Author(s): Surya Prahara, Elwi Danil, Ferdi, Sukanda Husin
The position of electronic evidence in Indonesia has created a paradox in its use in the court. Some laws define electronic evidence as independent evidence outside of the evidence stipulated in the Indonesian Criminal Procedure Code. This is contrary to the proof system adopted by Indonesia, namely negatief wettelijke. Some other laws explain that electronic evidence is an extension of the evidence provided for in the Criminal Procedure Code (evidence of clues). However, the phrase “expansion of evidence” creates multi-interpretations. In addition, if electronic evidence is part of evidence, and then based on the Indonesian Criminal Procedure Code, the value contained in evidence (including electronic evidence) has independent evidentiary value, thus potentially weakening the evidentiary value of the electronic evidence and legal uncertainty might be occurred. As a result of this paradox, the regulation of electronic evidence in Indonesia has not met Gustav Radbruch’s version of the Principle of Justice.