<![CDATA[The rapid advancement of information and communication technology has fundamentally altered evidentiary practices within Indonesia's criminal justice system, particularly concerning the legal standing of electronic evidence, which is inherently susceptible to alteration and difficult to trace. As the lex generalis, the Indonesian Criminal Procedure Code (KUHAP) continues to adhere to a closed evidentiary system under Article 184 paragraph (1), which does not explicitly recognize electronic evidence as a distinct category, whereas the Electronic Information and Transactions Law (UU ITE) affirms it as a valid extension of admissible evidence. This study employs a normative juridical method, utilizing statutory and conceptual approaches, alongside a descriptive-prescriptive analytical technique grounded in grammatical, systematic, and teleological interpretation of primary and secondary legal materials. The findings reveal a paradigmatic conflict between the restrictive framework of KUHAP and the progressive orientation of UU ITE, resulting in ambiguity regarding whether digital evidence constitutes an independent category or merely falls under documentary or circumstantial evidence. This uncertainty is further compounded by law enforcement officials' limited understanding of chain of custody principles and digital forensic procedures, contributing to inconsistent judicial rulings across courts. The study concludes that comprehensive regulatory harmonization is essential, extending beyond partial amendments, and recommends leveraging Law Number 20 of 2025 as a foundation for strengthening the normative recognition of electronic evidence as an independent evidentiary category to achieve stronger legal certainty.]]>
