Email this article 
PROBLEMATIKA PEMBUKTIAN ELEKTRONIK DALAM PENYIDIKAN TINDAK PIDANA AKSES TANPA HAK: STUDI EMPIRIS DI KEPOLISIAN DAERAH JAWA TIMUR
Abstract
Abstract
Unauthorized access to electronic systems presents new challenges for the criminal justice system because its evidentiary process relies heavily on electronic data that are volatile, susceptible to alteration, and require standardized forensic procedures. Although unauthorized access offenses are regulated under the Electronic Information and Transactions Law, and personal data protection has been strengthened through the Personal Data Protection Law, a gap remains between the normative framework, investigative practices, and the standardization of electronic evidence. This study aims to analyze the investigation mechanism for unauthorized access offenses, identify the problems associated with electronic evidence, and examine the integration of their handling within the framework of the Integrated Criminal Justice System (ICJS) at the Cyber Investigation Directorate of the East Java Regional Police. The study employs an empirical legal method using socio-legal, statutory, and case approaches. Primary data were obtained through interviews with investigators from the Cyber Investigation Directorate of the East Java Regional Police, while secondary data were obtained from legislation, case documents, court decisions, books, and scholarly articles. The data were analyzed qualitatively through interpretive analysis and content analysis and validated through triangulation between interview findings and case documents. The findings indicate that the investigation of Case Number 293/Pid.Sus/2023/PN Mjk operationalized the provisions of criminal procedural law, the Electronic Information and Transactions Law, the Personal Data Protection Law, and police investigative procedures. However, the practice of electronic evidence examination continues to face regulatory fragmentation, inconsistent digital forensic procedures, dependence on individual investigator capabilities, technical limitations, and suboptimal inter-agency coordination. These findings demonstrate that the primary problem is not merely the absence of a legal basis, but rather the lack of integration among legal norms, institutional structures, technical standards, and evidentiary practices within a consistent procedural regime. This study contributes to the development of an integrated cyber-investigation model through the harmonization of procedural law, standardization of digital forensic protocols, strengthening of cross-agency coordination, and enhancement of investigator capacity. The study implies the need for integrated technical guidelines on electronic evidence and stronger implementation of the ICJS to ensure the authenticity of evidence, procedural consistency, protection of rights, and legal certainty.
Keywords: Unauthorized Access; Electronic Evidence; Digital Forensics; Cyber Investigation; Integrated Criminal Justice SystemFull Text:
PDF (Bahasa Indonesia)References
Buku
Casey, Eoghan. Digital Evidence and Computer Crime: Forensic Science, Computers and the Internet. 3rd ed. London: Academic Press, 2011.
Flora, Henny Saida, et al. Hukum Pidana di Era Digital. Batam: Rey Media Grafika, 2024.
Friedman, Lawrence M. The Legal System: A Social Science Perspective. New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1975.
Hamzah, Andi. Cyber Crime: Kejahatan Masa Depan. Jakarta: Sinar Grafika, 2015.
Rasiwan, Iwan. Suatu Pengantar Hukum Pembuktian Tindak Pidana. Bantul: Mitra Edukasi Negeri, 2025.
Peraturan Perundang-Undangan Dan Putusan
Indonesia. Undang-Undang Nomor 8 Tahun 1981 tentang Hukum Acara Pidana. Jakarta: Pemerintah Republik Indonesia, 1981.
Indonesia. Undang-Undang Nomor 11 Tahun 2008 tentang Informasi dan Transaksi Elektronik. Jakarta: Pemerintah Republik Indonesia, 2008.
Indonesia. Undang-Undang Nomor 19 Tahun 2016 tentang Perubahan atas Undang-Undang Nomor 11 Tahun 2008 tentang Informasi dan Transaksi Elektronik. Jakarta: Pemerintah Republik Indonesia, 2016.
Indonesia. Undang-Undang Nomor 27 Tahun 2022 tentang Perlindungan Data Pribadi. Jakarta: Pemerintah Republik Indonesia, 2022.
Indonesia. Undang-Undang Nomor 1 Tahun 2024 tentang Perubahan Kedua atas Undang-Undang Nomor 11 Tahun 2008 tentang Informasi dan Transaksi Elektronik. Jakarta: Pemerintah Republik Indonesia, 2024.
Indonesia. Undang-Undang Nomor 20 Tahun 2025 tentang Kitab Undang-Undang Hukum Acara Pidana. Jakarta: Pemerintah Republik Indonesia, 2025.
Kepolisian Negara Republik Indonesia. Peraturan Kepolisian Negara Republik Indonesia Nomor 6 Tahun 2019 tentang Penyidikan Tindak Pidana. Jakarta: Kepolisian Negara Republik Indonesia, 2019.
Pengadilan Negeri Mojokerto. Putusan Nomor 293/Pid.Sus/2023/PN Mjk.
Jurnal
AlBusaidi, Arwa Juma, Laiha Binti Mat Kiah, and Ainuddin Wahid Bin Abdul Waha. “Toward a Unified Methodology for Preliminary Digital Evidence Assessment: Standardizing Forensic Investigations.” Journal of Forensic Sciences 70, no. 4 (2025): 1571–1583. DOI: 10.1111/1556-4029.70070.
Casey, Eoghan. “Standardization of Forming and Expressing Preliminary Evaluative Opinions on Digital Evidence.” Forensic Science International: Digital Investigation 32 (2020): 200888. DOI: 10.1016/j.fsidi.2019.200888.
De Hert, Paul, Cihan Parlan, and Juraj Sajfert. “The Cybercrime Convention Committee's 2017 Guidance Note on Production Orders: Unilateralist Transborder Access to Electronic Evidence Promoted via Soft Law.” Computer Law & Security Review 34, no. 2 (2018): 327–336. DOI: 10.1016/j.clsr.2018.01.003.
Faizah, Fajrini, and Moh. Karim. “Kekuatan Alat Bukti terhadap Pembuktian Tindak Pidana Cyber Crime.” Jurnal Ilmu Hukum Wijaya Putra 3, no. 1 (2025): 46–53.
Hardianto, Aris, Barda Nawawi Arief, and Joko Setiyono. “The Significance of Computer Forensics in Electronic Documents as Evidence in Criminal Law.” Jurnal Cakrawala Hukum 14, no. 2 (2023): 155–166. DOI: 10.26905/idjch.v14i2.10820.
Horsman, Graeme. “Standardizing Digital Forensic Examination Procedures: A Look at Windows 10 in Cases Involving Images Depicting Child Sexual Abuse.” WIREs Forensic Science 3, no. 6 (2021): e1417. DOI: 10.1002/wfs2.1417.
Ismail, Muh. Akbar, H. Thalib, and A. Arief. “Efektivitas Penyidikan terhadap Pelaku Tindak Pidana Illegal Access di Kepolisian Resor Soppeng.” Journal of Lex Philosophy 5, no. 1 (2024): 143–159.
July, Wiarti. “Legality of Electronic Evidence in Cyber Crime Cases.” Ahmad Dahlan Indonesian Law Journal 1, no. 2 (2023): 11–19. DOI: 10.12928/adil.v1i1.572.
Karie, N. M., H. S. Venter, and J. H. P. Eloff. “The Stages of Cybercrime Investigations: Bridging the Gap between Technology Examination and Law Enforcement Investigation.” Computer Law & Security Review 27, no. 1 (2011): 61–67. DOI: 10.1016/j.clsr.2010.11.001.
Miller, Christa M. “A Survey of Prosecutors and Investigators Using Digital Evidence: A Starting Point.” Forensic Science International: Synergy 6 (2023): 100296. DOI: 10.1016/j.fsisyn.2022.100296.
Mustika, Julia, et al. “Urgensi Digital Forensik untuk Pembuktian Tindak Pidana Siber dalam Konteks Merusak Data dan Sistem Elektronik.” JAITS: Journal of Applied Information Technology Solution 2, no. 1 (2025): 1–6.
Pribadi, Insan. “Legalitas Alat Bukti Elektronik dalam Sistem Peradilan Pidana.” Lex Renaissance 3, no. 1 (2019). DOI: 10.20885/JLR.vol3.iss1.art4.
Sakti, Abdul. “Pengaruh Pendidikan dan Pelatihan Digital Forensik terhadap Kualitas Penanganan Kasus Kejahatan Siber.” Populer: Jurnal Penelitian Mahasiswa 4, no. 1 (2025): 104–109.
Santosa, Dewa Gede Giri, and Karell Mawla Ibnu Kamali. “Acquisition and Presentation of Digital Evidence in Criminal Trial in Indonesia.” Jurnal Hukum dan Peradilan 11, no. 2 (2022): 195–218. DOI: 10.25216/jhp.11.2.2022.195-218.
Sitanggang, A. S., F. Darmawan, and D. Saputra. “Hukum Siber dan Penegakan Hukum di Indonesia: Tantangan dan Solusi Memerangi Kejahatan Siber.” Jurnal Pendidikan dan Teknologi Indonesia 4, no. 3 (2024): 79–83.
Stoykova, Radina. “A New Right to Procedural Accuracy: A Governance Model for Digital Evidence in Criminal Proceedings.” Computer Law & Security Review 55 (2024): 106040. DOI: 10.1016/j.clsr.2024.106040.
Stoykova, Radina. “Digital Evidence: Unaddressed Threats to Fairness and the Presumption of Innocence.” Computer Law & Security Review 42 (2021): 105575. DOI: 10.1016/j.clsr.2021.105575.
Stoykova, Radina. “The Right to a Fair Trial as a Conceptual Framework for Digital Evidence Rules in Criminal Investigations.” Computer Law & Security Review 49 (2023): 105801. DOI: 10.1016/j.clsr.2023.105801.
Stoykova, Radina, and Katrin Franke. “Reliability Validation Enabling Framework (RVEF) for Digital Forensics in Criminal Investigations.” Forensic Science International: Digital Investigation 45 (2023): 301554. DOI: 10.1016/j.fsidi.2023.301554.
Stoykova, Radina, Stig Andersen, Katrin Franke, and Stefan Axelsson. “Reliability Assessment of Digital Forensic Investigations in the Norwegian Police.” Forensic Science International: Digital Investigation 40 (2022): 301351. DOI: 10.1016/j.fsidi.2022.301351.
Sumardiana, Benny, Pujiyono, Irma Cahyaningtyas, and Cahya Wulandari. “Evaluation of Electronic Evidence in Criminal Justice in the Era of Advanced Artificial Intelligence Technology.” Indonesian Journal of Criminal Law Studies 9, no. 2 (2024). DOI: 10.15294/ijcls.v9i2.36634.
Tully, Gillian, Neil Cohen, David Compton, Gareth Davies, Roy Isbell, and Tim Watson. “Quality Standards for Digital Forensics: Learning from Experience in England & Wales.” Forensic Science International: Digital Investigation 32 (2020): 200905. DOI: 10.1016/j.fsidi.2020.200905.
Valjarevic, Aleksandar, and Hein S. Venter. “A Comprehensive and Harmonized Digital Forensic Investigation Process Model.” Journal of Forensic Sciences 60, no. 6 (2015): 1467–1483. DOI: 10.1111/1556-4029.12823.
Wu, Hong, and Guan Zheng. “Electronic Evidence in the Blockchain Era: New Rules on Authenticity and Integrity.” Computer Law & Security Review 36 (2020): 105401. DOI: 10.1016/j.clsr.2020.105401.
Yar, Majid, and Kevin F. Steinmetz. “The Contemporary Cybercrime Ecosystem: A Multi-Disciplinary Overview of the State of Affairs and Developments.” Computer Law & Security Review 34, no. 6 (2018): 1180–1196. DOI: 10.1016/j.clsr.2018.08.005.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.36987/jiad.v14i3.9046
Refbacks
- There are currently no refbacks.
<
