Diskursus Yuridis Bukti Elektronik dalam Perkara Perceraian: Analisis Komparatif Dua Putusan Pengadilan Agama
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.22437/zaaken.v6i2.43219Keywords:
electronic evidence, divorce, judge's considerations, Legal CertaintyAbstract
This study examines the use of electronic evidence in divorce proceedings at Religious Courts, focusing on the differences in judicial reasoning. The divergence is evident in the decision of the Gedong Tataan Religious Court No. 0371/Pdt.G/2020/PA.Gdt, which rejected electronic evidence for not meeting formal requirements, compared with the Tulang Bawang Religious Court decision No. 0501/Pdt.G/2017/PA.Tlb, which accepted such evidence despite its lack of formal validity. The research gap lies in the inconsistency of applying the provisions on electronic evidence after the enactment of the Electronic Information and Transactions Law (ITE Law), which creates potential legal uncertainty. This study employs a normative juridical method with statutory, case, and conceptual approaches. Its contribution is to provide an understanding of the legal basis and judicial practice in assessing electronic evidence in divorce cases, as well as how judges interpret the principle of authenticity. The findings reveal that the Gedong Tataan judges emphasized formal aspects and excluded electronic evidence even when undisputed, while the Tulang Bawang judges applied the presumption of authenticity by accepting undisputed evidence. This contrast highlights the need for clearer standards to ensure legal certainty in the use of electronic evidence in divorce cases.
Downloads
References
Asimah, Dewi. “To Overcome the Constraints of Proof in the Application of Electronic Evidence.” Jurnal Hukum Peratun 3, no. 2 (2021): 97–110. https://doi.org/10.25216/peratun.322020.97-110.
Kedudukan, Perkembangan. “Amanna Gappa.” Jurnal Ilmu Hukum AMANNA GAPPA 21, no. 1 (2013): 65–74.
Mokosolang, Arlan Ariya. “Kekuatan Hukum Surat Elektronik Sebagai Alat Bukti Perkara Perdata (Berdasarkan Undang-Undang Nomor 19 Tahun 2016 Tentang Informasi Dan Transaksi Elektronik).” Lex Administratum Vol.XI/No.04/Jun/2023 Mempunyai 3, no. 04 (2023): 215–25.
Munir Fuady. Teori Hukum Pembuktian Pidana Dan Perdata (Bandung : Citra Aditya Bakti, 2012), Hlm.4
Nashir, Fatah, and Latifa Mustafida. “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).” Fortiori Law Journal 1, no. 2 (2021): 23–56.
Nasution, Bahder Johan. “Metode Penelitian Ilmu Hukum, Cet. 2, Mandar Maju, Bandung,” 2016, hlm. 80.
Rahmadani, Gema, and Muhammad Iqbal Irham. “Kedudukan Alat Bukti Elektronik : Perkara Perceraian Di Pengadilan Agama Medan.” Jurnal Hukum Kaidah: Media Komunikasi Dan Informasi Hukum Dan Masyarakat 23, no. 2 (2024): 144–53. https://doi.org/10.30743/jhk.v23i2.8684.
Sucia, Yossiramah, and Meissy Putri Deswari. “Bukti Elektronik Dalam Sistem Peradilan : Memahami Peran Dan Validitasnya " 4 (2024): 13729–41
Direktori Putusan Mahkamah Agung Republik Indonesia. “Putusan Nomor: 0501/Pdt.G/2017/PA.Tlb,” 2017, halaman, 1-7.
____________________. “Putusan Nomor 371/Pdt.G/2020/PA.Gdt,” 2020, halaman 1-23.
Undang-Undang Nomor 1 Tahun 2024 tentang Perubahan Kedua Atas Undang-Undang Nomor 11 Tahun 2008 tentang Informasi dan Transaksi Elektronik. “Pasal 5 Ayat 1 - 4,”. hlm, 3.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Numara Ardelia Fairuz

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
All material published on Zaaken: Journal of Civil and Business Law licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution license as currently displayed on a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License









