The Constitutional Court's screening of talks between Anggodo Widjoyo and several individuals suspected of being Indonesian law enforcement personnel still raises many legal questions. In addition to the issue of voice veracity, there is also an open question regarding the legality and justification of wiretapping. This problem stems from the procedural legislation governing wiretapping's shortcomings. This paper aims to examine the difficulties and appropriate layout of rules pertaining to wiretapping provisions in the Draft Criminal Procedure Code (RKUHAP). This paper was written utilizing normative legal research methodologies such as statutory, conceptual, case, and comparative approaches. According to the study's findings, the most difficult aspect of wiretapping is drafting an acceptable procedural regulation that does not infringe on human rights. Because wiretapping deviates from natural principles, the implementation method must also rely on due process of law. Aside from these challenges, the ideal design required to regulate wiretapping provisions in the RKUHAP is to regulate criminal sanctions if wiretapping is carried out unlawfully by officials, distinguish law enforcement officials' arbitrariness from procedural errors, and formulate related wiretapping permit mechanisms, how to analyze the veracity of wiretapping results, up to the deadline for wiretapping that the Corruption Eradication Commission can carry out. In addition, Indonesia can also follow the example of the United States, that in the United States, wiretapping permits are centralized in an institution called the United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, which was formed based on the United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.