appears in a high-profile case.
If the allegations of illegal wiretapping are proven, what is at stake is not merely the reputation of several generals, but the integrity of law enforcement and public confidence in the state.
Ultimately, the public does not need the drama of a “star war.” It needs truth established through evidence, laws enforced equally, and institutions courageous enough to correct their own shortcomings. The authority of law enforcement does not come from rank or uniform, but from unwavering adherence to the law they are duty-bound to uphold.
