Constitutionality of Judicial Observation as Evidence in the New KUHAP: Reconstructing Evidentiary Discretion Limits
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.0805/rrdr5509Kata Kunci:
judicial observation; law of evidence; judicial discretion; fair trial; criminal procedure; constitutional reviewAbstrak
This study examined the constitutional limits of judicial observation under Article 235(1)(g) of Indonesia’s new Criminal Procedure Code. Normative legal research employed statutory, constitutional, case, conceptual, and comparative approaches. Judicial observation serves a legitimate function by enabling judges to perceive facts disclosed at trial, yet its undefined scope threatens legal certainty, impartiality, adversarial testing, and the prosecution’s burden of proof. The study found that judicial observation is constitutionally defensible only as derivative and corroborative evidence, rather than proof generated from a judge’s private knowledge or subjective impressions. It proposes five cumulative safeguards: limitations on source and forum, verifiable objects, corroboration by independent lawful evidence, disclosure with an opportunity to object and rebut, and reasoned appellate review. Observation must occur in a lawful hearing or court-ordered site inspection, be recorded, tested by the parties, and expressly justified in the judgment. These safeguards preserve an active judicial role without transforming the judge into an evidentiary witness.
Unduhan
Referensi
Australian Law Reform Commission. Cognitive and Social Biases in Judicial Decision-Making. Background Paper JI6. Brisbane: Australian Law Reform Commission, 2021.
Azis, Muhammad Abdul, and Pujiyono. “Causative-Victim Tracing for Integrative Criminal Policy on AI Deepfake Face and Voice Crimes in Indonesia.” KRTHA BHAYANGKARA 20, no. 2 (2026): 518–537. https://doi.org/10.31599/krtha.v20i2.5666.
Azis, Muhammad Abdul, Pujiyono, and Riski Ananda Kusuma Putri. “Reconstructing Reliability Standards for Deepfake Detectors as Electronic Evidence in Indonesia’s Criminal Justice System.” West Science Law and Human Rights 4, no. 3 (2026): 299–309. https://doi.org/10.58812/wslhr.v4i03.3022.
Azis, Muhammad Abdul, Riski Ananda Kusuma Putri, Alya Synthia Kurniawati, and Muhammad Thufail Ariiq. “Governing Traditional Cultural Expressions as Artificial Intelligence Training Data: Reconstructing Communal Consent and Data Transparency in Indonesia.” Societa: Journal of Society and Change 1, no. 1 (2026): 186–199. https://doi.org/10.67964/4gbwhv96.
Azis, Muhammad Abdul, Riski Ananda Kusuma Putri, and Nur Rahman. “Keping Puzzle Yang Hilang: Menelaah Hak Yang Sirna Terhadap Narapidana.” Jurnal Hukum & Pembangunan 52, no. 3 (2022): 674–684. https://doi.org/10.21143/jhp.vol52.no3.3367.
Azis, Muhammad Abdul, Nur Rahman, and Riski Ananda Kusuma Putri. “Between the Future or Just Utopia: A Critical Analysis of the Legal Personhood of Artificial Intelligence on the Claim as a Patent Inventor.” Critical Legal Review 1, no. 5 (2024): 1–25.
Azis, Muhammad Abdul, Siti Fadila Nuramelia, Muhammad Thufail Ariiq, Alya Synthia Kurniawati, Riski Ananda Kusuma Putri, Misshouw Meilany Putri, and Dafirly Salsadilla Dosanto. “Causative-Based Integral Policy as a Response to Criminogenic Factors in the Distribution of Subsidized Fuel.” Punggawa Law Review 1, no. 3 (2026): 142–148.
Badan Pemeriksa Keuangan Republik Indonesia. “Undang-Undang Nomor 20 Tahun 2025 tentang Kitab Undang-Undang Hukum Acara Pidana.” Accessed July 22, 2026.
Brandstetter v. Austria. Applications Nos. 11170/84, 12876/87, and 13468/87. European Court of Human Rights. Judgment of August 28, 1991.
Butt, Simon, and Andreas Nathaniel. “Evidence from Criminal Law Experts in Indonesian Criminal Trials: Usurping the Judicial Function?” International Journal of Evidence & Proof 28, no. 2 (2024): 129–153. https://doi.org/10.1177/13657127231217319.
Chen, Daniel L., Tobias J. Moskowitz, and Kelly Shue. “Decision Making under the Gambler’s Fallacy: Evidence from Asylum Judges, Loan Officers, and Baseball Umpires.” Quarterly Journal of Economics 131, no. 3 (2016): 1181–1242. https://doi.org/10.1093/qje/qjw017.
Christiani, Terry A. “Normative and Empirical Research Methods: Their Usefulness and Relevance in the Study of Law as an Object.” Procedia: Social and Behavioral Sciences 219 (2016): 201–207. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2016.05.006.
Dosanto, Dafirly Salsadilla, Riski Ananda Kusuma Putri, Alya Synthia Kurniawati, Muhammad Thufail Ariiq, Siti Fadila Nuramelia, Misshouw Meilany Putri, and Muhammad Abdul Azis. “Tanggung Jawab Hukum Pemerintah Atas Ketimpangan Fasilitas Pelayanan Kesehatan dalam Pemenuhan Hak Atas Kesehatan di Indonesia.” Jurnal Multidisiplin Indonesia 4, no. 1 (2026): 258–274. https://doi.org/10.62007/joumi.v4i1.849.
Federal Rules of Evidence. Rules 201 and 605. Effective December 1, 2024.
Hoge Raad der Nederlanden. ECLI:NL:HR:2019:1414. September 24, 2019.
Hoge Raad der Nederlanden. ECLI:NL:HR:2023:920. June 20, 2023.
Hutchinson, Terry, and Nigel Duncan. “Defining and Describing What We Do: Doctrinal Legal Research.” Deakin Law Review 17, no. 1 (2012): 83–119. https://doi.org/10.21153/dlr2012vol17no1art70.
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Adopted December 16, 1966. Entered into force March 23, 1976.
Jasper v. United Kingdom. Application No. 27052/95. European Court of Human Rights, Grand Chamber. Judgment of February 16, 2000.
Kurniawati, Alya Synthia, Riski Ananda Kusuma Putri, Muhammad Thufail Ariiq, and Muhammad Abdul Azis. “Kesenjangan Keadilan Perawatan bagi Perempuan Pekerja Informal di Indonesia: Analisis Gender dan Hukum.” JES: Jurnal Ekonomi dan Sosial 1, no. 4 (2026): 251–257.
Mahkamah Konstitusi Republik Indonesia. Putusan Nomor 21/PUU-XII/2014. April 28, 2015.
Mahkamah Konstitusi Republik Indonesia. Putusan Nomor 118/PUU-XXIV/2026. May 12, 2026.
Mahkamah Konstitusi Republik Indonesia. Risalah Sidang Perkara Nomor 62, 69, 89, 92, dan 104/PUU-XXIV/2026. July 8, 2026.
Mahkamah Konstitusi Republik Indonesia. “Tracking Perkara Nomor 92/PUU-XXIV/2026.” Accessed July 22, 2026.
Malegiannaki, Alexandra-Christina, Athanasios Chatzopoulos, and Konstantinos Tsagkaridis. “Assessing Judges’ Use and Awareness of Cognitive Heuristic Decision-Making.” Frontiers in Cognition 4 (2025): 1421488. https://doi.org/10.3389/fcogn.2025.1421488.
Nuramelia, Siti Fadila, Riski Ananda Kusuma Putri, Muhammad Abdul Azis, Alya Synthia Kurniawati, and Misshouw Meilany Putri. “Reorientasi Perlindungan Saksi dan Korban dalam Sistem Peradilan Pidana Indonesia dari Pengaturan Parsial Menuju Model Perlindungan Terpadu.” Hakim: Jurnal Ilmu Hukum dan Sosial 4, no. 3 (2026): 112–125. https://doi.org/10.51903/j66vnn80.
Olaborede, Adebola O., and Lirieka Meintjes-Van der Walt. “Cognitive Bias Affecting Decision-Making in the Legal Process.” Obiter 41, no. 4 (2021): 806–830. https://doi.org/10.17159/obiter.v41i4.10489.
Rachlinski, Jeffrey J., and Andrew J. Wistrich. “Judging the Judiciary by the Numbers: Empirical Research on Judges.” Annual Review of Law and Social Science 13 (2017): 203–229. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-110615-085032.
Republik Indonesia. Undang-Undang Dasar Negara Republik Indonesia Tahun 1945.
Republik Indonesia. Undang-Undang Nomor 12 Tahun 2005 tentang Pengesahan International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Lembaran Negara Republik Indonesia Tahun 2005 Nomor 119, Tambahan Lembaran Negara Republik Indonesia Nomor 4558.
Republik Indonesia. Undang-Undang Nomor 20 Tahun 2025 tentang Kitab Undang-Undang Hukum Acara Pidana. Lembaran Negara Republik Indonesia Tahun 2025 Nomor 188, Tambahan Lembaran Negara Republik Indonesia Nomor 7149.
Republik Indonesia. Undang-Undang Nomor 48 Tahun 2009 tentang Kekuasaan Kehakiman. Lembaran Negara Republik Indonesia Tahun 2009 Nomor 157, Tambahan Lembaran Negara Republik Indonesia Nomor 5076.
Spamann, Holger, and Lars Klöhn. “Justice Is Less Blind, and Less Legalistic, than We Thought: Evidence from an Experiment with Real Judges.” Journal of Legal Studies 45, no. 2 (2016): 255–280. https://doi.org/10.1086/688861.
Stoykova, Radina. “The Right to a Fair Trial as a Conceptual Framework for Digital Evidence Rules in Criminal Investigations.” Computer Law & Security Review 49 (2023): 105801. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clsr.2023.105801.
Strafprozessordnung [German Code of Criminal Procedure]. § 261.
United Nations Human Rights Committee. General Comment No. 32, “Article 14: Right to Equality before Courts and Tribunals and to a Fair Trial.” CCPR/C/GC/32. August 23, 2007.
Wetboek van Strafvordering [Dutch Code of Criminal Procedure]. Articles 339–340.
Wisnubroto, Aloysius, Frisca Regina Ferreira Lay, and Yohana Margareth Soumokil. “The Active Judge System in the Adversary Model: Prospects for Its Application in Indonesia.” International Journal of Science and Environment 5, no. 4 (2025): 46–54. https://doi.org/10.51601/ijse.v5i4.239.
