Reconstructing Validity and Reliability Standards for AI-Based Evidence in Indonesian Criminal Proceedings
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.60153/ijolares.v4i2.372Keywords:
artificial intelligence-based evidence, criminal proceedings, evidentiary standardsAbstract
The use of artificial intelligence in criminal investigations and court proceedings creates new challenges for Indonesian evidence law. AI can be used for facial recognition, data analysis, voice identification, and detecting fake media. However, Indonesian criminal procedure does not yet provide clear rules on whether AI-based evidence is reliable, transparent, and acceptable in court. This study aims to develop a normative framework for evaluating the admissibility and reliability of artificial intelligence-based evidence in Indonesian criminal proceedings by integrating evidentiary principles, algorithmic accountability, and defendants’ procedural rights. The research employs a normative legal method using statutory, conceptual, and comparative approaches, examining Indonesian evidentiary rules alongside selected foreign legal frameworks governing the admissibility and scrutiny of artificial intelligence-based evidence. Primary legal materials include Indonesian criminal procedure legislation and regulations concerning electronic information, while secondary materials consist of legal scholarship on digital evidence, algorithmic accountability, and fair trial guarantees. The study finds that classifying evidence as electronic evidence is not enough to establish its admissibility. AI-based evidence may raise additional concerns about its source, reliability, transparency, and the ability of the defence to challenge how it was produced and interpreted. Its admissibility should depend on how the evidence was obtained, its integrity and accuracy, the transparency of the methods used, expert verification, and the defence’s ability to examine and challenge it. The study concludes that Indonesia needs a clear legal framework for AI-based evidence to ensure that AI results are properly examined and that the use of technology does not undermine due process.
Downloads
References
Allen, D. N. (2022). Deepfake fight: AI-powered disinformation and perfidy under the Geneva Conventions. Notre Dame J. on Emerging Tech., 3, 1.
Antoro, H., Budhijanto, D., & Somawijaya. (2026). Admissibility of artificial intelligence as electronic evidence: Comparative perspectives from Indonesia, the United States, and Japan. Jurnal IUS Kajian Hukum dan Keadilan, 14(1), 122–139. https://doi.org/10.29303/ius.v14i1.1880
Biedermann, A., & Lau, T. (2024). Decisionalizing the problem of reliance on expert and machine evidence. Law, Probability and Risk, 23(1), Article mgae007. https://doi.org/10.1093/lpr/mgae007
Chandra, B., Dunietz, J., Roberts, K., Lee, Y., Fontana, P., & Awad, G. (2024). Reducing risks posed by synthetic content: An overview of technical approaches to digital content transparency (NIST AI 100-4). National Institute of Standards and Technology. https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.AI.100-4
European Parliament & Council of the European Union. (2024). Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 June 2024 laying down harmonised rules on artificial intelligence and amending Regulations and Directives. Official Journal of the European Union, L, 2024/1689. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj/eng
Grother, P., Ngan, M., & Hanaoka, K. (2019). Face recognition vendor test part 3: Demographic effects (NISTIR 8280). National Institute of Standards and Technology. https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.IR.8280
Fajar, M. N. D., & Achmad, Y. (2010). Dualisme penelitian hukum normatif dan empiris. Pustaka Pelajar.
Kattnig, M., Angerschmid, A., Reichel, T., & Kern, R. (2024). Assessing trustworthy AI: Technical and legal perspectives of fairness in AI. Computer Law & Security Review, 55, Article 106053. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clsr.2024.106053
Lehr, D., & Ohm, P. (2017). Playing with the data: What legal scholars should learn about machine learning. University of California, Davis Law Review, 51(2), 653–717. https://lawreview.law.ucdavis.edu/archives/51/2/playing-data-what-legal-scholars-should-learn-about-machine-learning
Marzuki, P. M. (2017). Penelitian hukum (Edisi revisi). Kencana.
National Institute of Justice. (2008). Electronic crime scene investigation: A guide for first responders (2nd ed.; NIJ Research Report, NCJ 219941). U.S. Department of Justice. https://nij.ojp.gov/library/publications/electronic-crime-scene-investigation-guide-first-responders-second-edition
Permadi, W. S., Isnandar, A., & Prasetyo, Y. (2026). The probative power of deepfake-based electronic evidence in fraud crimes. Jurnal Hukum Prasada, 13(1), 37–45. https://doi.org/10.22225/jhp.13.1.2026.37-45
Republic of Indonesia. (2019). Government Regulation Number 71 of 2019 concerning the operation of electronic systems and transactions. https://peraturan.bpk.go.id/Details/122030/pp-no-71-tahun-2019
Republic of Indonesia. (2024). Law Number 1 of 2024 concerning the second amendment to Law Number 11 of 2008 concerning electronic information and transactions. https://peraturan.bpk.go.id/Details/274494/uu-no-1-tahun-2024
Republic of Indonesia. (2025). Law Number 20 of 2025 concerning the Criminal Procedure Code. https://peraturan.bpk.go.id/Details/337302/uu-no-20-tahun-2025
Roth, A. (2017). Machine testimony. The Yale Law Journal, 126(7), 1972–2053. https://www.yalelawjournal.org/article/machine-testimony
Soekanto, S., & Mamudji, S. (2015). Penelitian hukum normatif: Suatu tinjauan singkat. RajaGrafindo Persada.
State v. Loomis, 881 N.W.2d 749 (Wis. 2016). https://www.wicourts.gov/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=171690
State v. Pickett, 246 A.3d 279 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2021). https://www.njcourts.gov/court-opinion/state-of-new-jersey-vs-corey-pickett-17-07-0470-hudson-county-and-statewide-published
Sumardiana, B., Pujiyono, Cahyaningtyas, I., & Wulandari, C. (2024). Evaluation of electronic evidence in criminal justice in the era of advanced artificial intelligence technology. Indonesian Journal of Criminal Law Studies, 9(2), 309–332. https://doi.org/10.15294/ijcls.v9i2.36634
Tabassi, E. (2023). Artificial intelligence risk management framework (AI RMF 1.0) (NIST AI 100-1). National Institute of Standards and Technology. https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.AI.100-1
Vashishtha, S. (2026). AI in cyber law enforcement and forensic evidence collection. Scientific Journal of Artificial Intelligence and Blockchain Technologies, 3(1), 13–23. https://doi.org/10.63345
Wexler, R. (2018). Life, liberty, and trade secrets: Intellectual property in the criminal justice system. Stanford Law Review, 70(5), 1343–1429. https://www.stanfordlawreview.org/print/article/life-liberty-and-trade-secrets/.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Gregorius Widiartana, Vincentius Patria Setyawan

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
















