Article Per Year (5 Year)
p-Index From 2021 - 2026
0.562
P-Index
This Author published in this journals
All Journal POLITICA: Jurnal Hukum Tata Negara dan Politik Islam Law Development Journal
Adalin Ali
Universitas Mpu Tantular
Religion Humanities Economics, Econometrics & Finance Law, Crime, Criminology & Criminal Justice Social Sciences

Published : 3 Documents Claim Missing Document
Claim Missing Document
Check
Articles

Found 3 Documents
Search

 1 
Reconstructing Standards for the Assessment of Electronic Evidence in Indonesian Civil Procedure from the Perspective of ISO/IEC 27037:2012 Appe Hutauruk; Adalin Ali; Hotman Sinambela
Politica: Jurnal Hukum Tata Negara dan Politik Islam Vol. 13 No. 1 (2026): Politica: Jurnal Hukum Tata Negara dan Politik Islam
Publisher : Prodi Tata Negara (Siyasah) IAIN Langsa

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.32505/politica.v13i1.15704

Abstract

Article 5 of Indonesia’s Electronic Information and Transactions Law recognizes electronic evidence as legally valid. However, civil procedure, which still relies on the Herzien Inlandsch Reglement/Rechtreglement voor de Buitengewesten (HIR/RBg), lacks procedural standards to ensure the integrity of electronic evidence. Unlike criminal proceedings supported by investigators and forensic laboratories, civil litigants independently collect, store, and submit electronic evidence, creating risks of manipulation and inconsistent judicial assessment. This study examines the normative gap concerning the chain of custody of electronic evidence and proposes ISO/IEC 27037:2012 as a framework for judicial evaluation. Employing normative juridical research with statutory, conceptual, comparative, and case approaches, the study analyzes Decision No. 258/Pdt.G/2023/PN Blb, supported by Constitutional Court Decision No. 20/PUU-XIV/2016 as its doctrinal foundation. The findings reveal that the court assessed WhatsApp screenshots using the doctrine applicable to documentary photocopies rather than Articles 5 and 6 of the ITE Law, admitting even photocopies of photocopies without examining the original electronic data. The absence of acquisition and preservation standards leaves the evidentiary value of electronic evidence dependent on judicial discretion, creating the potential for inconsistent decisions. To address this deficiency, the study proposes a three-pillar framework: imposing a bewijsvoering obligation on the submitting party, adopting the four stages and four principles of ISO/IEC 27037:2012 as judicial assessment criteria, and strengthening the role of accredited digital forensic experts. Consistent with Federal Rules of Evidence Rules 902(13)–902(14) and the doctrine of spoliation of evidence, this framework can be implemented through a Supreme Court Regulation, shifting judicial assessment from evaluating only electronic content to examining the integrity of evidence acquisition, preservation, and authentication.
Smartphone Data Extraction as Digital Search: Rethinking the Limits of Pretrial Review under Indonesia’s 2025 Code of Criminal Procedure Appe Hutauruk; Fendi Maruba Parlindungan Hutahaean; Adalin Ali
Politica: Jurnal Hukum Tata Negara dan Politik Islam Vol. 13 No. 2 (2026): Politica: Jurnal Hukum Tata Negara dan Politik Islam
Publisher : Prodi Tata Negara (Siyasah) IAIN Langsa

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.32505/politica.v13i2.16111

Abstract

Smartphones are no longer merely communication devices but serve as massive repositories of personal data. However, a research gap exists regarding the normative boundaries between the seizure of a smartphone as a physical entity and the examination of its digital contents boundaries that remain undefined within the Indonesian criminal justice system. This normative legal study employs a methodological framework utilizing statutory, conceptual, case-based, and limited comparative approaches. Theoretically, the study contributes to the discourse on digital criminal procedural law by integrating data protection principles into the regulation of coercive measures. The findings indicate a fundamental distinction between the seizure of a physical device and the access to and extraction of digital data. Under the frameworks of the 2025 Criminal Procedure Code (KUHAP 2025) and the Personal Data Protection Law (UU PDP), the extraction of electronic data must be treated as a distinct object of search, requiring specific, relevant, and proportionate judicial authorization. Data extraction conducted without proper authorization constitutes an act lacking lawful authority. Furthermore, the study highlights a critical issue regarding legal loopholes in rights-remedy mechanisms; specifically, suspects lack adequate pretrial avenues to seek protection when irrelevant personal data is extracted, a stark contrast to the rights afforded to third parties. As a primary contribution regarding “ius constituendum” (law as it ought to be), the study recommends the implementation of a two-stage authorization model. This model mandates separate court authorizations for the seizure of the physical device and the extraction of its digital content, a requirement that should be reinforced through Supreme Court guidelines and strict standard operating procedures for investigators.
Crypto Assets as Property in Indonesian Law: Substantive Qualification and a Partial Lacuna Legis in Their Proprietary Consequences Adalin Ali; Appe Hutauruk; Hotman Sinambela
Law Development Journal Vol 8, No 3 (2026): September 2026
Publisher : Universitas Islam Sultan Agung

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.30659/ldj.8.3.1360-1370

Abstract

The number of crypto asset users in Indonesia reached 21.70 million by April 2026, yet its status as property (benda) under the Indonesian Civil Code (KUH Perdata) remains undefined. This normative legal study employs statutory and conceptual approaches to analyze the classification of crypto assets as objects of property rights. The findings indicate that crypto assets substantially meet the criteria for intangible movable property under Articles 499 and 503 of the Civil Code, as they possess economic value, are identifiable, and are technically controllable via private keys. However, possession of a private key serves merely as an indicator of factual control rather than automatic proof of ownership or a basis for droit de suite; legal ownership must still be established through transaction histories, agreements, and custodial arrangements. This substantive classification has not yet resulted in uniform property-law consequences. The numerus clausus principle does not preclude classification as property but necessitates clarification regarding the associated legal consequences. Furthermore, the principle of publicity remains unsatisfied, as the link between wallet addresses and holder identities is inaccessible to third parties. This situation creates a partial lacuna legis regarding proof of ownership, transfer, inheritance, security interests, seizure, and execution, placing crypto assets in a zwevende rechtspositie (suspended legal position) between substantive classification and formal regulation. Consequently, legislation is required to clarify the property-law implications of crypto assets and to establish publicity mechanisms compatible with their cryptographic nature.
Co-Authors Appe Hutauruk Fendi Maruba Parlindungan Hutahaean Hotman Sinambela