Law in a country is always developed, law develops by adjusting to the development and dynamics of the life of a society in a country, including Indonesia, which is currently trying to eradicate corruption. In line with advances in technology, the criminal act of corruption is also increasingly difficult to eradicate, there needs to be a new way, considering that the criminal act of corruption has spread everywhere and is categorized as an extra ordinary crime. So far, the criminal act of corruption has involved perpetrators who have increased access and capacity for this, a special way is needed so that the crime can be investigated and convicted legally while at the same time returning state losses. One of these methods is through the establishment of the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK). ), in eradicating criminal acts of corruption, the KPK is equipped with the authority to carry out wiretapping as regulated in Article 12 of Law Number 19 Year 2019. Tapping itself is somewhat contrary to human rights as stated in Articles 27 F and 28 F of the 1945 Constitution, on the other hand tapping also not in accordance with the Due Process Of Law so that even though the implementation of wiretapping by the Corruption Eradication Commission can successfully arrest the perpetrators of criminal acts of corruption, the act of wiretapping has received criticism from many people and legal experts, and there have even been several material tests in the Constitutional Court regarding legal matters. it is the KPK's wiretapping action, especially the KPK's wiretapping permit is only based on the permission of the Supervisory Board according to the latest law while in the international world which regulates wiretapping based on the Siracusa Principles, it is the Court that has the authority to give permission or not to grant permission for an act of wiretapping like any other legal institutions. On the material test proposed for the KPK wiretapping act at the Constitutional Court (MK), there were several decisions by the Constitutional Court regarding this material test, the essence of the Constitutional Court's decision is that wiretapping violates human rights, and there must be a special law regulating wiretapping and disputing permits. of an act of wiretapping. Through a discussion carried out by studying legal principles, investigating international conventions on wiretapping and using legal theories related to wiretapping, it can be concluded that there are things that are contrary to wiretapping, including due process of law which is not can be implemented as well as the many principles of tapping that must also exist in order to complement an act of wiretapping, and at this writing it also ends with suggestions on how the KPK should conduct wiretapping, so that wiretapping does not violate legal provisions and has legality. Keywords: Tapping by KPK, Corruption Crime, Constitutional Court Decision, Supervisory Board, Human Rights.