Urgency of Exclusionary Rules Regulation in Indonesian Criminal Justice System
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
This research departs from the legal gap related to the application of the Exclusionary Rules of Evidence principle in Indonesia. Currently, there is no explicit regulation that prohibits the use of evidence obtained illegally, such as through torture, threats, or pressure on suspects. This kind of practice is often carried out by law enforcement officials to obtain a confession from a suspect and continue the case to trial. Without a clear legal mechanism, illegal evidence is often used, which not only harms the rights of suspects, but also undermines the principles of justice, weakens legal protection, and damages the image of the judiciary in the eyes of the public. This legal vacuum results in human rights violations continuing to occur without strict sanctions against the perpetrators of violations. This research uses a normative legal method with statutory, conceptual, case, and comparative approaches. Analysis is conducted through systematic and grammatical interpretation of primary, secondary, and tertiary legal materials. The results show the urgency of regulating the Exclusionary Rules principle in KUHAP to ensure that only legally obtained evidence can be used in court. As a regulatory model, Indonesia can adopt the provisions of Article 359a paragraph (1) letter b of the Dutch Wetboek van Strafvordering (WvSv), which provides an explicit mechanism to exclude illegal evidence. The implementation of this principle will strengthen the protection of human rights, ensure a fair trial process, and increase the accountability and professionalism of law enforcement officers in carrying out their duties.
Article Details
Section
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
How to Cite
References
Adhirajasa, A., & Diningrat, H. (2024). Competence of Electronic Evidence in Proving Criminal Acts in Indonesia. Causa: Journal of Law and Citizenship, 5(1), Article 1. https://doi.org/10.3783/causa.v5i1.4017
Agustini, A. P., & Hadjar, A. F. (2024). Comparison of Examination And Sanctioning Of Murder Committed By Children According To The Indonesian And Netherlands Judicial Systems: Comparison Of Examination And Sanctioning Of Murder Committed By Children According To The Indonesian And Netherlands Judicial Systems. Trisakti Law Reform, 6(3), Article 3. https://doi.org/10.25105/refor.v6i3.21126
Ardya, N. (2023). LEGAL CONSEQUENCES OF RATIFICATION OF OPTIONAL PROTOCOL ON THE CONVENTION AGAINST TORTURE (OPCAT) AND ITS EFFECT ON THE PROTECTION OF THE RIGHT TO SECURITY FROM TORTURE IN INDONESIA. To-Ra Law Journal: Law To Regulate And Protect Society, 9(1), Article 1. https://doi.org/10.55809/tora.v9i1.167
Baehaki, K. (2024). Comparison of the Application of Jurisprudence in Civil Law and Cammon Law Legal Systems Between Indonesia and Australia: Comparison of the Application of Jurisprudence in Civil Law and Cammon Law Legal Systems Between Indonesia and Australia. Journal of Legal Media, 12(1), Article 1. https://doi.org/10.59414/jmh.v12i1.635
Benuf, K., & Azhar, M. (2020). Legal research methodology as an instrument to unravel contemporary legal issues. Gema Keadilan, 7(1), 20-33.
Borgers, M. J., & Stevens, L. (2010). The Use of Illegally Gathered Evidence in the Dutch Criminal Trial (SSRN Scholarly Paper 1640487). Social Science Research Network. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1640487
Djiwandono, D. A., Ylma, F. T., & Sella, D. Q. A. N. (2024). The Principle of Exclusionary Rules of Evidence in the Evidence of Narcotics Crimes. UNES Law Review, 6(4), Article 4. https://doi.org/10.31933/unesrev.v6i4.2064
Eddyono, S. W., & Napitupulu, E. (2014). Prospects for Preliminary Examining Judges in Detention Supervision in the Draft Criminal Procedure Code. Institute for Criminal Justice Reform.
Fadhli, M. S. (2024). The Position of Uu Ite in the Provision of Electronic Evidence as Additional Evidence of Cyber Crime. Causa: Journal of Law and Citizenship, 5(2), Article 2. https://doi.org/10.3783/causa.v5i2.4112
Fahlevy, M. (2022, July 5). Evidence in Criminal Cases According to the Criminal Procedure Code (KUHAP). Jantho District Court. https://www.pn-jantho.go.id/index.php/2022/07/05/alat-bukti-dalam-perkara-pidana-menurut-kitab-undang-undang-hukum-acara-pidana-kuhap/
Harahap, M. Y. (2009). Discussion of Problems and Application of KUHAP: Investigation and Prosecution. Sinar Grafika.
Leckie, S. (1997). Exclusionary Rules in Canada and the United States. Dalhousie Journal of Legal Studies, 6(1), 263-285. https://digitalcommons.schulichlaw.dal.ca/djls/vol6/iss1/8
Lutfian, D. M. (2018). Obligations of Public Prosecutors in Fulfilling Victims' Rights at the Prosecution Stage [Master Thesis, Universitas Islam Indonesia]. https://dspace.uii.ac.id/handle/123456789/5842
Mertens, W. J., & Wasserstrom, S. (1981). The Good Faith Exception to the Exclusionary Rule: Deregulating the Police and Derailing the Law. Georgetown Law Journal, 70, 365. https://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?handle=hein.journals/glj70&id=375&div=&collection=
Prasetyo, D., & Herawati, R. (2022). Review of the Criminal Justice System in the Context of Law Enforcement and Protection of Human Rights of Suspects in Indonesia. Journal of Indonesian Legal Development, 4(3), 402-417. https://doi.org/10.14710/jphi.v4i3.402-417
Rai, I. G. A. I., & Salsabila, S. N. (2020). The Exclusion of Ne Bis In Idem at The International Criminal Court: An Unbalanced Concept of Justice. Juris Gentium Law Review, 6(2), Article 2. https://journal.ugm.ac.id/jurisgentiumlaw/article/view/57111
Ramadhina, R. Y. A., Haryanti, D., & Efritadewi, A. (2022). EXCLUSIONARY RULES IN THE EVIDENTIARY STAGE IN COURT IN ORDER TO OBTAIN VALID EVIDENCE. Student Online Journal (SOJ) UMRAH - Social and Political Sciences, 3(1), Article 1. https://soj.umrah.ac.id/index.php/SOJFISIP/article/view/1763
Ranoemihardja, R. A. (1980). Criminal Procedure Law. Tarsito.
Republic of Indonesia. (1981). Article 1 Paragraph (2), Law of the Republic of Indonesia Number 8 of 1981 concerning Criminal Procedure.
Republic of Indonesia. (2011). Regulation of the Attorney General Number PER-036/1/JA/09/2011 on Standard Operating Procedures for Handling General Crimes.
Republic of Indonesia. (2020). Law of the Republic of Indonesia Number 7 of 2020 concerning the Third Amendment to Law Number 24 of 2003 concerning the Constitutional Court.
Rifa'i, I. J., Purwoto, A., Ramadhani, M., Muksalmina, Rusydi, M. T., Harahap, N. K., Mardiyanto, I., Churniawan, E., Junaedi, M., Agustiwi, A., Saragih, G. M., Bariah, C., & Surasa, A. (2023). Legal Research Methodology. Sada Kurnia Pustaka.
Situmorang, M. (2018). The Position of Commissioner Judges in the Criminal Procedure Bill. Journal of Legal Research De Jure, 18(4), 433. https://doi.org/10.30641/dejure.2018.V18.433-444
Sriwidodo, Joko. (2020). The development of the Criminal Justice system in Indonesia. Kepel Press.
Suyanto, S. (2023). Legal Research Methods Introduction to Normative, Empirical and Combined Research. Unigres Press.
Tiara, A. E., Maulana, A., & Billiansya, M. R. (2017). Police in the Shadow of Torture (Torture Case Notes Throughout 2013 to 2016). Jakarta Legal Aid Institute (LBH).
Wiryono, S., & Rastika, I. (2024, July 1). Contrast: Police Wrongly Arrested 15 Times in the Last Year, 23 Victims. KOMPAS.com. https://nasional.kompas.com/read/2024/07/01/19001741/kontras-polisi-15-kali-salah-tangkap-dalam-setahun-terakhir-korbannya-23
Zubairy, A. (2021). Recollection as Evidence by the Public Prosecutor in Criminal Cases Based on the Principles of Due Process Of Law. Indonesian Journal of Law Enforcement, 2(2), Article 2. https://doi.org/10.51749/jphi.v2i2.34
Zunaidi, A. H., & Najih, M. (2020). Comparative Analysis of Criminal Case Settlement Policies outside of Trial in the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, and Indonesia. Audito Comparative Law Journal (ACLJ), 1(1), Article 1. https://doi.org/10.22219/audito.v1i1.12781