Illegally Obtained Evidence in Indonesia’s Draft Criminal Procedure Code (RUU KUHAP): Exclusionary Rules and the Due Process of Law
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.30641/dejure.2025.V25.291-308Keywords:
Due Process of Law, Evidence Nullified by Law, Presumption of Innocence Principle, Unlawful Legal Evidence.Abstract
The absence of explicit provisions on exclusionary rules in the RUU KUHAP risks enabling the use of unlawfully obtained evidence, undermining due process, violating the presumption of innocence, and eroding the legitimacy of the judiciary. This study aims to analyze the integration of due-process principles and the concept of “unlawful legal evidence” into the RUU KUHAP and to formulate practicable drafting language and operational mechanisms. The method is doctrinal-juridical research employing statutory, conceptual, comparative, and case approaches; primary and secondary materials are analyzed textually, comparatively, and deductively, accompanied by an inventory of legal sources. Findings indicate that the application of exclusionary rules in Indonesia remains sporadic due to a normative vacuum and terminological disparities between “alat bukti” and “barang bukti”; the praperadilan mechanism is not yet capable of substantive review; six elements of due process remain unregulated explicitly; and electronic evidence requires procedural certainty in the aftermath of Putusan MK 20/PUU-XIV/2016. The study concludes that the RUU KUHAP must include an exclusionary-rules clause; define “unlawful legal evidence” and the concept of “batal demi hukum”; strengthen the authority of Praperadilan/Hakim Pemeriksa Pendahuluan; require chain-of-custody procedures and digital forensic certification; and establish sanctions and compensation mechanisms. Recommendations include harmonized drafting, judicial guidelines, training for law-enforcement officers, and independent oversight to restore evidentiary integrity and ensure the protection of human rights.
Downloads
References
A. Zainur Rasyidi Ramadhani. “Kedudukan Barang Bukti Yang Diperoleh Secara Melawan Hukum Dalam Putusan Mahkamah Agung Nomor 1614 K/ Pid.Sus /2012.” Jurist-Diction 7, no. 1 (2024): 1–20. https://doi.org/10.20473/jd.v7i1.50499.
Afandi, Fachrizal. “Mendesak, Reformasi Hukum Acara Penyidikan.” Harian Kompas, 2025. https://www.kompas.id/artikel/mendesak-reformasi-hukum-acara-penyidikan?open_from=Search_Result_Page.
Anugrah Pascawati, Fadhilah, Prija Djatmika, and Milda Istiqomah. “Urgency of Exclusionary Rules Regulation in Indonesian Criminal Justice System.” Legal Horizons 22, no. 3 (2024): 20–33. https://doi.org/10.54477/lh.25192353.2024.3.pp.20-33.
Ariana, I Nengah. “Tinjauan Yuridis Terhadap Kedudukan Alat Bukti Elektronik Berdasarkan Putusan Mk Nomor 20/Puu-Xiv/2016.” UNES Law Review 5, no. 1 (2022): 1–19. https://doi.org/10.31933/unesrev.v5i1.277.
Aries, Albert. “Mengkritisi Hakim Komisaris Dalam RUU KUHAP.” Harian Kompas, 2025. https://www.kompas.id/artikel/mengkritisi-hakim-komisaris-dalam-ruu-kuhap.
———. “Urgensi Pembaruan KUHAP.” Harian Kompas, 2024. https://www.kompas.id/artikel/urgensi-pembaruan-kuhap?open_from=Search_Result_Page.
Christanto, Yogi Natanael. Kesenjangan Penerapan Pidana Mati Dalam Penegakan Hukum Di Indonesia. Indramayu: Penerbit Adab, 2023.
Dennis, Ian. The Law of Evidence 6th Ed. 6th ed. London: Sweet & Maxwell Ltd, 2017.
Diantha, I Made Pasek. Metodologi Penelitian Hukum Normatif Dalam Justifikasi Teori Hukum. Cet. Ke-3. Jakarta Timur: Prenadamedia group, 2019.
Djatmiati, Philipus M. Hadjon dan Tatiek Sri. Argumentasi Hukum. Cet Ke-8. Yogyakarta: Gadjah Mada University Press, 2017.
Djiwandono, Delvino Aldy, Felicia Tanalina Ylma, and Diqa Qothrunnada Amanda Nur Sella. “Prinsip Exclusionary Rules of Evidence Dalam Pembuktian Tindak Pidana Narkotika.” UNES Law Review 6, no. 4 (2024): 12066–80. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.31933/unesrev.v6i4.2064.
Eddy O.S. Hiariej. “Penyadapan Dalam Hukum Pidana.” Harian Kompas, 2009. https://antikorupsi.org/id/article/penyadapan-dalam-hukum-pidana.
———. Teori & Hukum Pembuktian. Jakarta: Erlangga, 2012.
Fernando, Zico Junius. “Due Process of Law Dalam Penanggulangan Tindak Pidana Di Indonesia.” Majalah Keadilan 21, no. 1 (2001): 67–89. https://journals.unihaz.ac.id/index.php/keadilan/article/view/2017.
Hamzah, Andi. Asas-Asas Hukum Pidana. Jakarta: Rineka Cipta, 2008.
Hanafi, and Muhammad Syahrial Fitri. “Implikasi Yuridis Kedudukan Alat Bukti Elektronik Dalam Perkara Pidana Pasca Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 20/Puu-Xiv/2016.” Al-Adl : Jurnal Hukum 12, no. 1 (2020): 101–15. https://doi.org/10.31602/al-adl.v12i1.2639.
Handoko, Priyo, and Anis Farida. “Konsep Miranda Rule Dalam Hukum Pidana Di Indonesia Perspektif Maqasid Al-Shari’ah.” Al-Jinayah: Jurnal Hukum Pidana Islam 7, no. 2 (2021): 386–408. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.15642/aj.2021.7.2.386-408.
Ilyas, Adam. “Praktik Penerapan Exclusionary Rules Di Indonesia.” Masalah-Masalah Hukum 50, no. 1 (2021): 49–59. https://doi.org/10.14710/mmh.50.1.2021.49-59.
Indonesia. Undang-Undang Republik Indonesia Nomor 48 Tahun 2009 tentang Kekuasaan Kehakiman, Pub. L. No. 48, JDIH BPK-RI 5076 (2009). https://peraturan.bpk.go.id/Details/38793/uu-no-48-tahun-2009.
Indonesia, Pemerintah Republik. Draf Rancangan Kitab Undang-Undang Hukum Acara Pidana (RUU KUHAP) Per 20 Maret 2025 (2025). https://icjr.or.id/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/RUU-KUHAP-20-Maret-2025.pdf.
Jiang, Na. “The Potential to Secure a Fair Trial Through Evidence Exclusion: A Chinese Perspective.” Ius Gentium: Comparative Perspectives on Law and Justice 74, no. Springer, Cham (2019): 163–211. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-12520-2_6.
Jogja, Kanwil Kemenkum. “5 Misi Dan Penyamaan Persepsi KUHP Baru Diulas Dalam Kumham Goes To Campus Yogyakarta.” jogja.kemenkum.go.id, 2023. https://jogja.kemenkum.go.id/berita-utama/5-misi-dan-penyamaan-persepsi-kuhp-baru-diulas-dalam-kumham-goes-to-campus-yogyakarta.
Kadir, Zul Khaidir. “Menulis Ulang Keadilan: Bagaimana Doktrin Suppression of Evidence Dalam Preseden Amerika Serikat Menata Kembali Prosedur Peradilan Pidana.” Jaksa : Jurnal Kajian Ilmu Hukum Dan Politik 2, no. 4 (2024): 1–18. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.51903/jaksa.v2i4.2099.
Karianga, Indra, and Pidel Kastro Hutapea. “Prinsip Miranda Rules ‘The Right To Remain Silent’ Dalam Perspektif Perbandingan Hukum.” Media Iuris 2, no. 3 (2020): 393–406. https://doi.org/10.20473/mi.v2i3.17375.
Kharel, Amrit. “Doctrinal Legal Research.” SSRN Electronic Journal, 2018. https://www.academia.edu/77370267/Doctrinal_Legal_Research.
Kurniawan, Zahri, H.S Tisnanta, M. Fakih, and Ahmad Irzal Ferdiansyah. “Exclusionary Rule Principle and Constitutional Rights Protection in Evidence Seeking.” International Journal of Advanced Research (IJAR) 10, no. 04 (2022): 864–71. https://dx.doi.org/10.21474/IJAR01/14623.
Kusumo, M Zhacky. “Rekaman CCTV Cafe Olivier Tak Bisa Dijadikan Alat Bukti?” Aktual.com, 2016. https://aktual.com/rekaman-cctv-cafe-olivier-tak-dijadikan-alat-bukti/.
Latifah, Marfuatul. “Perlukah Mengatur Prinsip Exclusionary Rules of Evidence Dalam RUU Hukum Acara Pidana?” Negara Hukum: Membangun Hukum Untuk Keadilan Dan Kesejahteraan 12, no. 1 (2021): 101–22. https://doi.org/10.22212/jnh.v12i1.2123.
Lemley, Mark A. “The Fruit of the Poisonous Tree in IP Law.” Iowa Law Review 103, no. 245 (2016): 1–32. https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2867099.
Mahkamah Konstitusi. Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 20/PUU-XIV/2016, 22 Keputusan Mahkamah Konstitusi atas permohonan Pengujian Undang-Undang Nomor 11 Tahun 2008 tentang Informasi dan Transaksi Elektronik dan UU No. 20 Tahun 2001 tentang Perubahan Atas Undang-Undang Nomor 31 Tahun 1999 tentang Pemberantasan Tindak Pidana Koru § (2016). https://www.mkri.id/public/content/persidangan/putusan/22_PUU-XV_2017.pdf.
Marzuki, Peter Mahmud. Penelitian Hukum (Edisi Revisi). Cet. Ke-13. Jakarta: Pranadamedia Group, 2017.
McMunigal, Kevin C. “A Statutory Approach to Criminal Law.” Saint Louis University School of Law 48, no. 4 (2004): 1285–96. https://scholarship.law.slu.edu/lj/vol48/iss4/12/.
Mertokusumo, Sudikno. Penemuan Hukum : Suatu Pengantar. Yogyakarta: Cahaya Atma Pustaka, 2014.
Mou, Luye. “The Political Heart of China’s Exclusionary Rule of Illegally Obtained Evidence: A Comparative Study with the International Criminal Court.” Journal of East Asia and International Law 14, no. 2 (2021): 319–40. https://doi.org/10.14330/jeail.2021.14.2.05.
Muhaimin. Metode Penelitian Hukum. Cet. 1. Mataram-NTB: Mataram University Press, 2020.
Muladi. Kapita Selekta Sistem Peradilan Pidana. Semarang: Badan Penerbit Universitas Diponegoro, 2002.
Murtadho, Nazhif Ali, Muhammad Galuh Pamungkas Wahyu Ramadhan, and Rama H. Adam. “Ratio Legis Istilah Novum Pada Herziening (Peninjauan Kembali) Sebagai Upaya Hukum Luar Biasa Dalam Sistem Hukum Pidana Di Indonesia.” Al-Jinayah : Jurnal Hukum Pidana Islam 10, no. 2 (2024): 180–97. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.15642/aj.2024.10.2.180-197.
Negara, Tunggul Ansari Setia. “Normative Legal Research in Indonesia: Its Originis and Approaches.” Audito Comparative Law Journal (ACLJ) 4, no. 1 (2023): 1–9. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.22219/aclj.v4i1.24855.
Noerdin, Alvin Evrialdo, Hajim Lasabuda, and Iip Purwantini Jeane Mamonto. “Normative-Conceptual Analysis of Physical Evidence Recognition under the Sexual Violence Law in Indonesian Criminal Procedure.” JURIST ACADEMIA 1, no. 1 (2025): 10–20. http://ojs.ylbhbmr.or.id/index.php/ja/article/view/2%0A.
Octavia, Ainun Yati, Erdianto Effendi, and Ferawati Ferawati. “Pengujian Prinsip Exclusionary Rules Dalam Sidang Praperadilan Di Indonesia.” Jurnal Hukum Malahayati 6, no. 1 (2025): 40–54. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.33024/jhm.v6i1.19381.
Packer, Herbert L. The Limits of the Criminal Sanction. California: Stanford University Press, 1968.
———. “Two Models of the Criminal Process.” University of Pennsylvania Law Review 113, no. 1 (1964): 1–68. https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/penn_law_review/vol113/iss1/1.
Panzavolta, Michele, Elise Maes, and Anna Mosna. “Streamlining the Exclusion of Illegally Obtained Evidence in Criminal Justice.” Ku Leuven I, no. 1983 (2022): 1–133. https://www.fairtrials.org/app/uploads/2022/02/Streamlining_exclusion_KUL.pdf.
Prahassacitta, Vidya. “CCTV Sebagai Alat Bukti Pidana Pasca Putusan MK 20/PUU-XIV/2016.” Business Law Faculty of Humanities Binus University, 2016. https://business-law.binus.ac.id/2016/11/22/kedudukan-cctv-sebagai-alat-bukti-hukum-pidana-pasca-putusan-mk-2016/.
Pratama, Aldho Galih. “Analisis Kekuatan Dan Nilai Pembuktian Alat Bukti Elektronik Berwujud CCTV (Closed Circuit Television) Pasca Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 20/PUU-XIV/2016 Dalam Hukum Acara Pidana.” Jurnal Verstek 8, no. 3 (2020): 392–400. https://jurnal.untidar.ac.id/index.php/literasihukum/article/view/6810.
Priliawito, Eko. “Otto: CCTV Kafe Olivier Bukan Lagi Alat Bukti Sah.” viva.co.id, 2016. https://www.viva.co.id/berita/metro/826897-otto-cctv-kafe-olivier-bukan-lagi-alat-bukti-sah?page=all.
Ramadhani, Hafidz Yanuar, and Waluyo. “Implementasi Prinsip Exclusionary Rules of Evidence Dalam Sistem Pembuktian Peradilan Indonesia.” Kabilah: Journal of Social Community 9, no. 2 (2024): 318–30. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.35127/kabillah.v9i2.395.
Rasiwan, Iwan. Suatu Pengantar Hukum Pembuktian Tindak Pidana. Cet. Perta. Bantul: CV. Mitra Edukasi Negeri, 2025.
Re, Richard M. “The Due Process Exclusionary Rule.” Harvard Law Review 127, no. 7 (2014): 1887–1966. https://harvardlawreview.org/print/vol-127/the-due-process-exclusionary-rule/.
Reform, Institute For Criminal Justice. “SS Vs. Negara Republik Indonesia.” icjr.or.id, 2011. https://icjr.or.id/ss-vs-negara-republik-indonesia/.
Reidt, Annalisa. “The Admissibility of Secondary Evidence – Is the US-American Fruit of the Poisonous Tree Doctrine Being Replaced by the Balancing Exercise?” FRAUD AND CORRPTION IN AN INTERNATIONAL CONTEXT. Wellington, 2024. https://ir.wgtn.ac.nz/handle/123456789/32457.
Safaruddin Harefa, Rifdatul Maziyyah, Nazhif Ali Murtadho, Indy Mafiiqo Syatta, Sivana Amanda Diamita Syndo. “Klitih Analisis Yuridis Tindak Pidana Klitih Dalam Perspektif Hukum Positif Dan Islam.” Fundamental: Jurnal Ilmiah Hukum 12, no. 1 (2023): 13–42. https://ejurnal.umbima.ac.id/index.php/jurnalhukum/article/view/83.
Saputra, Eko. “RUU KUHAP : Dominasi Crime Control System Dan Ancaman Terhadap Prinsip Due Process of Law.” JIMU:Jurnal Ilmiah Multidisipliner 3, no. 03 (2025): 1708–16. https://ojs.smkmerahputih.com/index.php/jimu/article/view/923.
Setiyadi, Faisal, Fitter Trisna Wardana, and Aji Dian Utama. “Tinjauan Yuridis Pengajuan Kasasi Oleh Terdakwa Atas Dasar Yudex Facti Mengabaikan Asas Exclusionary Rules Dalam Perkara Narkotika (Studi Kasus Putusan MA No.417 K/Pid.Sus/2011).” Verstek 2, no. 3 (2014): 132–41. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.20961/jv.v2i3.38935.
Thaman, Stephen C. “‘Fruits of the Poisonous Tree’ in Comparative Law.” Southwestern Journal of International Law 16, no. 257 (2010): 333–84. https://scholarship.law.slu.edu/faculty/257/.
Tulkens, Franchois. “The Paradoxical Relationship between Criminal Law and Human Rights.” Journal of International Criminal Justice 9, no. 3 (July 19, 2011): 577–95. https://doi.org/10.1093/jicj/mqr028.
Turner, Jenia Iontcheva, and Thomas Weigend. “The Purposes and Functions of Exclusionary Rules: A Comparative Overview. In: Gless, S., Richter, T. (Eds) Do Exclusionary Rules Ensure a Fair Trial?” Ius Gentium: Comparative Perspectives on Law and Justice 74, no. Springer, Cham (2019): 255–82. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-12520-2_8.
Wulandari, Widati, and Tristam Pascal Moeliono. “Anotasi Putusan Mahkamah Agung Perkara Nomor: No. 665/K/Pid/2014.” Dictum: Jurnal Kajian Putusan Pengadilan 16 (2024): 22–47. https://leip.or.id/dictum-vol-16-penyiksaan-dalam-peradilan-pidana/.
Yeager, Daniel B. “A History of Fruit of the Poisonous Tree (1916-1942).” SSRN Electronic Journal 67, no. 1 (2023): 51–98. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4385356.
Zahrulswendar, Indra Hafit. “Praperadilan Dan Hakim Pemeriksa Pendahuluan Sebagai Sarana Kontrol Upaya Paksa Terhadap Tersangka Dalam Perspektif Hak Asasi Manusia.” Universitas Islam Indonesia, 2022. https://dspace.uii.ac.id/bitstream/handle/123456789/40730/20912024.pdf?sequence=1.
Zaidan, M. Ali. Menuju Pembaruan Hukum Pidana. Jakarta: Sinar Grafika, 2022.
Zurnetti, Aria, Fitri Wahyuni, and Siti Rahmah. Pengantar Hukum Acara Pidana Indonesia. Ed. 1, Cet. Depok: Rajawali Pers, 2021.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Nazhif Ali Murtadho, S.H.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
The copyright of each article is retained by the author (s). Authors agree to grant the first publication rights to Jurnal Penelitian Hukum De Jure. The Journal embeds a simple machine-readable under Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC). Thus, papers in this Journal can be used freely for non-commercial purposes with the acknowledgment of authorship and publication in this journal.
