<![CDATA[Hukum adat Bali hidup sebagai living law yang bekerja melalui desa adat, paruman adat, awig-awig, dan sanksi sosial-religius, serta diakui dalam kerangka pluralisme hukum Indonesia melalui Pasal 18B ayat (2) UUD 1945 dan penguatan normatif pada tingkat undang-undang maupun peraturan daerah. Dalam praktik Bali, penyelesaian pelanggaran adat menekankan restorative justice, harmoni komunal, dan keseimbangan kosmis, sehingga instrument simbolik-spiritual memiliki fungsi pembuktian sosial yang nyata dalam komunitas adat. Masalahnya adalah bahwa hukum negara menuntut pembuktian yang rasional, objektif, dan terukur, sedangkan hukum adat Bali mengenal validasi ritual dan spiritual, sehingga muncul divergensi epistemologis dalam menilai sapatha adat jika dihadapkan pada sistem pembuktian nasional. Menggunakan metode penelitian hukum normatif dengan pendekatan perundang-undangan, konseptual, kasus, dan pendekatan hukum adat. Hasilnya menunjukkan bahwa sapatha adat tidak tepat diletakkan sebagai alat bukti yang berdiri sendiri dalam hukum acara nasional, tetapi lebih tepat direkonstruksi sebagai bukti petunjuk yang membantu hakim membaca motif, hubungan sosial, rangkaian peristiwa, kepatuhan adat, serta reaksi komunal, sepanjang ditaukan dengan alat bukti sah lainnya dan dibatasi oleh asas legalitas, kepastian hukum, proporsionalitas, non-diskriminasi, dan perlindungan hak asasi manusia. Balinese customary law exists as a living law that operates through customary villages, customary paruman, awig-awig, and socio-religious sanctions, and is recognized within the framework of Indonesian legal pluralism through Article 18B paragraph (2) of the 1945 Constitution and normative strengthening at the level of laws and regional regulations. In Balinese practice, the resolution of customary violations emphasizes restorative justice, communal harmony, and cosmic balance, so that symbolic-spiritual instruments have a real social proof function in customary communities. The problem is that state law demands rational, objective, and measurable proof, while Balinese customary law recognizes ritual and spiritual validation, so that epistemological divergences arise in assessing customary sapatha when faced with the national proof system. Using normative legal research methods with legislative, conceptual, case, and customary law approaches. The results indicate that customary sapatha is not appropriately placed as stand-alone evidence in national procedural law, but rather is more appropriately reconstructed as indicative evidence that helps judges interpret motives, social relationships, sequences of events, customary adherence, and communal reactions, as long as it is linked to other valid evidence and limited by the principles of legality, legal certainty, proportionality, non-discrimination, and protection of human rights..]]>
