Article Per Year (5 Year)
p-Index From 2021 - 2026
0.23
P-Index
This Author published in this journals
All Journal Jurnal As-Syar’i: Jurnal Bimbingan & Konseling Keluarga
Harry Yuniarti
Program Studi Hukum Keluarga, Fakultas Syariah dan Hukum UIN Sunan Gunung Djati, Bandung, Indonesia
Religion Humanities Education Law, Crime, Criminology & Criminal Justice Social Sciences

Published : 1 Documents Claim Missing Document
Claim Missing Document
Check
Articles

Found 1 Documents
Search

 1 
Penerapan Alat Bukti Elektronik dalam Perkara Perceraian Perspektif Undang-Undang Nomor 1 Tahun 2024: Studi Putusan Nomor 1257/Pdt.G/2024/PA.Mlg Muhammad Farhan Abbas; Burhanudin Burhanudin; Harry Yuniarti
As-Syar i: Jurnal Bimbingan & Konseling Keluarga  Vol. 8 No. 3 (2026): As-Syar’i: Jurnal Bimbingan & Konseling Keluarga
Publisher : Institut Agama Islam Nasional Laa Roiba Bogor

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar

Abstract

The advancement of digital technology has transformed evidentiary practice in Indonesian courts, including divorce cases before Religious Courts. Electronic evidence such as chat screenshots and social media posts is now commonly submitted by litigants to support their claims. This article examines the application of electronic evidence in Decision Number 1257/Pdt.G/2024/PA.Mlg of the Malang Religious Court in light of Law Number 1 of 2024 on the Second Amendment to the Electronic Information and Transactions Law (ITE Law). Using a normative juridical method with statute and case approaches, this study finds that the panel of judges admitted five items of electronic evidence submitted by the respondent-husband, namely printed online news, social media screenshots, and WhatsApp conversation captures, and accorded them full evidentiary weight since their content was not contested by the opposing party. Rather than proving the grounds for divorce, this evidence became a decisive consideration in awarding child custody (hadhanah) to the father. The study further finds that the panel still grounded its reasoning in Article 5 of Law Number 11 of 2008 as amended by Law Number 19 of 2016, without explicit reference to Law Number 1 of 2024, even though the latter was already in force when the decision was rendered indicating a gap in updating statutory citation practice in religious court adjudication.
Co-Authors Burhanudin Burhanudin Muhammad Farhan Abbas