Rejecting the Fruit of the Poisonous Tree: The Regulation of the Exclusionary Rule in Indonesian Criminal Procedure from a Fair Trial Perspective
Abstract
The enactment of Law Number 20 of 2025 on the Criminal Procedure Code introduces an improvement to Indonesian criminal evidence law by explicitly recognizing the exclusionary rule in Article 235. Unlike the 1981 Criminal Procedure Code, which merely enumerated categories of evidence without questioning the legality of their acquisition, the new provision establishes procedural legality as a precondition for the admissibility of evidence. This study aims to analyze the regulation of the exclusionary rule under Article 235 and to examine its opportunities and challenges from the perspectives of human rights and the right to a fair trial. The issues discussed include the concepts of illegally obtained evidence and the exclusionary rule, a comparison between the 1981 Code and the new Code, and a review against international human rights instruments. This research employs a normative legal method, using statutory and comparative approaches and drawing on the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) dan Convention Against Torture (CAT). The findings show that Article 235 strengthens human rights and fair trial guarantees, affirms the absolute exclusion of evidence obtained through torture, and restores equality of arms. Nevertheless, the provision has shortcomings, namely the absence of explicit regulation of the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine, the good-faith exception, standing, and the burden of proof. The study recommends reinforcement through supreme court jurisprudence, implementing regulations, and the transformation of law enforcement working culture.
Downloads
References
Committee against Torture. “Decision Communication No. 419/2010: Yousri Ktiti v Morocco.” Geneva, 2010.
Direktori Putusan Mahkamah Agung Republik Indonesia. “Putusan No. 1531 K/Pid. Sus/2010.” 2010.
Direktori Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Republik Indonesia. “Putusan Nomor 5/PUU-VIII/2010.” 2011.
———. “Putusan Perkara Nomor 006/PUU-I/2003.” 2004.
Eddyono, Supriyadi W., Wahyudi Djafar, Sufriyadi, Erasmus A. T. Napitupulu, and Sriyana. Praperadilan Di Indonesia: Teori, Sejarah, Dan Praktiknya. Jakarta: Institute for Criminal Justice Reform, 2014.
European Court of Human Rights. “Case of Gäfgen v Germany (Application No. 22978/05).” 2010. https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/fre#%7B%22itemid%22:[%22001-99015%22]%7D.
Firyalfatin. “KUHAP Baru Perketat Pembuktian, Hakim Berwenang Tolak Bukti Ilegal.” Hukumonline.com, 2026. https://www.hukumonline.com/berita/a/kuhap-baru-perketat-pembuktian--hakim-berwenang-tolak-bukti-ilegal-lt698f428a39c8e/.
Human Rights Committee 81st Session. “Communication No. 1033/2001: Nallaratnam Singarasa v Sri Lanka.” Geneva, 2004.
Human Rights Council. “Report of the Special Rapporteur on Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment by Juan E. Mendez: A/HRC/25/60.” Geneva, 2014.
Kanter, Tesalonika Flensky, Sarah D. J. Roeroe, and Revy S. M. Korah. “Cara Menentukan Alat Bukti Petujuk Oleh Hakim Dalam Menjatuhkan Putusan Tindak Pidana Pembunuhan.” Lex Privatum 15, no. 5 (2025): 1–11.
Lafave, Wayne R. “The Smell of Herring: A Critique of the Supreme Court’s Latest Assault on the Exclusionary Rules.” The Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology 99, no. 3 (2009): 757–88.
Latifah, Marfuatul. “Perlukah Mengatur Prinsip Exclusionary Rules of Evidence Dalam RUU Hukum Acara Pidana?” Jurnal Negara Hukum 12, no. 1 (2021): 101–22.
Marzuki, Peter Mahmud. Penelitian Hukum. Jakarta: Kencana, 2016.
Monaghan, Nicola. Law of Evidence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015.
Muladi, and Diah Sulistyani RS. Catatan Empat Dekade Perjuangan Turut Mengawal Terwujudnya KUHP NASIONAL (Bagian I 1980-2020). Semarang: Universitas Semarang Press, 2020.
Nugroho, Sigit Sapto, Anik Tri Haryani, and Farkhani. Metodologi Riset Hukum. Surakarta: Oase Pustaka, 2020.
Packer, Herbert L. The Limits of the Criminal Sanction. California: Stanford University Press, 1968.
Prawira, M. Rizki Yudha. “Mechanism of Immediate Judicial Review After Detention at the Investigation Stage: A Human Rights Perspective.” Qaumiyyah: Jurnal Hukum Tata Negara 6, no. 2 (2025): 181–210. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.24239/qaumiyyah.v6i2.284.
———. “Peluang Menuju Negara Abolisionis: Mekanisme Komutasi Di Indonesia Dan Kebijakan Penghapusan Pidana Mati Wajib Malaysia.” In Melampaui Batas Negara: Kajian Isu Kontemporer Hukum Indonesia-Malaysia, 109–28. Depok: Rajawali Pers, 2026.
———. “Reconceptualizing Justice: Utilizing The Fair Trial Principle As A Standard For A States’ Criminal Justice Systems.” Ius Comparatum: Journal of Law Studies 1, no. 2 (2025): 21–38. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.35586/icjls.v1i2.12026.
Prawira, Syailendra Anantya. “Transformasi Keadilan: Pemberlakuan Doktrin Exclusionary Rules Dalam KUHAP Baru.” Suara BSDK, 2026. http://suarabsdk.com/transformasi-keadilan-pemberlakuan-doktrin-exclusionary-rules-dalam-kuhap-baru/.
Pudjoharsoyo, Achmad Setyo. “Perdebatan Penuntut Umum Dan Penasihat Hukum Dalam Menegakkan Doktrin Exclusionary Rule Pada Tahap Pembuktian Di Persidangan.” MARI News, 2026. https://marinews.mahkamahagung.go.id/artikel/perdebatan-exclusionary-rule-dalam-tahap-pembuktian-0Ke.
Reid, Charles J. “Judicial Precedent In The Late Eighteenth And Early Nineteenth Centuries : A Commentary on Chancellor Kent’s Commentaries.” 28. Minnesota, 2006. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=923220.
Soekanto, Soerjono, and Sri Mamudji. Penelitian Hukum Normatif : Suatu Tinjauan Singkat. Jakarta: Raja Grafindo Persada, 2023.
Sriwidodo, Joko. Perkembangan Sistem Peradilan Peradilan Pidana Di Indonesia. Yogyakarta: Penerbit Kepel Press, 2020.
Supreme Court of the United States. “Mapp v Ohio No. 236. 367 U.S. 643; 81 S. Ct. 1684; 6 L. Ed. 2d 1081.” 1961.
———. “Weeks v. United States, 232 U.S. 383.” 1914.
The Supreme Court of Israel. “Raphael Yissacharov v Chief Military Prosecutor: CrimA 5121/98.” Jerusalem, 2006.
Turner, Jenia I., and Thomas Weigend. “The Purposes and Functions of Exclusionary Rules: A Comparative Overview.” In Ius Gentium: Comparative Perspective on Law and Justice, 255–82. Cham: Springer Open, 2019.
U.S. Supreme Court. “Brown v. Illinois No. 73-6650, 422 U.S. 590 (1975).” 1975.
———. “Elkins v. United States No. 126, 364 U.S. 206 (1960).” 1960.
———. “Murray v. United States No. 86-995, 487 U.S. 533 (1988).” 1988.
———. “Nix v. Williams No. 82-1651, 467 U.S. 431 (1984).” 1984.
———. “Rakas v. Illinois No. 77-5781, 439 U.S. 128 (1978).” 1978.
———. “United States v. Leon No. 82-1771, 468 U.S. 897 (1984).” 1984.
UN Committee CAT. “Decision of the Committee Againts Torture under Article 22 of the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment of Punishment Thirtieth Session Concerning Communication No. 219/2002: G.K v Switzerland.” Geneva, 2002.
Copyright (c) 2026 Esensi Hukum
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Authors who publish with this Journal agree to the following terms:
1. Author retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a creative commons attribution license that allow others to share the work within an acknowledgement of the work’s authorship and initial publication of this journal.
2. Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangement for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal’s published version of the work (e.g. acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal).
3. Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g. in institutional repositories or on their websites) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published works.
4. 
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
2.png)
