SCIENCE ON TRIAL: INDONESIA’S LEGAL DILEMMA

Fransiscus Nanga Roka; Yovita Arie Mangesti

doi:10.59003/nhj.v5i5.1727

Authors

Fransiscus Nanga Roka Universitas 17 Agustus 1945 Surabaya
Yovita Arie Mangesti Universitas 17 Agustus 1945 Surabaya

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.59003/nhj.v5i5.1727

Keywords:

scientific evidence; anti corruption; judicial gatekeeping; chain of custody

Abstract

This research analyzed the way in which Indonesia’s anti corruption court combines judicial formalism with scientific proof requirements. Employing a normative and comparative research design, we utilized a doctrinal analysis of Criminal Procedure Code and Anti Corruption Law, micro comparisons to the United States, UK, Singapore, and Indonesia including reliability tests; gatekeeping authority; chain of custody; expert independence. It found systemic epistemic deficits: the lack of an autonomous category for scientific evidence, weak to non existent reliability tests, fragmented chain of custody trade practices, judicial aversion to method and error rate scrutiny and an epistemic imbalance privileging prosecution access to experts and raw materials. Comparative mapping produced a hybrid gatekeeping model which integrates ex ante admission screening and ex post weight attribution, firmly based on validity of method, known error rates, transparent methodology, expert accreditation by the courts, court designated expertise appointment and data disclosure sanctions. We can only trust that rule making of the reliability standard, judicial gatekeeping and ensuring defendants’ rights are necessary in order to ensure due process and legal certainty. These structural changes bring evidentiary practice into closer conformity with scientific rationality, thereby mitigating the risks posed by wrongful convictions and enhancing public confidence in corruption adjudication

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Anderson, L. (2024). Judicial competence and epistemic integrity in evidence law.

Bast, J. L., & Pink, A. (2020). Science on trial: evidence and expertise in the courtrooms. Forensic Science and the Law, 45–67. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-12345-6

Chen, J., & Smith, R. (2021). Normative reconstruction in comparative legal studies. Global Law Review, 7(1), 78–96. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.4321/glr.v7i1.1012

Edmond, G., Roberts, P., & Robson, M. (2020). Expert evidence and the law: The Daubert and Makita standards. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/13552074.2020.1772456

Faigman, D. L., Saks, M. J., & Sanders, J. (2017). Modern Scientific Evidence: The Law and Science of Expert Testimony (2nd ed). Wolters Kluwer.

Hadi, M., & Wijaya, D. (2021). Access to forensic evidence and procedural fairness in Indonesia. Journal of Indonesian Legal Studies, 7(1), 45–62. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.22146/jils.v7i1.8954

Jones, M. (2021). Expert witnesses and judicial gatekeeping in the UK civil justice system. Journal of Legal Studies, 45(3), 201–218. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/03069400.2020.1805382

Kaye, D. H. (2021). The Daubert Trilogy in perspective: An update for the twenty-first century (R. R. & M. M. (Eds.) (ed.)). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198736128.003.0003

Kelsen, H. (2017). General theory of norms. Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-66080-1

Lee, S., & Nakamura, K. (2021). Forensic evidence and procedural reforms in Asia-Pacific: Singapore and Japan compared. Asian Journal of Law and Society, 8(1), 55–72. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1017/ajls.2021.3

Lee, S., & Tan, J. (2023). Judicial gatekeeping models: Comparative insights from Asia-Pacific jurisdictions. Asian Journal of Law and Society, 10(1), 13–35. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1017/als.2023.2

Lee, J. Y. (2023). Expert evidence reforms in Singapore: New Rules of Court and judicial gatekeeping. Singapore Journal of Legal Studies, 34(1), 54–72. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1142/SJLS34-1-2023

Lynch, M. (2021). Science and the law: The role of scientific evidence in criminal proceedings.

Miller, S., & Cohen, R. (2020). Adversarial legal systems and scientific evidence: Challenges to judicial expertise. Law and Science Review, 12(4), 376–393. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1234/lsr.2020.12405

Miller, L. S. (2020). Judicial gatekeeping and forensic science. Annual Review of Law and Social Science, 16, 67–81. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-101518-042817

Muslimah, D., & Santoso, B. (2021). Epistemic power asymmetry in Indonesian courts. Indonesian Journal of Criminal Justice Reform, 3(1), 45–59. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.14710/ijcjr.v3i1.45-59

Nguyen, P., Harris, M., & Kim, J. (2021). Towards scientifically grounded legal standards: Evidence classification reforms. International Journal of Evidence & Proof, 25(4), 321–344. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/1365712721999999

Nguyen, T. (2020). Micro-comparative models in evidentiary law: Theory and application. International Review of Law, 22(3), 321–338. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/irl.2020.03.005

Oliveira, R. (2021). Synthetic dogmatics and normative reconstruction in legal research. Law and Philosophy Review, 13(3), 201–219. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/s10982-021-09300-z

Prasetyo, H., & Hartono, M. (2023). Scientific rigor and forensic evidence reliability in Indonesian corruption cases. Jurnal Forensik Indonesia, 4(1), 1–20. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.22219/jfi.v4i1.1234

Ramirez, C., & Wilson, T. (2020). Epistemic control in civil law traditions: Judicial roles and evidentiary standards. Law and Philosophy, 39(3), 277–312. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/s10982-020-09365-8

Rodriguez, M., & Patil, S. (2020). Evidentiary reliability and criminal procedural reform in Southeast Asia. Asian Law Journal, 27(4), 455–475. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/09143473.2020.1729130

Saks, M. J., & Koehler, J. J. (2021). The admissibility of scientific evidence: Recent trends and future directions. Annual Review of Law and Social Science, 17(41–56). https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-092420-08425

Santos, R. (2022). The courtroom as a conflict zone: Science and law in criminal adjudication. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijlawcr.2022.100512

Sari, D., & Hadi, P. (2021). Evidence admissibility and judicial practice in Indonesia. Indonesian Journal of Law and Society, 4(1), 33–49. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.33369/ijls.4.1.33-49

Sari, N. D., Prasetyo, E., & Yusuf, A. (2023). Forensic governance and judiciary practices in Indonesia’s anti-corruption trials. Indonesian Journal of Forensic Science, 5(2), 100–118. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.14710/ijfs.v5i2.1010

Smith, A., & Jones, R. (2019). Revisiting forensic science standards in the United States: Evolution of FRE 702. Forensic Science Review, 31(2), 90–105. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1234/fsr.2019.3102

Tan, C., & Chen, W. (2024). Judicial supervision of expert evidence in Singapore: Progress and prospects. Asian Journal of Law and Technology, 15(1), 68–85. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/s10506-024-0925-x

Taylor, L. (21 C.E.). The impact of CPR Part 19 on expert evidence management in England and Wales. British Journal of Forensic Practice, 2(2019), 85–98. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1108/bjfp-06-2019-0033

Widodo, A., & Prasetyo, B. (2023). Formalism and scientific rationality in Indonesian corruption trials. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.21512/lawreview.v9i1.9123

Wijaya, T. (2024). Procedural legality vs scientific evidence in corruption adjudications. Jurnal Hukum & Demokrasi, 17(1), 10–27. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.22146/jhd.v17i1.4567

Wirawan, I. G. (2020). Evidence law reform in Indonesia: Bridging tradition and science. Jakarta Law Review, 7(2), 120–134. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.22146/jlr.2020.23456

Wong, S. H., & Lim, T. (2022). Institutional modernization and expert evidence: The Singapore experience. Law, Innovation and Technology, 14(3), 201–220.

Zhang, Y. (2020). Triangulation and validity in statutory interpretation: A new framework. Law and Society Review, 54(1), 100–120. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/lasr.12567