Illegal Phone Surveillance Threatens Freedom and Democracy

MEDAN | INDATANEWS.COM - The exposure of alleged illegal phone surveillance targeting Indonesian President Prabowo Subianto, government officials and several public figures raises questions that extend far beyond violations of privacy. The case touches on national security, the integrity of state institutions and the limits of government authority when monitoring citizens' communications. When law enforcement tools are allegedly used without proper procedures, the issue is not simply who was monitored, but also who controls that power.

On 3 November 2026, the Criminal Investigation Department of the Indonesian National Police (Bareskrim Polri) announced that three individuals had been named suspects, including former National Police Chief Listyo Sigit Prabowo. According to investigators, the alleged surveillance took place between 2025 and 2026. Those reportedly targeted included government officials, politicians, journalists, activists and businesspeople. The deletion of files obtained through the surveillance is also part of the investigation. All allegations must be examined through lawful evidence, while the presumption of innocence must be fully respected.

Abuse of Power and a Threat to Democracy

The allegations expose a paradox in the exercise of state power. Governments need the ability to intercept telecommunications to investigate serious crimes. However, the same instrument can become a tool of espionage when access is not subject to adequate restrictions. Technological progress can never replace the legal basis for government action. Every surveillance measure must have a clear statutory foundation, serve a legitimate purpose, receive proper authorisation, be limited in duration and remain subject to independently verifiable oversight.

The President's communications carry strategic significance. The disclosure of certain conversations could have implications for security, diplomacy and political decision-making. However, the seriousness of the issue must not depend on the official position of the person affected. If even the Head of State's communications can allegedly be intercepted unlawfully, what protection remains for ordinary citizens who have no special access to security safeguards?

The right to privacy is not a gift from the state, but a constitutional limit on government power. Article 28G(1) of Indonesia's 1945 Constitution guarantees the protection of every person's privacy, dignity and security. Illegal surveillance threatens these rights while also undermining democratic freedoms. Journalists may lose the trust of their sources. Activists may refrain from criticising those in power out of fear. Businesspeople may worry that confidential commercial information could be used against them. Formal freedoms lose their meaning when people are afraid to speak openly.

Law Enforcement and Oversight of State Power

For this reason, the naming of suspects must not be regarded as the conclusion of the case. Investigators must establish the entire chain of command, identify the recipients of the surveillance results, determine the purposes behind the collection of information and examine the alleged destruction of evidence. If law enforcement efforts focus only on those who carried out the technical operations, without investigating the decision-makers and beneficiaries, the underlying causes of the abuse of power may remain unaddressed. At the same time, the investigation must not turn into a process of public condemnation before a court has determined guilt.

Institutional reform is just as urgent as criminal prosecution. Access to surveillance systems must be restricted according to individual responsibilities, fully documented through secure audit logs and regularly reviewed by independent oversight bodies. Procedures for preserving digital evidence, destroying data and restoring the rights of affected individuals must be transparent and accountable. Public disclosure must also strike a balance between protecting state secrets and safeguarding the rights of those under investigation.

Complete secrecy surrounding the use of surveillance technology, however, creates an environment in which corrective action becomes extremely difficult. Oversight does not mean disclosing every confidential operation to the public. Rather, it must ensure that every surveillance request has a legal basis, receives the necessary authorisation, provides justification for its necessity and leaves an auditable record of compliance that can be examined by the relevant authorities.

Without such mechanisms, procedural safeguards risk becoming little more than formalities. Oversight would then begin only after a scandal has already come to light – by which time recordings may have been copied, distributed or deleted, leaving victims with little opportunity to obtain a fair and comprehensive remedy for the damage suffered.

The success of a state governed by the rule of law should not be measured by the number of people arrested, but by its ability to establish the truth through evidence, restore violated rights and prevent similar abuses in the future. The lawful exercise of power must be capable of holding itself accountable through independent institutions.

If this case is investigated thoroughly and fairly, it could become an important turning point in strengthening public trust. Otherwise, illegal surveillance will leave behind a dangerous message: state instruments can be used without effective oversight, while citizens are left to bear the consequences in the form of fear and uncertainty. (IDNC)

By Dr. Farid Wajdi, S.H., M.Hum

The author is the founder of Ethics of Care

The Limits of Immunity and Accountability in the Legal Profession