Parameter Yuridis Validitas Alat Bukti Pasal 235 Huruf H Kuhap Baru

Izzah Ariqah Idham, Nur Hikmah Yani Fadillah

Abstract


The enactment of Law Number 20 of 2025 on the Criminal Procedure Code (New KUHAP) marks a fundamental paradigm shift in Indonesia’s evidentiary system, from a limited system to one that is more open and flexible. This study aims to analyze the legal position and formulate specific judicial parameters for Article 235 letter (h), which functions as a "catch-all clause" for residual evidence. Using a normative legal research method with statutory and conceptual approaches, this research identifies a critical legal problem: while the expansion of evidence categories is necessary to accommodate rapid technological advancements such as digital forensic data, it simultaneously risks triggering judicial arbitrariness and violating the principles of due process of law. The analysis reveals that the validity of residual evidence must be evaluated through a rigorous "dual compliance test," which integrally links procedural legality and substantive authenticity. The novelty of this research lies in the construction of these rigid parameters to balance the pursuit of material truth with constitutional protections for the accused. The study concludes that Article 235 letter (h) must be interpreted within the framework of the "fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine, ensuring that any evidence obtained through unlawful means must be declared inadmissible in court to maintain judicial integrity.

Keywords


Residual Evidence; Criminal Procedure Code; Proof.

Full Text:

PDF

References


Buku

Saputra, Rio, dkk. Reformasi Hukum Acara Pidana: Menyongsong KUHAP Baru. Tasikmalaya: Langgam Pustaka, 2025.

Jurnal

Akbar, Rafly Maulana, dan Hudi Yusuf. “Problematika Pembuktian Alat Bukti Digital dalam Hukum Acara Pidana di Indonesia: Analisis Teori Pembuktian dan Praktik Peradilan.” JICN: Jurnal Intelek dan Cendekiawan Nusantara 2, No. 5 (2025): 9445-9447.

Chrisnanto, Rendy, dkk. “Kedudukan Saksi Verbalisan dalam Sistem Pembuktian Menurut KUHAP.” Indonesian Journal of Legality of Law 4, No. 1 (2021): 59.

Fransisca, Felicia Annabel. “Analisis Yuridis Alat Bukti dalam RUU KUHAP: Implikasi terhadap Proses Pembuktian.” Padjadjaran Law Review 13, no. 2 (2025): 154–170. (Digabungkan dengan data volume 3 nomor 2 karena merupakan judul yang sama).

Hawasara, Wika, dkk. “Penerapan dan Kecenderungam Sistem Pembuktian Yang Dianut Dalam KUHAP.” Jurnal Ilmu Pendidikan Nonformal 8, No. 1 (2022): 587.

Ilham, M. dan A. Salim. "Efektivitas Penggunaan Alat Bukti Elektronik dalam Proses Pembuktian Menurut Hukum Acara Pidana." Paulus Legal Research Vol 3, No. 1, (2025).

Kadir, Zul Khaidir. “Relevansi Bukti vs Probative Value: Sebuah Dilema dalam Hukum Pembuktian”, Aliansi: Jurnal Hukum, Pendidikan dan Sosial Humaniora Vol. 1, No. 6, (2024): 314-334.

Khan, dkk, “A Data Verification System for CCTV Surveillance Cameras Using Blockchain Technology in Smart Cities.” Electronics Vol. 9, No. 3 (2020): 1–9.

Kumendong, Natanael Israel. “Implikasi Hukum Pengembangan Teknologi Informasi dan Komunikasi terhadap Hukum Acara Pidana di Indonesia.” Lex Crimen 14, No. 1 (2025): 124.

Loway, dkk. “Kedudukan Hakim dalam Proses Pembuktian Peradilan Pidana Indonesia.” Lex Crimen 11, No. 2 (2022): 5.

Maharani, Sandrina Darma. “Regulation of Evidence in the Criminal Procedure Code: A Comparison to the Draft Law on Criminal Procedure.” BACARITA Law Jurnal 6, No. 1 (2025): 4–9.

Murtadho, Nazhif Ali. “Memetakan Konsep ‘Unlawful Legal Evidence’ dalam Pembaruan Hukum Acara Pidana.” Jurnal De Jure 25, No. 3 (2025): 303.

Nelson, Rivan, dkk. “Analisis Yuridis Mengenai Pembuktian Informasi Elektronik (Digital Evidence) Sebagai Alat Bukti Yang Sah Dalam Hukum Acara Pidana.” Lex Privatum 10, No. 2 (2022): 1–2.

Priyana, Puti, dkk. “Alat Bukti Informasi Elektronik Tindak Pidana Penipuan Online dalam Perspektif Hukum Acara Pidana di Indonesia.” Jurnal IUS 9, No. 1 (2021): 1.

Puspitasari, Isti. “Keabsahan Scientific Crime Investigation sebagai Alat Bukti dalam Proses Pembuktian Perkara Pembunuhan.” Referendum 1, No. 2 (2024): 139–144.

Putra, dkk. “Metodologi Penelitian Hukum Normatif dalam Perspektif Konsep dan Teknik Analisis dalam Kajian Yuridis.” Jurnal Kajian Ilmiah Multidisipliner 10, No. 4 (2026): 1–4.

Rohman, Moh. Mujibur. “Keabsahan Alat Bukti Digital Berbasis Internet of Things dalam Hukum Acara Pidana Menurut Undang-Undang Nomor 20 Tahun 2025.” Jurnal Hukum Siber dan Regulasi Teknologi 1, No. 1 (2025): 11–18.

Schwartz, Victor E. “Expert Evidence: The Gatekeeper Role of Justice.” Brooklyn Journal of Corporate, Financial & Commercial Law 18, No. 1 (2023): 70–71.

Yanova, Muhammad Hendri, Parman Komarudin, dan Hendra Hadi. “Metode Penelitian Hukum: Analisis Problematika Hukum dengan Metode Penelitian Normatif dan Empiris.” Magister Hukum 8, No. 2 (2023): 400.

Artikel Internet

https://marinews.mahkamahagung.go.id/artikel/perdebatan-exclusionary-rule-dalam-tahap-pembuktian.




DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.33087/wjh.v10i2.2166

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

Wajah Hukum Published by Faculty of Law, Batanghari University
Adress: Fakultas Hukum, Jl.Slamet Ryadi, Broni-Jambi, Kec.Telanaipura, Kodepos: 36122, email: wajahhukum.unbari@gmail.com

Creative Commons License This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.