Inkonsistensi Pertimbangan Hakim terhadap Alat Bukti Elektronik dalam Perkara Perdata
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.62383/sosial.v3i1.2901Keywords:
Civil, Consideration, Electronic Evidence, Judge, ITE LawAbstract
The development of information and communication technology has changed the paradigm of proof in civil cases, where the interaction of the parties is now mostly carried out through electronic media such as instant messages, electronic mails, and digital documents. This condition places electronic evidence as an important instrument in the practice of civil justice. Normatively, the recognition of electronic evidence has been affirmed in Law Number 1 of 2024 concerning Electronic Information and Transactions (ITE Law), which states that electronic information, electronic documents, and their printed results are legal evidence. However, the application of these norms has not been completely consistent in civil justice practice. The assessment of the evidentiary strength of electronic evidence is still highly dependent on the discretion of judges, as there are no detailed technical guidelines regarding assessment standards, relevance, and adequacy. This inconsistency can be seen in a comparison of the Magelang District Court Decision Number 18/Pdt.G/2023/PN Mgg and the Decision of the Lolak Religious Court Number 3/Pdt.G/2022/PA. Llk, which shows the difference in the judge's approach in assessing electronic evidence. This study uses a normative juridical method with a legislative approach and decision analysis. The results of the study emphasized the need for reform of civil procedure law and the preparation of clear technical guidelines to realize uniformity and legal certainty in the assessment of electronic evidence.
References
Arifatunnisa, S., & W. (2025). Kedudukan bukti elektronik dalam pembuktian perkara perdata pasca penerapan peradilan digital. 4(1). https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17865598
Bachsin, A., Ekoputro, H. F. H., Ranggana, H. I. A., Ramadhan, N. O., Fadhillah, M. S., & Siswajanthy, F. (2025). Kedudukan dan penilaian hakim terhadap alat bukti elektronik dalam proses pembuktian perkara perdata. ALZ, 3(3). https://doi.org/10.61104/alz.v3i3.1601
Fatah Nashir, & Mustafida, L. (2021). Kedudukan alat bukti elektronik dalam putusan perceraian di Pengadilan Agama Yogyakarta (Studi kasus perkara 0150/PDT.G/2014/PA.YK dan 0132/PDT.G/2015/PA.YK). 1(2).
Ilham, M., & Salim, A. (2025). Efektivitas penggunaan alat bukti elektronik dalam proses pembuktian menurut hukum acara pidana. Sudarno, 3(1).
Khatimah, H., Khairani, S. W., Ardiansyah, D., Lubis, F., Zibron, Y., & Alamsyah, H. (2025). Hukum acara perdata. 4(1).
Nafri, M. (2019). Dokumen elektronik sebagai alat bukti dalam hukum acara perdata. 3(1).
Rahmadayanti, I., & Syahrill. (2026). Keabsahan verifikasi alat bukti perdata sebagai acuan hakim dalam proses di persidangan. 4(1).
Rizan, L. S., Nurjannah, S., & Erwin, Y. (2022). Analisis yuridis kedudukan dan kepastian hukum alat bukti elektronik dalam pemeriksaan perkara perdata. 11(5). https://doi.org/10.55129/.v11i5.2259
Rum, G. W. (2025). Penggunaan alat bukti elektronik dalam proses peradilan perdata. JMIA, 2(1). https://doi.org/10.61722/jmia.v2i1.3151
Siddiqi, M., & Ilyas, I. (2025). The implementation of electronic evidence presentation in civil proceedings. Genesis Law and Social Sciences, 1(1), 10–15. https://doi.org/10.61975/glass.v1i1.78
Soroinda, D. L., & Nasution, A. A. R. S. (2022). Kekuatan pembuktian alat bukti elektronik dalam hukum acara perdata. 52(2).
Sudarsono, & Izroiel, R. (2020). Pemeriksaan alat bukti elektronik pada persidangan perkara perdata dan tata usaha negara. 3(2).
Tarigan, A. T., Soeikromo, D., & Korah, R. S. M. (2023). Tinjauan hukum nota elektronik sebagai alat bukti dalam hukum acara perdata di Indonesia. 12(1).
Taufiqoh, K. A., Rahmawati, D., & Joko, L. (2024). Keabsahan alat bukti elektronik dalam pembuktian perkara perdata. 9(2).
Utami, G. C., & Wiraguna, S. A. (2025). Pembuktian digital dalam sengketa perdata: Menguji validitas formil dan materiil dokumen elektronik di era modern. Referendum: Jurnal Hukum Perdata dan Pidana, 2(4), 40–52. https://doi.org/10.62383/referendum.v2i4.1360
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Sosial Simbiosis : Jurnal Integrasi Ilmu Sosial dan Politik

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



