Penggunaan Alat Bukti Sekunder dalam Menjatuhkan Tuntutan Pidana Berdasarkan Asas Kepastian Hukum

Penulis

  • Fahmi Gusriana Universitas Pasundan
  • Gialdah Tapiansari Batubara Universitas Pasundan

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.24269/ls.v9i4.11966

Abstrak

The use of circumstantial evidence in criminal cases has raised legal debate. Judges in some cases consider circumstantial evidence because there were no eyewitnesses who saw the criminal event directly. This is contrary to the Criminal Code which limits valid evidence in Indonesian criminal procedure law. The use of circumstantial evidence that is not regulated in the Criminal Code has the potential to cause normative conflicts, legal uncertainty, and violations of human rights. It is necessary to examine the criteria for circumstantial evidence that is permitted in the Indonesian criminal procedure law system and has a legal standing in line with the principle of legal certainty, as well as the legal consequences of using circumstantial evidence in imposing criminal charges based on the principle of legal certainty using normative legal research methods with a statutory approach and case studies. The results show that the criteria for circumstantial evidence that is justified in the Indonesian criminal procedure law system and has a legal standing in line with the principle of legal certainty is when the use of circumstantial evidence is prioritized for proving cases where there are no eyewitnesses who saw it directly, its use must be complementary, cannot stand alone (not used as the sole basis for imposing a criminal sentence), its use must meet the elements of accountability, relevance, authenticity, validity, proportionality, not violating human rights, used as complementary evidence that supports the proof and used as part of the consideration of proof, especially in the form of instructions or letters to strengthen the judge's conviction. The legal consequences of the use of circumstantial evidence in imposing criminal charges based on the principle of legal certainty remain normatively legal. As long as the use of circumstantial evidence is in accordance with its position, its use remains in line with the principle of legal certainty as one of the fundamental principles in the Indonesian legal system.

Referensi

Aminah, S. (2022). Kedudukan bukti tidak langsung (indirect evidence) dalam penyelesaian praktik kartel di indonesia. Jurnal program magister hukum fhui dharmasisya, 2(3), 1493–1504. https://scholarhub.ui.ac.id/dharmasisya/vol2/iss3/34
Fachrina, Q., Ulumuddiin, M. H., Elisabet, T., Hosnah, A. U., Hukum, F., Pakuan, U., & Corresponding, ). (2024). Analisis Yuridis Dampak Bukti Tidak Langsung Terhadap Hak Terdakwa Dalam Penegakkan Hukum Di Indonesia. Jurnal Rectum, 6(2), 239–246. https://doi.org/10.46930/jurnalrectum.v6i2.4361
Gulo, N., Dikae, C., & Gulo, Z. (2024). Timbulnya Keyakinan Hakim dalam Hukum Pembuktian Perkara Pidana di Peradilan Indonesia. UNES Law Review, 6(3), 8115–8112. https://doi.org/10.31933/unesrev.v6i3
Hotta, A. Y. (2025). Understanding The Principle Of Legal Certainty Through The Construction Of Legal Positivism Reasoning. Jurnal Hukum Dehasen, 1(1), 23–28. https://jurnal.unived.ac.id/index.php/juhude/article/download/7733/5488/#:~:text=
Khowijaya, C. J. (2024). Penggunaan Circumstantial Evidence Oleh Komisi Pengawas Persaingan Usaha Dalam Upaya Pemberantasan Kartel. Jurnal Lex_Privatum, 14(3). https://ejournal.unsrat.ac.id/v3/index.php/lexprivatum/article/view/58373
Mardhatillah, A. B., & Mahyani, A. (2019). Bukti Tidak Langsung Sebagai Dasar Hakim Menjatuhkan Pidana (Putusan Nomor: 777/Pid.B/2016/PN.JKT.PST). Jurnal Mimbar Keadilan, 12(1), 59–66. https://doi.org/10.30996/mk.v12i1.2167
Prayoga, N. R. (2020). Keabsahan Alat Bukti Tidak Langsung (Circumstantial Evidence) Sebagai Dasar Hakim Menjatuhkan Pidana (Studi Putusan Nomor 777/Pid.B/2016/PN.JKT.PST). Brawijaya Law Student Journal, 6. https://hukum.studentjournal.ub.ac.id/index.php/hukum/article/view/3869
Yanuarita, I., & Megawati, W. (2023). Kedudukan Hukum Alat Bukti Petunjuk Rekaman Cctv Oleh Hakim Dalam Menjatuhi Hukuman Pidana (Studi Kasus Putusan NO.141/PID.B/2018/PN SLW/Pengadilan Negri Slawi). UNES Law Review, 6(1), 1094–1113. https://doi.org/10.31933/unesrev.v6i1
Amiruddin, M. C., & Syamsuddin, R. (2021). Analisis Yuridis Pertimbangan Tentang Keyakinan Hakim Dalam Memutus Perkara Dengan Berdasarkan Circumstantial evidence Atau Bukti Tidak Langsung (Studi Putusan No. 777/Pid. B/2016/Pn. Jkt. Pst Kasus Jessica Kumala Wongso). Alauddin Law Development Journal, 3(3), 531–543.
Ardi, S., & Hartadi, F. R. (2024). Pertimbangan Keyakinan Hakim Dalam Putusan Perkara Pidana Kopi Sianida Jessica Berdasarkan Circumstantial evidence Atau Bukti Tidak Langsung (Studi Putusan Nomor. 777/Pid. B/2016/Pn. Jkt. Pst). Ekasakti Jurnal Penelitian Dan Pengabdian, 4(2), 529–542.
Bagas Alkautsar,  Mulyati, N., & Danil, E. (2024). Pertanggungjawaban Pidana Dengan Menggunakan Bukti Tidak Langsung (Circumstantial Evidence). Jurnal Ius Civile | (Vol. 1, Issue 2). http://jurnal.utu.ac.id/jcivile
Chaer Amiruddin, M., & Samsuddin, R. (2021). Analisis Yuridis Pertimbangan Tentang Keyakinan Hakim Dalam Memutus Perkara Dengan Berdasar Circumstantial Evidence Atau Bukti Tidak Langsung (Studi Putusan No.777/Pid.B/2016/Pn.Jkt.Pst Kasus Jessica Kumala Wongso).
Dilaga, A. P. (2013). ULJ 2 (1) (2013) Pengaruh Keterangan Ahli Terhadap Keyakinan Hakim Dalam Putusan Tindak Pidana Korupsi Info Artikel ________________ Sejarah Artikel: Diterima Januari 2013 Disetujui Februari 2013 Dipublikasikan Juni 2013. http://journal.unnes.ac.id/sju/index.php/ulj
Fakhriah, E. L. (2017). Bukti Elektronik Dalam Sistem Pembuktian Perdata. PT. Refika Aditama.
Galih Pramata, A. (2020). 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.
Hotta, A. Y. (2025). Understanding The Principle Of Legal Certainty Through The Construction Of Legal Positivism Reasoning. Jurnal Hukum Dehasen, 1(1), 23–28. https://jurnal.unived.ac.id/index.php/juhude/article/download/7733/5488/#:~:text=
Ismail, I., & Nahwiy, A. (2020). Analisis Yuridis Terhadap CCTV (Close Circuit Television) Sebagai Barang Bukti I Persidangan. Jurnal Rectum: Tinjauan Yuridis Penanganan Tindak Pidana, 2(1), 9–19.
Isnaini, E. (2016). Kekuatan Serta Syarat Keabsahan CCTV Sebagai Alat Bukti Didalam Suatu Persidangan Ditinjau Dari KUHAP. Jurnal Independent, 4(2), 47–53.
Mardhatillah, A. B., & Mahyani, A. (2019). Bukti Tidak Langsung Sebagai Dasar Hakim Menjatuhkan Pidana (Putusan Nomor: 777/Pid.B/2016/PN.JKT.PST). Jurnal Mimbar Keadilan, 12(1), 59–66. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.30996/mk.v12i1.2167
Nugroho, B. (2017). Peranan Alat Bukti Dalam Perkara Pidana Dalam Putusan Hakim Menurut KUHAP. Yuridika, 32(1), 17. https://doi.org/10.20473/ydk.v32i1.4780
Prayoga, N. R. (2020). Keabsahan Alat Bukti Tidak Langsung (Circumstantial Evidence) Sebagai Dasar Hakim Menjatuhkan Pidana (Studi Putusan Nomor 777/Pid.B/2016/PN.JKT.PST). Brawijaya Law Student Journal, 6. https://hukum.studentjournal.ub.ac.id/index.php/hukum/article/view/3869
Raja, P. J. L., & Simamora, J. (2024). Peranan Kejaksaan Dalam pengelolaan Barang Bukti Dan Barang Rampasan. Innovative: Journal Of Social Science Research, 4(6), 6022–6031.
Rawung, F. E., & Timomor, A. (2024). Kedudukan Cctv Sebagai Alat Bukti Dalam Upaya Pembuktian Tindak Pidana. Constituendum, 6(02), 50–59.
Rosikhu, M. (2024). Kedudukan Bukti Tidak Langsung Sebagai Alat Bukti Dalam Perkara Pidana. Innovative: Journal Of Social Science Research, 4(3), 18425–18433.
Universitas, H., & Yogyakarta, P. (2019). Vonis 20 Tahun Terhadap Jessica Kumala Wongso. Jurnal Kewarganegaraan, 3(2).

Diterbitkan

2025-05-14

Cara Mengutip

Gusriana, F., & Batubara, G. T. (2025). Penggunaan Alat Bukti Sekunder dalam Menjatuhkan Tuntutan Pidana Berdasarkan Asas Kepastian Hukum. Legal Standing : Jurnal Ilmu Hukum, 9(4), 796–808. https://doi.org/10.24269/ls.v9i4.11966

Terbitan

Bagian

Articles