A Legal Analysis of the Evidence System in Criminal Procedure: A Study of Evidence in Indonesia and Thailand
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.33751/jhss.v10i1.66Keywords:
evidentiary system, criminal procedure law, evidenceAbstract
This study juridically analyzes the system of evidence in Indonesian and Thai criminal procedure law, focusing on the regulation and application of evidentiary instruments. It compares the formalistic and enumerative approach of Indonesia’s Criminal Procedure Code (KUHAP), particularly Articles 183–184, which require a minimum of two lawful pieces of evidence—namely witness testimony, expert testimony, documents, indications, and defendant statements—against Thailand’s more inclusive model under Sections 226–231 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC), which classifies evidence into material, documentary, and personal evidence and grants broader judicial discretion. Both systems share similarities, including the exclusionary rule against illegally obtained evidence and the recognition of digital evidence in response to contemporary legal developments, particularly after Indonesia’s reform through Law No. 20 of 2025. However, structural differences significantly affect the effectiveness of justice: Indonesia emphasizes legal certainty to prevent judicial subjectivity, while Thailand promotes procedural flexibility and allows private prosecution to enhance efficiency and victim participation. Employing a normative-comparative method, this study concludes that ASEAN legal harmonization is necessary to develop a balanced hybrid evidentiary model capable of ensuring substantive truth while safeguarding the human rights of suspects and defendants in the era of transnational crime.
References
[1] U. M. Sosiawan, “Llegally Obtained Evidence In Indonesia’s Draft Criminal Procedure Code (Ruu Kuhap): Exclusionary Rules And The Due Process Of Law Nazhif,” Jurnal Penelitian Hukum, Vol. 19, No. 3, Pp. 517–538, 2019.
[2] S. Khongwan, “The Publi C Prosecutor ’ S Discretion In Ordering Criminal Case About Digital Evidence In Thailand,” Vol. 12, No. 7, 2025.
[3] D. Gede, G. Santosa, E. Dewi, And A. I. Fardiansyah, “The Formation Of Judicial Conviction In Indonesia : Convergence Of Legal Norms And Empirical Reasoning In Criminal Proof,” Vol. 10, No. 1, Pp. 97–115, 2026.
[4] A. Pianwattanakulchai, “Admissibility Of Evidence In The Accusatorial System And Inquisitorial System,” Pp. 70–79, 2023.
[5] A. I. Ilham, M. Shuhufi, A. Rauf, And M. Amin, “2024 Madani : Jurnal Ilmiah Multidisipline Media Hukum Indonesia (Mhi) Kedudukan Alat Bukti Elektronik Dalam Pembuktian Tindak Pidana,” Vol. 2, No. 2, P. 555, 2024.
[6] A. Yusran Gea, “Development Of Criminal Evidence Law In Indonesia,” 2024, Vol. 13, No. 3, Pp. 768–779, 2024.
[7] J. W. Achmad Royani, Enik Isnaini, “Evaluation Of The Applicability Of Indonesian Criminal Procedure Code,” Pp. 128–132, 2023.
[8] M. Lasaka, “Ius Constituendum Of Electronic Evidence Arrangement In Criminal Procedure Law,” Jurnal Legalitas, Vol. 16, No. 2, Pp. 154–166, 2023, Doi: 10.33756/Jelta.V16i2.20306.
[9] M. Febriani Wardojo, “Penggunaan Alat Bukti Sekunder Dalam Menjatuhkan Tuntutan Pidana Berdasarkan Asas Kepastian Hukum,” Vol. 2, No. 1, Pp. 796–808, 2018.
[10] D. S. Malinda, “Analisis Kekuatan Pembuktian Visum Et Repertum Dalam Proses Peradilan Pidana Di Indonesia,” Vol. 32, No. 3, Pp. 167–186, 2021.
[11] I. Sari, “Kekuatan Keabsahan Alat Bukti Elektronik Dalam Penyelesaian Perkara Pidana Di Indonesia,” Jurnal Sistem Informasi Universitas Suryadarma, Vol. 11, No. 2, Pp. 103–118, 2014, Doi: 10.35968/Jsi.V11i2.1245.
[12] A. Fatur And R. Ritonga, “Pengaruh Digitalisasi Proses Hukum Acara Pidana : Studi Komparatif Hukum Indonesia Dan Thailand ( Criminal Procedure Code ),” Vol. V, No. 2, Pp. 83–94, 2024.
[13] S. D. Maharani And N. G. A. A. M. T. Wulandari, “Regulation Of Evidence In The Criminal Procedure Code: A Comparison To The Draft Law On Criminal Procedure,” Bacarita Law Journal, Vol. 6, No. 1, Pp. 15–25, 2025.
[14] R. Janna And R. A. Utami, “Relevansi Alat Bukti Dalam Sistem Peradilan Pidana Indonesia: Analisis Normatif Dan Praktis,” Jurnal Kajian Hukum Dan Pendidikan Kewarganegaraan, Vol. 2, No. 1, Pp. 438–440, 2025.
[15] M. T. S. Lubis And I. Koto, “Model Pembelajaran Hukum Acara Pidana Berbasis Bedah Perkara Dalam Mendukung Program Merdeka Belajar Kampus Merdeka (Mbkm),” Journal Of Education, Humaniora And Social Sciences (Jehss), Vol. 4, No. 3, Pp. 1432–1439, 2022, Doi: 10.34007/Jehss.V4i3.885.
