Kelayakan Bukti Modern Dalam Pembuktian Tindak Pidana Korupsi Indonesia Studi Atas Kasus Representatif 2020–2025
Abstract
This article analyzes the admissibility and evidentiary worthiness of modern evidence in proving corruption offenses in Indonesia. The development of corruption cases shows that criminal proof no longer relies solely on witnesses and conventional documents, but also on electronic documents, transaction data, state loss audits, expert testimony, digital records, and a series of inferences connecting evidence to the elements of the offense. The main issues examined in this article are the legal patterns surrounding the use of modern evidence in representative corruption cases from 2020 to 2025 and how the worthiness of such evidence can be analyzed through the traceability of process, integrity of evidence, validity of examination methods, rationality of the relationship between evidence and the elements of the offense, and protection of the defendant’s rights. This research uses a normative legal method with statutory, conceptual, and case approaches. The research materials were obtained through document study of legislation, ICW reports, KPK reports, documents from relevant organizations, and literature on the law of evidence. The findings show that formal recognition of electronic evidence is insufficient to guarantee the evidentiary worthiness of evidence in corruption cases. Modern evidence must be examined in terms of process, integrity, method, logical connection with the elements of the offense, and the openness of such evidence to be challenged by the defendant.
References
D’Anna, T., G. Puntarello, V. Cannella, A. Scalzo, F. Buscemi, G. Zerbo, and A. Argo. “The Chain of Custody in the Era of Modern Forensics: From the Classic Procedures for Gathering Evidence to the New Challenges Related to Digital Data.” Healthcare 11, no. 5 (2023): 634. DOI: 10.3390/healthcare11050634.
Human Rights Committee. General Comment No. 32: Article 14: Right to Equality before Courts and Tribunals and to a Fair Trial. CCPR/C/GC/32. Geneva: United Nations, 2007.
Hutchinson, Terry. “The Doctrinal Method: Incorporating Interdisciplinary Methods in Reforming the Law.” Erasmus Law Review 8, no. 3 (2015): 130–138.
Hutchinson, Terry, and Nigel Duncan. “Defining and Describing What We Do: Doctrinal Legal Research.” Deakin Law Review 17, no. 1 (2012): 83–119.
Huzaeni, Mohamad Roky, and Wildan Rofikil Anwar. “Pelaksanaan Asas Keterbukaan Dalam Pembentukan Peraturan Daerah.” Jurnal Dialektika Hukum 3, no. 2 (2021): 216–236. DOI: 10.36859/jdh.v3i2.754.
Illes, Michelle, Paul Wilson, and Christopher Bruce. “Forensic Epistemology: A Need for Research and Pedagogy.” Forensic Science International: Synergy 2 (2020): 87–91.
Indonesia Corruption Watch. Laporan Hasil Pemantauan Tren Penindakan Kasus Korupsi Tahun 2020. Jakarta: Indonesia Corruption Watch, 2021.
Indonesia Corruption Watch. Laporan Hasil Pemantauan Tren Penindakan Kasus Korupsi Tahun 2021. Jakarta: Indonesia Corruption Watch, 2022.
Indonesia Corruption Watch. Laporan Hasil Pemantauan Tren Penindakan Kasus Korupsi Tahun 2022. Jakarta: Indonesia Corruption Watch, 2023.
Indonesia Corruption Watch. Laporan Hasil Pemantauan Tren Penindakan Kasus Korupsi Tahun 2023. Jakarta: Indonesia Corruption Watch, 2024.
Indonesia Corruption Watch. Laporan Hasil Pemantauan Tren Penindakan Kasus Korupsi Tahun 2024. Jakarta: Indonesia Corruption Watch, 2025.
Indonesia Corruption Watch. Catatan Akhir Tahun ICW 2024. Jakarta: Indonesia Corruption Watch, 2025.
Komisi Pemberantasan Korupsi. Laporan Tahunan KPK 2025. Jakarta: Komisi Pemberantasan Korupsi, 2025.
Lembaga Kebijakan Pengadaan Barang/Jasa Pemerintah. Peraturan Lembaga Kebijakan Pengadaan Barang/Jasa Pemerintah Nomor 9 Tahun 2021 tentang Toko Daring dan Katalog Elektronik dalam Pengadaan Barang/Jasa Pemerintah. Jakarta: Lembaga Kebijakan Pengadaan Barang/Jasa Pemerintah, 2021.
Marzuki, Peter Mahmud. Penelitian Hukum. Edisi revisi. Jakarta: Kencana, 2017.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. Integrity in Public Procurement: Good Practice from A to Z. Paris: OECD Publishing, 2007.
President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology. Forensic Science in Criminal Courts: Ensuring Scientific Validity of Feature-Comparison Methods. Washington, DC: Executive Office of the President, 2016.
Republik Indonesia. Undang-Undang Nomor 31 Tahun 1999 tentang Pemberantasan Tindak Pidana Korupsi. Lembaran Negara Republik Indonesia Tahun 1999 Nomor 140, Tambahan Lembaran Negara Republik Indonesia Nomor 3874.
Republik Indonesia. Undang-Undang Nomor 20 Tahun 2001 tentang Perubahan atas Undang-Undang Nomor 31 Tahun 1999 tentang Pemberantasan Tindak Pidana Korupsi. Lembaran Negara Republik Indonesia Tahun 2001 Nomor 134, Tambahan Lembaran Negara Republik Indonesia Nomor 4150.
Republik Indonesia. Undang-Undang Nomor 11 Tahun 2008 tentang Informasi dan Transaksi Elektronik. Lembaran Negara Republik Indonesia Tahun 2008 Nomor 58, Tambahan Lembaran Negara Republik Indonesia Nomor 4843.
Republik Indonesia. Undang-Undang Nomor 1 Tahun 2024 tentang Perubahan Kedua atas Undang-Undang Nomor 11 Tahun 2008 tentang Informasi dan Transaksi Elektronik. Lembaran Negara Republik Indonesia Tahun 2024 Nomor 1, Tambahan Lembaran Negara Republik Indonesia Nomor 6905.
Roberts, Paul, and Adrian Zuckerman. Criminal Evidence. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010.
Soekanto, Soerjono, and Sri Mamudji. Penelitian Hukum Normatif: Suatu Tinjauan Singkat. Jakarta: Rajawali Pers, 2001.
United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime. Standards and Best Practices for Digital Forensics. Education for Justice University Module Series: Cybercrime, Module 4. Vienna: United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, n.d.
Copyright (c) 2026 Jurnal Dialektika Hukum

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








