RUANG LINGKUP KOMUNIKASI HUKUM PIDANA DAN PERDATA SEBAGAI BUKTI KEJAHATAN: KAJIAN PUSTAKA ATAS KEABSAHAN, KEKUATAN PEMBUKTIAN, DAN PERLINDUNGAN HAK DALAM PENGGUNAAN KOMUNIKASI LISAN, TERTULIS, ELEKTRONIK, DAN DIGITAL SEBAGAI ALAT BUKTI
Keywords:
criminal and civil legal communication, criminal evidence, validity, probative value, rights protection, oral, written, electronic, and digital communicationAbstract
This article examines the scope of criminal and civil law communications as evidence of crime through a literature review approach, focusing on the validity, probative value, and protection of rights in the use of oral, written, electronic, and digital communications as evidence. In criminal law, communication serves as a means of evidence that must meet formal and material requirements, including a minimum of two valid means of evidence, while in civil law, communication is emphasised more on relevance and preponderance of evidence. Law No. 11 of 2008 concerning Electronic Information and Transactions (ITE Law) recognises electronic information and documents as an extension of valid evidence, provided that they can be accessed, displayed, guaranteed to be complete, and accountable. The validity and probative value of communication are determined by factors of authentication, data integrity, and the means of acquisition. Electronic evidence that has not undergone an adequate digital forensics process is often only considered as supplementary or preliminary evidence, so it needs to be reinforced with other evidence to meet higher standards of proof, especially in criminal cases. In practice, courts reject some electronic evidence because it was obtained through unlawful means, such as wiretapping without court authorisation or the collection of personal data without consent, making the protection of rights a determining factor in the admissibility of communication evidence. The use of communications as evidence of crime must also be balanced with the protection of human rights, particularly the rights to privacy, freedom of communication, and the right to defence. Wiretapping, monitoring, or collection of electronic communication data without valid authorisation has the potential to violate privacy rights and may result in the rejection of evidence by the court. Therefore, digital communication-based evidence needs to be regulated within a clear regulatory framework, including digital forensic technical standards and oversight mechanisms, in order to maintain justice, legal certainty, and public trust in the judicial system.
References
Amin, R. (2020). Hukum Pembuktian Dalam Perkara Pidana Dan Perdata. Deepublish.
Andini, R. T., Ainiyah, L., & Setiyadi, B. (2024). Tantangan dan Etika Komunikasi Humas dalam Era Digital | JIIP - Jurnal Ilmiah Ilmu Pendidikan. http://www.jiip.stkipyapisdompu.ac.id/jiip/index.php/JIIP/article/view/4508
Ariana, I. N. (2022). TINJAUAN YURIDIS TERHADAP KEDUDUKAN ALAT BUKTI ELEKTRONIK BERDASARKAN PUTUSAN MK NOMOR 20/PUU-XIV/2016. UNES Law Review, 5(1), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.31933/unesrev.v5i1.277
Army, E. (2020). Bukti Elektronik dalam Praktik Peradilan. Sinar Grafika.
Ayu, R. O. (2025). Tantangan Penerapan Konsep Negara Hukum dalam Era Digital: Studi Kasus UU ITE dan Kebebasan Berekspresi: Penelitian. Jurnal Pengabdian Masyarakat Dan Riset Pendidikan, 3(4), 732–739. https://doi.org/10.31004/jerkin.v3i4.893
Demougin, D., & Fluet, C. (2006). Preponderance of evidence. European Economic Review, 50(4), 963–976. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euroecorev.2004.11.002
Eliyah, E., & Aslan, A. (2025). STAKE’S EVALUATION MODEL: METODE PENELITIAN. Prosiding Seminar Nasional Indonesia, 3(2), Article 2.
Fakhriah, E. L. (2023). BUKTI ELEKTRONIK DALAM SISTEM PEMBUKTIAN PERDATA. Penerbit Alumni.
Hakim, L., Kusumasari, T. F., & Lubis, M. (2018). Text Mining of UU-ITE Implementation in Indonesia. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1007(1), 012038. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1007/1/012038
Hartono, M. S., & Yuliartini, N. P. R. (2020). PENGGUNAAN BUKTI ELEKTRONIK DALAM PERADILAN PIDANA. Jurnal Komunikasi Hukum (JKH), 6(1), 281–302. https://doi.org/10.23887/jkh.v6i1.23607
Herlambang, P. H., Utama, Y. J., & Putrijanti, A. (2024). Harmonisasi Hukum UU Peratun dan UU ITE dalam Ketentuan Alat Bukti Elektronik sebagai Alat Bukti Tambahan dalam Sistem Peradilan Tata Usaha Negara. Jurnal Pembangunan Hukum Indonesia, 6(1), 61–81. https://doi.org/10.14710/agrisocionomics.v%25vi%25i.20474
Irsan, K. & Armansyah. (2019). Panduan memahami hukum pembuktian dalam hukum perdata dan hukum pidana. Gramata Publishing.
Kalengkongan, S. B. (2017). Kajian Hukum Pidana Adat dalam Sistem Hukum Pidana Indonesia. Lex Crimen, 6(2), 149136.
Lando, H. (2002). When is the Preponderance of the Evidence Standard Optimal? The Geneva Papers on Risk and Insurance - Issues and Practice, 27(4), 602–608. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-0440.00195
MARCHVIANTYO, A. (2018). KEKUATAN PEMBUKTIAN DARI ALAT BUKTI ELEKTRONIK DALAM PENYELESAIAN SENGKETA MELALUI ARBITRASE ONLINE [S1, UAJY]. https://repository.uajy.ac.id/id/eprint/16419/
Parker, T. F. I. (2011). A Preponderance of Evidence Is Sufficient. Clinical Journal of the American Society of Nephrology, 6(11), 2561. https://doi.org/10.2215/CJN.09440911
Patten, M. L. (2016). Understanding Research Methods: An Overview of the Essentials (9th ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315266312
Pribadi, I. (2018). Legalitas Alat Bukti Elektronik Dalam Sistem Peradilan Pidana. Lex Renaissance, 3(1), 4–4. https://doi.org/10.20885/JLR.vol3.iss1.art4
Putri, T. S., & Putra, M. R. S. (2024). Implementasi Undang-Undang Pelindungan Data Pribadi: Peran Manajemen Risiko Hukum bagi Prosesor Data Pribadi. Jurnal Hukum Lex Generalis, 5(4). https://ojs.rewangrencang.com/index.php/JHLG/article/view/730
Rahmadani, A., Paramita, M. L., Haura, S., & Firman, F. (2024). REGULASI DIGITAL DAN IMPLIKASINYA TERHADAP KEBEBASAN BERPENDAPAT (STUDI KASUS: UU ITE PADA PLATFORM MEDIA SOSIAL DI INDONESIA). Journal of Social Contemplativa, 2(1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.61183/jsc.v2i1.75
Rahmawati, D., & Taufiqoh, K. A. (2024). Keabsahan Alat Bukti Elektronik Dalam Pembuktian Perkara Perdata. Jurnal Panorama Hukum, 9(2), 150–160.
Sekarsari, R. M. (2018). Legalitas Alat bukti Elektronik hasil Penyadapan dalam Rencana Penjebakan Sebagai Upaya Penegakan Hukum [PhD Thesis]. Universitas Airlangga.
Shaputri, S. N. Y., & Mulyana, Y. (2024). Penegakan Hukum Bagi Pengguna Aplikasi Michat Sebagai Sarana Tindak Pidana Prostitusi Online Dikaitkan Dengan UU Republik Indonesia Nomor 19 Tahun 2016 Tentang Perubahan Atas Undang-Undang Nomor 11 Tahun 2008 Tentang Informasi Dan Transaksi Elektronik. UNES Law Review, 6(4), 12349–12360. https://doi.org/10.31933/unesrev.v6i4.2244
Sudarmo, S., Arifin, A., Pattiasina, P. J., Wirawan, V., & Aslan, A. (2021). The future of instruction media in Indonesian education: Systematic review. Al-Ishlah: Jurnal Pendidikan, 13(2), 1302–1311.
Tarigan, M. I., Runtung, R., Ginting, B., & Harianto, D. (2016). Dokumen Elektronik Sebagai Alat Bukti Dalam Perspektif Pembaruan Hukum Acara Perdata Indonesia. USU Law Journal, 4(1), 127–138.
Wijayanti, N. K. S., Dewi, A. A. S. L., & Widyantara, I. M. M. (2025). Keabsahan Alat Bukti Chatting Melalui Media Sosial Dalam Proses Pemidanaan Terhadap Tindak Pidana Perzinahan. Jurnal Analogi Hukum, 7(1), 83–88. https://doi.org/10.22225/jah.7.1.2025.83-88
Undang Undang Republik Indonesia Nomor 11 Tahun 2008 tentang Informasi dan Transaksi Elektronik.
Undang Undang Republik Indonesia Nomor 11 Tahun 2022 tentang Perlindungan Data Pribadi.
