Menolak Buah dari Pohon Beracun: Pengaturan Exclusionary Rule dalam Hukum Acara Pidana Indonesia Berdasarkan Perspektif Fair Trial
Abstrak
Pengesahan Undang-Undang Nomor 20 Tahun 2025 tentang KUHAP membawa perbaikan dalam hukum pembuktian pidana Indonesia melalui pengakuan eksplisit doktrin exclusionary rule dalam Pasal 235. Berbeda dengan KUHAP 1981 yang hanya merinci kategori alat bukti tanpa mempersoalkan legalitas perolehannya, ketentuan baru menempatkan keabsahan prosedur sebagai prasyarat keberlakuan bukti. Penelitian ini bertujuan menganalisis pengaturan exclusionary rule dalam Pasal 235 serta meninjau peluang dan problematikanya dari perspektif hak asasi manusia dan fair trial. Permasalahan yang dibahas meliputi konsep illegally obtained evidence dan exclusionary rule, perbandingan KUHAP 1981 dan KUHAP Nasional, serta tinjauan dari instrumen hak asasi internasional. Penelitian ini menggunakan metode yuridis normatif dengan pendekatan perundang-undangan dan perbandingan, merujuk pada International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) dan Convention Against Torture (CAT). Hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwa Pasal 235 memperkuat jaminan hak asasi dan fair trial, menegaskan eksklusi absolut atas bukti hasil penyiksaan, serta memulihkan equality of arms. Namun, ketentuan ini menyisakan kekurangan berupa ketiadaan pengaturan tegas mengenai doktrin fruit of the poisonous tree, good faith exception, standing, dan beban pembuktian. Penelitian menyarankan penguatan melalui yurisprudensi Mahkamah Agung, peraturan pelaksana, serta transformasi budaya kerja aparat penegak hukum.
##plugins.generic.usageStats.downloads##
Referensi
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.
##submission.copyrightStatement##
##submission.license.cc.by-sa4.footer##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)
