AUTHENTICATING ELECTRONIC EVIDENCE IN CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS AT THE JAMBI DISTRICT COURT
Keywords:
uthentication, Criminal procedure, Digital forensics, Electronic evidence, Jambi District Court.Abstract
Electronic evidence can establish communications, transactions, and events that conventional testimony cannot fully reconstruct. Its usefulness nevertheless depends on an adequate foundation connecting the material presented in court with its claimed source and history. This article examines the authentication of electronic evidence in criminal proceedings at the Jambi District Court under the legal framework applicable through 2025. It employs normative legal research using statutory and conceptual approaches, supported by constitutional jurisprudence, forensic guidance, and relevant scholarship. The analysis distinguishes lawful acquisition, authenticity, integrity, attribution, relevance, and evidentiary weight. It argues that neither a matching hash nor possession of a device independently establishes authorship or the truth of its contents. Equally, the absence of a forensic laboratory report does not automatically establish inadmissibility in every case. Authentication should address the actual dispute through a documented and proportionate evidentiary foundation. The article proposes an assessment framework linking acquisition records, preservation, examination, courtroom presentation, and judicial reasoning. Its contribution is a locally directed normative framework rather than an empirical assessment of court performance. Reliable adjudication requires transparent handling records, opportunities for challenge, and explicit findings concerning the limits of each digital item.
Downloads
References
Constitutional Court of the Republic of Indonesia. (2016). Decision No. 20/PUU-XIV/2016. Official judgment.
Guttman, B., White, D. R., & Walraven, T. (2022). Digital evidence preservation: Considerations for evidence handlers (NIST IR 8387). National Institute of Standards and Technology. https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.IR.8387
Kent, K., Chevalier, S., Grance, T., & Dang, H. (2006). Guide to integrating forensic techniques into incident response(NIST SP 800-86). National Institute of Standards and Technology. https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.800-86
Republic of Indonesia. (1981). Undang-Undang Nomor 8 Tahun 1981 tentang Hukum Acara Pidana. Official legal database.
Republic of Indonesia. (2008). Undang-Undang Nomor 11 Tahun 2008 tentang Informasi dan Transaksi Elektronik.
Republic of Indonesia. (2009). Undang-Undang Nomor 48 Tahun 2009 tentang Kekuasaan Kehakiman. Official legal text.
Republic of Indonesia. (2016). Undang-Undang Nomor 19 Tahun 2016 tentang Perubahan atas Undang-Undang Nomor 11 Tahun 2008 tentang Informasi dan Transaksi Elektronik.
Republic of Indonesia. (2024). Undang-Undang Nomor 1 Tahun 2024 tentang Perubahan Kedua atas Undang-Undang Nomor 11 Tahun 2008 tentang Informasi dan Transaksi Elektronik. Official legal database.
Republic of Indonesia. (2025). Undang-Undang Nomor 20 Tahun 2025 tentang Kitab Undang-Undang Hukum Acara Pidana. Official legal database.
Supardi. (2021). Mengukur kekuatan alat bukti elektronik dalam pembuktian perkara tindak pidana korupsi. Syntax Literate: Jurnal Ilmiah Indonesia, 6(5). https://doi.org/10.36418/syntax-literate.v6i5.2724
Vanessa, & Firmansyah, H. (2025). Analysis of the validity of electronic evidence in criminal trial proceedings and the implementation of its admissibility (judgment study). Indonesian Journal of Law and Economics Review, 20(4). https://doi.org/10.21070/ijler.v20i4.1395
