Proof is an effort to provide the certainty required to assess a specific fact, aiming to uncover the material truth in a criminal case. Essentially, the term “proof” can be interpreted as an act that provides certainty. In English, the word “proof” is closely associated with the concept of evidence under positive law, while “proof” refers to the process of proving, as noted by Prof. Dr. Eddy O.S. Hiariej.
The system and burden of proof in criminal procedure law can be described as the “lifeblood” and cornerstone of criminal law enforcement in Indonesia. This is because any accusation or allegation in a criminal context, as charged by the Public Prosecutor in the indictment, must be supported by proof. If an indictment fails to clearly demonstrate that a criminal act indeed occurred and does not align with the facts on the ground, it remains merely a piece of paper with no legal weight.
Furthermore, in his book, Prof. Dr. Eddy O.S. Hiariej concludes that there are at least six theories of proof based on specific Parameters: bewijstheorie, bewijsmiddelen, bewijsvoering, bewijslast, bewijskracht, and bewijs minimum.
- DISCUSSION
2.1 Parameters of Proof Theory in Criminal Procedure Law
The six parameters of proof theory in criminal procedure law are explained as follows:
- Bewijstheorie
Bewijstheorie refers to the proof commonly used by judges as the basis for rendering a court decision. Historically, this theory is divided into four types: positief Wettelijk Bewijstheorie, conviction intime, conviction raisonne, and negatief Wettelijk Bewijstheorie. - Bewijsmiddelen
This theory pertains to the types of evidence admissible in court to clarify whether a legal event has occurred. It distinguishes which evidence is permissible for use in court proceedings, always in accordance with criminal procedure law as regulated by Indonesian legislation. The types of evidence used to prove a legal event are generally similar to those used in many countries worldwide. - Bewijsvoering
This theory explains how evidence presented in court is to be used. The method of presentation is crucial, especially in countries that adhere to the due process model. According to Prof. Dr. Eddy O.S. Hiariej, under the due process model, the state highly upholds human rights, particularly those of the accused. As a result, defendants are often acquitted during pre-trial hearings if evidence is obtained illegally (unlawful legal evidence). - Bewijslast
Also known as the burden of proof, this theory addresses the distribution of the burden of proof as mandated by law. Universally, in criminal law contexts worldwide, the burden of proving the charges against the accused lies with the Public Prosecutor. This is a consequence of the principle of functional differentiation in the criminal process, which assigns the roles of investigation, prosecution, and adjudication to authorized institutions. - Bewijskracht
This theory concerns the probative value of each piece of evidence presented in court to substantiate whether the charges align with the facts of the case. - Bewijs minimum
This theory discusses the minimum evidence required to bind the judge’s discretion. In criminal procedure law, regulations specify the minimum threshold for admissible evidence, as outlined in Article 184 of Law No. 8 of 1981 concerning the Criminal Procedure Code (KUHAP).
- Purpose and Utility of Proof for the Parties Involved
The parties involved in criminal proof during court proceedings have the following objectives:
- For the Public Prosecutor
Proof is a series of efforts to convince the panel of judges, based on the evidence collected during the investigation, that the defendant is legally and convincingly guilty of the crime as charged in the indictment.
- For the Defendant or Legal Counsel
The objective is the opposite of the Public Prosecutor’s: to demonstrate, based on the available evidence, that the defendant is not legally or convincingly guilty of the crime as charged.
- For the Panel of Judges
The evidence presented in court, whether a charge or a de charge, is used to determine the actual events and render the fairest possible verdict.
According to Munir Fuady, the law of proof must clearly designate upon whom the burden of proof (burden of proof) falls. This determination directly influences the outcome of a case where the cause-and-effect relationship remains unclear.
III. CONCLUSION
In essence, the system and burden of proof are critical components of criminal law enforcement. To achieve justice, legal practitioners must base their actions on methods that uncover the material truth of a case.
As discussed, the material truth can be uncovered by adhering to the theories of criminal proof, thereby ensuring justice for both the victim and the accused.