Article Per Year (5 Year)
p-Index From 2021 - 2026
0.408
P-Index
This Author published in this journals
All Journal Lex Journal : Kajian Hukum dan Keadilan
Emmilia Rusdiana
State University of Surabaya, Indonesia
Law, Crime, Criminology & Criminal Justice

Published : 2 Documents Claim Missing Document
Claim Missing Document
Check
Articles

Found 2 Documents
Search

 1 
Addressing the Regulatory Gap: A Legal Analysis of Wiretapping Procedures in the 2025 Criminal Procedure Code Naura Atha Fadhila Salvia Berti Putri; Emmilia Rusdiana
Lex Journal: Kajian Hukum & Keadilan Vol 10 No 3 (2026): September
Publisher : Faculty of Law, University of Dr. Soetomo

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.25139/lex.v10i3.12334

Abstract

The rapid advancement of information technology has rendered modern crime patterns increasingly complex, often eluding conventional investigative methods. In response, Law No. 20 of 2025 concerning the Indonesian Criminal Procedure Code (KUHAP 2025) was enacted, formally recognizing wiretapping as a legitimate coercive measure in criminal investigations. However, Article 136 of KUHAP 2025 merely serves as an enabling norm, delegating the procedural specifics of wiretapping to a separate, yet-to-be-drafted statute. This delegation creates a significant regulatory vacuum. Through a normative-juridical method grounded in statutory and conceptual approaches, this study analyzes the legal implications of this procedural void—specifically its threat to legal certainty and citizens' guaranteed privacy rights. Furthermore, this research formulates the ideal substantive framework for the forthcoming Wiretapping Law. The findings assert that to safeguard against arbitrary surveillance, the new legislation must incorporate three essential elements: strictly defined limits on applicable criminal offenses, a rigorous judicial warrant mechanism, and definitive boundaries on wiretapping duration. Ultimately, these regulatory pillars are crucial for striking an equitable balance between the efficacy of law enforcement and the fundamental protection of human rights.
Evidentiary Validity in Corruption Cases: The Legal Standing of Public Accountant Audits Unreported to the Supreme Audit Agency Erik Eko Bagus Mudigdho; Pudji Astuti; Aditya Wiguna Sanjaya; Emmilia Rusdiana
Lex Journal: Kajian Hukum & Keadilan Vol 10 No 3 (2026): September
Publisher : Faculty of Law, University of Dr. Soetomo

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.25139/lex.v10i3.12488

Abstract

This study analyzes the normative conflict between Article 32 paragraph (1) of the Law on the Eradication of Corruption Crimes (UU PTPK), which permits Public Accounting Firms (KAPs) to calculate state financial losses, and Article 6 paragraph (4) of the Supreme Audit Agency Law (UU BPK), which mandates the submission of such audit reports to the BPK. The research focuses on the legal urgency of this submission obligation and evaluates the evidentiary weight of KAP reports unverified by the BPK through the lens of exclusionary rules. This study employs a normative juridical method, utilizing statutory, case, and conceptual approaches. The findings reveal two main points. First, state financial loss audit reports issued by Public Accountants must be submitted to the BPK, as mandated by Article 6 paragraph (4) of the UU BPK and the Supreme Court Circular Letter (SEMA) Number 2 of 2024. KAPs lack the constitutional attributive authority to declare state financial losses; such authority rests absolutely with the BPK as the final validator. Second, from the perspective of exclusionary rules, KAP reports that are neither submitted to nor verified by the BPK are classified as procedurally flawed (tainted/unlawful evidence). Consequently, these reports lose their absolute evidentiary weight as independent documentary evidence. Nevertheless, adhering to the principle of judicial independence and SEMA No. 2 of 2024, judges retain the discretion to dynamically assess state financial losses based on their conviction and the integration of other valid evidence presented during the trial.
Co-Authors Aditya Wiguna Sanjaya Erik Eko Bagus Mudigdho Naura Atha Fadhila Salvia Berti Putri Pudji Astuti