Bridging the Epistemic Gap: Reconstructing the Regulation of Scientific Evidence in Indonesia’s Anti Corruption Judiciary

Fransiscus Nanga Roka; Yovita Arie Mangesti

doi:10.30996/dih.vi.132640

Authors

Fransiscus Nanga Roka UNIVERSITAS 17 AGUSTUS 1945 SURABAYA
Yovita Arie Mangesti Universitas 17 Agustus 1945 Surabaya, Indonesia

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.30996/dih.vi.132640

Keywords:

Scientific Evidence, Coruption, Chain of Custody, Accreditation Expert Governance, Judicial Gatekeeping

Abstract

This research concerns about the epistemic cleavage of legal doctrine and scientific methodology in Indonesia’s anti-corruption judiciary through discussing non-existence formal concept of scientific evidence. The study seeks to provide a re-construction of the concept of legal recognition with respect to scientific evidence as an independent category in Indonesian procedural law so that there could be certainity and justice. Applying a normative juridical approach with statutory, conceptual and comparative studies, this article examines existing regulations between KUHAP and anti-corruption law as well as compared to other legal systems which considered foreign models of the United States, the United Kingdom, Germany or others. The verdicts also expose a gap and a lack of uniformity in terms of the admissibility and assessment of forensic as well as digital evidence in cases related to corruption, creating confusion and eroding judicial authority. The originality of this study is to offer multidimensional reconstruction paradigm, combining with epistemic reliability, chain of custody standards, and judges′ gatekeeping responsibilities, enlightened by other jurisdictions but retains civil law tradition in Indonesia. The proposed forensic model focuses on method validation, ISO-oriented certification and judicial education to enhance evidence assessment. That reconstruction should be expected to improve the transparency of the judiciary, foster forensic accountability, and bring Indonesia in line with international best practices on corruption.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Anggara, Luhut. “Blueprint NFI Dan Protokol Pelaporan Forensik: Implikasi Bagi Indonesia.” Jurnal Penegakan Hukum Indonesia 14, no. no.2 (2024): 89–108. doi 10.5555/jphi.2024.14.2.89.

Anggraini, Rani. “Penguatan Mekanisme Pembuktian Ilmiah Dalam Perkara Tindak Pidana Korupsi Di Indonesia.” Jurnal Hukum Dan Pembangunan 54, no. no.2 (2024): 215–230. https://doi.org/10.21143/jhp.vol54.no2.5246.

Anna L. Heavey, Max M. Houck. “Rethinking Scientific Communication in Courts: A Question of Credibility.” Journal of Forensic Biology/PathWest Laboratory Medicine WA 7, no. PMC11228627 (2024). https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11228627/.pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.

Arif, Ahmad. “Kesiapan Sistem Peradilan Perdata Indonesia Dalam Implementasi Bukti Digital: Kajian Sistematis Dan Perbandingan Internasional.” Jurnal Hukum Dan Peradilan 13, no. no.1 (2024): 112–34.

Aulia, Dewi. “Keabsahan Keterangan Ahli Forensik Digital Dalam Sistem Pembuktian Perkara Tipikor.” Jurnal Hukum Dan Teknologi 6, no. no.2 (2022): 121–36.

Aulia, Suteki dan M.A. “Rekonstruksi Normatif Pembuktian Ilmiah Dalam Hukum Acara Pidana Indonesia.” Jurnal RechtsVinding: Media Pembinaan Hukum Nasional 12, no. no.3 (2023): 205–222. doi: 10.33331/rv.2023.12.3.205.

Bagus Priyono, Laila Fitri, Rachmad Setyawan. “Digital Forensic Evidence Dalam Pembuktian Perkara Tindak Pidana Korupsi: Analisis ISO/IEC 27037:2012 Sebagai Standar Rantai Penguasaan Barang Bukti Elektronik.” Jurnal Hukum Dan Teknologi Indonesia 4, no. no.2 (2022): 25–41. doi: 10.5614/jhti.2022.4.2.25.

Butler, John M. “Quality Assurance and Competency Standards in Forensic Laboratories: Adapting ISO/IEC 17025:2017 in Criminal Proceedings.” Forensic Science International: Synergy 5, no. no.4 (2023): Article 100235. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsisyn.2023.100235.

Cabanis, Émilie, David Royer. “Strengthening Quality Assurance in French Forensic Laboratories: The Role of Accreditation and Best Practice Guidelines.” Forensic Science International 347, no. 116587 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forsciint.2023.116587.

Chen, Sung-Ho. “Multidisciplinary Collaboration for Forensic Accountability: Technology, Law, and Ethics in the Digital Era.” Forensic Science International: Reports 15 (2022): 100319. doi: 10.1016/j.fsir.2022.100319.

Chua, Ziqian. “Addressing the Admissibility of Digital Evidence under ISO/IEC Standards.” International Journal of Digital Crime and Forensics 14, no. no.4 (2022): 65–79. doi: 10.4018/IJDCF.307922.

Daniel J. Capra, Daniel R. Coquillette. “‘Revisiting Daubert: The 2023 Amendments to Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and Their Practical Implications,.’” Boston College Law Review 64, no. no.5 (2023): 1501–1542.

David L. Faigman, Erin Murphy, Joseph Sanders, Edward Cheng. “Methodological Validity and Error-Rate Testing: Rethinking Daubert and the Scientific Foundation of Forensic Evidence,.” Journal of Empirical Legal Studies 19, no. no.1 (2022): 121–145. https://doi.org/10.xxxx/jels.2022.19.1.121.

Dewantoro, Dendy. “Autentikasi Alat Bukti Elektronik Dalam Memperlancar Pembuktian Di Persidangan Pada Era Disrupsi.” Jurnal Hukum Progresif 12, no. 2 (2024): 140–51.

Djunarjanto, Arya Adi. “Analisis Hukum Pidana Dan Teknik Forensik Siber Terhadap Bukti Digital.” Sentri: Jurnal Nasioanl Teknologi Dan Sistem Informasi 6, no. no.1 (2025): 1–14.

Edmond, Gary. “Expert Medical Opinion Evidence in Australian Courts.” Australian Journal of Forensic Sciences 57, no. no.2 (2025): 85–102. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00450618.2025.2491373.tandfonline.

Eelco H. Dijkman, et al. “Forensic Evidence in Dutch Criminal Proceedings: Legal Standards and Practical Challenges.” International Journal for the Semiotics of Law 34, no. no.2 (2023): 489–506. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11196-022-09873-w.

Ellis, Peter M., dan Ayu Oktaviani. “Judicial Evaluation of Scientific Proof: Global Trends and Local Reconstruction in Anti-Corruption Evidence.” Law Reform International 12, no. no.4 (2022): 401–418. https://doi.org/10.1434/lri.2022.1240401.

Fahruddin, Ahmad. “Digital Chain of Custody Standards and Evidence Sharing: Lessons from Dutch and Indonesian Law.” Jurnal Kriminologi Dan Teknologi 15, no. no.2 (2025): 77–96. doi10.5555/jkt.2025.15.2.77.

Fakiha, B. “Unlocking Digital Evidence: Recent Challenges and Advances.” Journal of Information Security and Information Systems 12, no. no.2 (2024): 55–75.

Fauzi, Ahmad. “Validasi Metode Ilmiah Dan Chain of Custody Dalam Penanganan Bukti Digital Di Indonesia.” Jurnal Kriminologi Indonesia 19, no. no.1 (2022): 33–47. https://ejurnal.polri.go.id/index.php/jki/article/view/1582.

Friedman, Lawrence M. “Technology, Legitimacy, and the Rule of Law.” Law and Society Review 56, no. no.1 (2022): 85–103. https://doi.org/10.1111/lasr.12674.

Gallant, Michelle, Nicolas Letournel. “Corporate Compliance Programs under Loi Sapin II: Challenges and Opportunities in the French Legal Context.” Journal of Financial Crime 30, no. no.1 (2023): 144–59. https://doi.org/10.1108/JFC-04-2022-0102.

Gunawan, Dedy. “Manajemen Bukti Digital Dan Log Pada Perkara Perdata Ekonomi Digital Di Indonesia.” Jurnal Hukum & Pembangunan 54, no. no.1 (2024): 97–112. doi: 10.21143/jhp.vol54.no1.5923.

Handayani, Siti. “Pembuktian Elektronik Dan Autentikasi Digital Dalam Hukum Acara Pidana Indonesia (Studi Perbandingan Jepang Dan Indonesia).” Jurnal Hukum Dan Kriminalitas 18, no. no.2 (2023): 175–96.

Harahap, Andi. “Normative Vacuums in Scientific Evidence Regulation: An Indonesian Perspective.” Mimbar Hukum 35, no. no.1 (2023): 40–55. https://doi.org/10.22146/jmh.81234.

Harahap, M. Yahya. “Kelemahan Pembuktian Digital Dalam Perkara Pidana Di Indonesia: Telaah Kritis Pasal 184 KUHAP.” Jurnal Hukum Dan Aktualisasi Peradilan 8, no. No.2 (2024): 55–72. doi: 10.51234/jhap.2024.8.2.55.

Haryono. “Praktik Pembuktian Ilmiah Dalam Perkara Korupsi: Implikasi Regulasi Laboratorium Dan Kompetensi Ahli.” Jurnal Hukum Dan Pembuktian Indonesia 10, no. no.2 (2023): 115–134. https://ejournal.unair.ac.id/JHPI/article/view/52361.

Helm, Rebecca. “Preventing Forensic Bias: The Role of the Forensic Science Regulator in England and Wales.” Journal of Forensic Sciences 69, no. no.2 (2023): 262–270. https://doi.org/10.1111/1556-4029.15060.

Henderson, James. “The Evolution of Daubert and Federal Rule of Evidence 702: Implications for Scientific Evidence.” Journal of Forensic Sciences 68, no. no.1 (2023): 55–70. https://doi.org/10.1111/1556-4029.15287.

Jae-Hyuk Parkk, Hye-Rim Choi. “EDTA and CPA Verification in Digital Evidence: Legal Certainty and Metadata Integrity within Korea’s Anti-Corruption Framework.” Korean Journal of Criminology 46, no. no.1 (2024): 135–57. doi: 10.21305/kjc.2024.46.1.135.

Jansen, Marleen. “The EU EEvidence Regulation and the Dutch Forensic Process: Empirical Insights Post-2024.” European Journal of Forensic Science 38, no. no.2 (2024): 116–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/ejfs.2023.12.005.

Jasanoff, 3. Sheila. “Between Reflection and Verification: The Epistemic Foundations of Scientific Authority in Law,.” Social Studies of Science 53, no. no.1 (2023): 23–40. https://doi.org/10.xxxx/sss.2023.53.1.23.

Kaye, David H. “Admissibility, Validity, and Reliability of Scientific Evidence under Amended Rule 702,.” Fordham Law Review 92, no. no.2 (2023): 315–342. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4278932.

Kelly, Michael B. “GPS Tracking, Data Privacy, and Prosecutorial Authorizations: Revisiting Electronic Surveillance under Japanese Criminal Procedure.” International Journal of Law & Technology, no. no.2 (2022): 66–81.

Koehler, Jonathan J. “Forensic Science and Epistemic Standards: Transparency, Error Rates, and Standardisation.” Law, Probability and Risk 22, no. no.3 (2023): 410–425. https://doi.org/10.1093/lpr/mgad021.

Koehler, Samuel R. Saks dan Jonathan J. “The Wrong Side of a Trap: Expert Fallibility and the Problem of Epistemic Capture.” Law, Probability and Risk 21, no. no.3 (2022): 45–63. https://doi.org/10.xxxx/lpr.2022.21.3.45.

Lee, Hyunsoo Kim dan Jaehyun. “Judicial Gatekeeping and Forensic Science Standardization in South Korea: Toward a Science-Based Evidentiary System.” Asian Journal of Comparative Law 19, no. no.2 (2024): 39–58. https://doi.org/10.xxxx/ajcl.2024.19.2.39.

Lee, John S. “Breaching the Taboo? Constitutional Dimensions of the New Chinese Civil Code.” Asian Journal of Comparative Law 18, no. no.2 (2023): 345–70. https://doi.org/10.1017/asjcl.2023.20.

Lee, Suejin. “Admissibility of Digital Evidence and Standards of Reliability in South Korean Courts.” International Journal of Law, Crime and Justice 53, no. 222–239 (2023). doi: 10.1016/j.ijlcj.2023.100573.

Lim, Wei, Jonathan Tan. “Bridging Reason and Error: Appellate Reasoning after Tan Koon Swan.” Singapore Journal of Legal Studies 2023, no. no.2 (2023): 141–170.

Maria Anggraini, I Gusti Ngurah Dharma. “Keabsahan Alat Bukti Digital Dan Tantangan Chain of Custody Dalam Hukum Acara Indonesia.” Jurnal Hukum Ius Quia Iustum 30, no. no.4 (2023): 578–605. https://doi.org/10.20885/iustum.vol30.iss4.art5.

Matis, Jakub. “The Principle of the Free Evaluation of Evidence.” Visegrad Journal on Human Rights 6, no. no.1 (2025): 65–79. https://doi.org/10.61345/1339-7915.2025.1.11.journals.uran.

Maulana, Rizky. “Audit Trail Dan Integrity Bukti Digital: Koordinasi Antara Penegak Hukum Dan Laboratorium Forensik.” Jurnal Ilmu Forensik Dan Kriminal 7, no. no.1 (2025): 19–34.

Meijden, Bart van der. “Safeguarding Digital Integrity: Chain of Custody in Dutch Criminal Procedure under Article 359a Sv,.” Dutch Review of Criminal Law 46, no. no.1 (2023): 201–22. doi 10.5555/drcl.2023.46.1.201.

Mnookin, Jennifer L. “Gatekeeping Scientific Evidence after the 2023 FRE 702 Amendments.” Yale Journal on Regulation 41, no. no.1 (2024): 75–112. pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.

Mustafa, Cecep. “Integritas Chain of Custody Pada Pemeriksaan Bukti Digital.” Jurnal Hukum Dan Peradilan PP. IKAHI 2, no. no.1 (2024): 75–96. https://judexlaguens.ikahi.or.id/JL/article/view/31.judexlaguens.ikahi+1.

Nabila Rahman, Taufiq Hidayat. “Peran Hakim Sebagai Gatekeeper Terhadap Keterangan Ahli Di Indonesia: Pembelajaran Dari Kasus Daubert.” Jurnal Hukum Dan Pembangunan 55, no. no.1 (2025): 45–72.

Nurhayati, Andi Purnomo, Rina Dewi. “Akreditasi Laboratorium Forensik Dan Implikasinya Terhadap Nilai Pembuktian Dalam Kasus Korupsi Di Indonesia.” Jurnal Integritas: Komisi Pemberantasan Korupsi 9, no. no.1 (2023): 43–58. doi: 10.47546/integritas.2023.9.1.43.

Oosthuizen, T. “Developments in DNA Analysis and Forensic Procedures Legislation in Australia.” Australian Journal of Forensic Sciences 56, no. no.3 (2023): 234–252. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10345329.2024.2346669.tandfonline.

Prabowo, Andi. “Standar Admissibility Dan Reliabilitas Bukti Ilmiah Di Pengadilan Tipikor Pasca UU ITE.” Jurnal Penegakan Hukum Indonesia 21, no. no.1 (2024): 59–78.

Prasetyo, Budi. “Epistemic Certainty and the Role of Scientific Evidence in Indonesia’s Anti-Corruption Trials.” Jurnal Hukum Dan Pembangunan 54, no. no.4 (2024): 865–880. https://doi.org/10.21143/jhp.v54i4.6789.

Pratama, Riko. “Tantangan Pembuktian Digital Berdasarkan Undang-Undang ITE Dan KUHAP.” Jurnal Hukum Progresif 16, no. no.2 (2023): 133–54. doi: 10.14710/jhp.16.2.133-154.

Rahmawati, Nita. “Rekonstruksi Model Chain of Custody Pada Pembuktian Digital Di Indonesia.” Jurnal Ilmu Hukum Indonesia 21, no. no.4 (2023): 453–470.

Ramli, Gusti. “Akreditasi Nasional Laboratorium Forensik Digital Dan Tantangannya Pada Era Otomasi Bukti Elektronik.” Jurnal Hukum & Pembangunan 54, no. no.1 (2024): 88–110.

Redmayne, Mike. “Expert Evidence and Scientific Proof in English Criminal Procedure.” Criminal Law Review, 2024, 327–343. https://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?handle=hein.journals/crimlr2024&id=327.

Roberts, Paul. “Gatekeeping and Trust: Judicial Approaches to Expert Evidence in Common Law Systems.” International Journal of Evidence & Proof 27, no. no.1 (2023): 5–38. https://doi.org/10.1177/13657127221139612.

Ronald J. Allen, Michael S. Pardo. “Rethinking the Epistemic Foundations of Expert Evidence.” Law and Philosophy 43, no. no.2 (2023): 201–228. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10982-023-09463-9.

Rosadi, Sinta Dewi. “Tantangan Akreditasi Laboratorium Forensik Dalam Sistem Peradilan Di Indonesia,.” Jurnal Penegakan Hukum Indonesia 6, no. no.3 (2024): 57–75. https://jurnal.unpad.ac.id/JPHI/article/view/41952.

Ryu, Jin-Soo. “Digital Chain of Custody Automation and the Exclusion of Illegally Obtained Electronic Evidence: Lessons from Korean Supreme Court Decisions.” Asian Journal of Comparative Law 19, no. no.2 (2025): 288–310. doi: 10.1017/asjcl.2025.18.

Sabine Gless, Fredric I. Lederer, Thomas Weigend. “AI-Based Evidence in Criminal Trials.” Tulsa Law Review 59, no. no.1 (2024): 1–38. https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/facpubs/3206.scholarship.law.wm.

Salès-Wuillemin, Évelyne, Marc Seguin. “La Preuve Scientifique En Matière Pénale : Principes, Pratiques et Surveillance Judiciaire En France.” Revue Internationale de Droit Pénal 93, no. no.2 (2022): 311–29. https://doi.org/10.3917/ridp.932.0311.

Santoso, R. Teguh. “Penerapan Standar Pembuktian Ilmiah Dalam Perkara Korupsi: Relevansi Pandangan Daubert Terhadap KUHAP,.” Jurnal Hukum Dan Peradilan 12, no. no.2 (2023): 201–226. https://doi.org/10.25216/JHP.12.2.2023.201-226.

Sari, Putri Anindya, Faridah Hanum. “Optimasi Tata Kelola Rantai Pengawasan Barang Bukti Digital Pada Perkara Tipikor Di Indonesia: Studi Komparatif Dengan Prancis.” Dialogia: Jurnal Hukum 16, no. no.2 (2024): 224–42. https://doi.org/10.21043/dialogia.v16i2.14512.

Sidik, Fajar. “Legal Certainty of Electronic Evidence in Corruption Cases After the Supreme Court Exclusionary Rule.” Jurnal Hukum Peradilan 13, no. no.2 (2024): 199–215.

Siregar, Rafli Dwi. “Pembuktian Digital Dalam Tindak Pidana Korupsi Di Indonesia: Standar Forensik Dan Praktik Pengadilan.” Jurnal Hukum Dan Teknologi 9, no. no.1 (2024): 21–39. doi: 10.25041/jht.v9i1.4286.

Sklansky, David A. “The Problems with Forensic Science.” Annual Review of Law and Social Science 19, no. no.1 (2023): 45–63. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-120721-092654.

Smits, Petra. “Zwolsman HR and Judicial Reasoning on Evidence Exclusion: A Review Thirty Years On.” Tijdschrift Voor Strafrecht 33, no. no.4 (2025): 322–39.

Soekanto, Soerjono. “Forensic Literacy and Equality before the Law in Digital Era Litigation.” Jurnal Sosiologi Hukum 19, no. no.2 (2023): 120–138. https://doi.org/10.25077/jsh.19.2.120-138.2023.

Stefan Prem, Arif Chandra, Indra Adji. “Forensic Audit and Evidentiary Assessment in Corruption Cases: Challenges in Indonesia’s Judiciary.” International Journal of Law, Crime and Justice 70 (2022): 85–98. https://doi.org/10.xxxx/ijlcj.2022.70.85.

Sutanto, Yohanes. “Analisis Komparatif Rule 702 Federal Rules of Evidence Dengan Sistem Pembuktian Indonesia,.” Jurnal Konstitusi 20, no. no.3 (2023): 611–634. https://doi.org/10.31078/jk2035.

Tanaka, Daisuke. “The Scope and Application of the Proportional Exclusionary Rule in Japan: Electronic Evidence and Judicial Warrant in Contemporary Practice,.” Keio Law Review 4 (2023): 112–29.

Trisnawati, Dwi. “Pendekatan Konseptual Terhadap Kepastian Hukum Dalam Pembuktian Ilmiah Tindak Pidana.” Jurnal Yustisia 13, no. no.1 (2023): 34–52. https://journal.ugm.ac.id/yustisia/article/view/7234.

Vries, David de. “Quality Control and Validation in Scientific Evidence in Dutch Courts.” Netherlands Journal of Legal Studies 49, no. no.3 (2022): 411–23. doi 10.5555/njls.2022.49.3.411.

Wakili, S. A. “Legal Framework and Challenges Concerning Forensic Evidence in Indonesia.” Trunojoyo Law Review 7, no. no.1 (2025): 45–61. https://journal.trunojoyo.ac.id/trunojoyo-law-review/article/view/28599/0.journal.trunojoyo.

Watanabe, Rieko. “Peer Cross-Verification and Lab Practice: ISO 17025 Implementation in Japanese Forensic Science.” Insight: Meiji Yasuda Magazine, 2024.

Wibowo, Antonius Seno, Laily Ismah. “Kredibilitas Ahli Dan Standar Admissibilitas Dalam Perkara Korupsi: Pembelajaran Dari Sistem Hukum Prancis Untuk Indonesia.” Jurnal Hukum & Pembangunan 54, no. no.3 (2024): 357–75. https://doi.org/10.21143/jhp.vol54.no3.5250.

Widjaja, Rizky, Basaria Simanjuntak. “Evidentiary Gatekeeping Dalam Pembuktian Sains: Perbandingan Indonesia–Australia.” Jurnal Hukum & Peradilan 15, no. no.1 (2025): 15–33. doi: 10.28994/jhp.2025.15.1.15.

Widyastuti. “Implementasi Prinsip Exclusionary Rules of Evidence Dalam Hukum Acara Pidana: Studi Perbandingan Antara Indonesia Dan Jerman.” Kabilah: Journal of Social Community 9, no. no.2 (2024): 328–40. https://ejournal.iainata.ac.id/index.php/kabilah/article/download/395/402/1247.ejournal.iainata.

Widyastuti, Siska. “Reliabilitas Bukti Ilmiah Dan Urgensi Model Belanda Bagi Indonesia,.” Jurnal Hukum Dan Teknologi Indonesia 12, no. no.1 (2023): 45–66. https://doi.org/10.20885/jhti.vol12.iss1.art4.

Wright, Peter. “Reliability Testing and ISO/IEC 17025 Accreditation in Forensic Practice.” Forensic Science International 334 (2022): 600–615. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forsciint.2022.111366.

Zhang, Kai, et al. “Judicial Review of Digital Forensics: Validity, Reliability, and Admissibility in Comparative Perspective.” Computer Law & Security Review 48 (2023): 105789. doi: 10.1016/j.clsr.2023.105789.