Legal Synchronization Analysis Between Supreme Court Regulation No. 1 of 2019 on E-Litigation and Evidence Provisions in HIR/RBG

##plugins.themes.academic_pro.article.sidebar##

Published Apr 18, 2026
https://doi.org/10.34012/jihp.v9i1.8039
Download
PDF
Statistic
Vol. 9 No. 1 (2026): JURNAL ILMU HUKUM PRIMA

##plugins.themes.academic_pro.article.main##

Muhammad Zaki Asshafi MT
Univeritas Sriwijaya Palembang
Ahmad Irfan Naufal
Univeritas Sriwijaya Palembang
Muhammad Eric Lionel Prananda
Univeritas Sriwijaya Palembang

Abstract

The digitalization of the judiciary through E-Litigation, as regulated in Supreme Court Regulation No. 1 of 2019, presents challenges in synchronizing with Indonesia’s classical civil procedural law (HIR/RBG), which has been in force for more than a century. This study examines the compatibility between electronic evidence mechanisms under PERMA No. 1 of 2019 and the evidentiary provisions in Article 164 of HIR and Articles 284/285 of RBG. Employing normative legal research with statutory and conceptual approaches, the analysis focuses on vertical and horizontal synchronization. The findings reveal that vertically, PERMA No. 1 of 2019 functions as a gap-filling regeling teknis that expands the interpretation of documentary evidence without contravening higher-level norms. Horizontally, synchronization with the Electronic Information and Transactions Law (ITE Law) provides substantive legitimacy to electronic documents as valid evidence. While procedural unification has been achieved, the main obstacle lies in the legal culture of practitioners who remain attached to paper-based evidence. This study contributes by offering a dogmatic analysis of synchronization—particularly the hierarchical and cultural dimensions—which has been less emphasized in prior studies.

##plugins.themes.academic_pro.article.details##

Creative Commons License

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

How to Cite
MT, M. Z. A., Ahmad Irfan Naufal, & Muhammad Eric Lionel Prananda. (2026). Legal Synchronization Analysis Between Supreme Court Regulation No. 1 of 2019 on E-Litigation and Evidence Provisions in HIR/RBG. Ilmu Hukum Prima (IHP), 9(1), 54–65. https://doi.org/10.34012/jihp.v9i1.8039

References

  1. Ali, A. (2021). Menguak Teori Hukum dan Teori Peradilan. Kencana.
  2. Asshiddiqie, J. (2020). Teori Hierarki Norma Hukum. Sinar Grafika.
  3. Cahyadi, T. N. (2020). Aspek Hukum Pemanfaatan Digital Signature dalam Meningkatkan Efisiensi, Akses dan Kualitas Fintech Syariah. Jurnal Rechts Vinding: Media Pembinaan Hukum Nasional, 9(2), 219–236. https://doi.org/DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.33331/rechtsvinding.v9i2.424
  4. Friedman, L. M. (1975). The Legal System: A Social Science Perspective. Russell Sage Foundation.
  5. Hariyanto. (2021). Efektivitas Administrasi Perkara dan Persidangan Secara Elektronik di Pengadilan Negeri. Jurnal Yudisial, 14(1), 55–72.
  6. Indrayana, D. (2021). Hukum Tata Negara Indonesia: Pasca Perubahan UUD 1945. Kompas.
  7. Isra, S. (2020). Titik Tekan Kewenangan Mahkamah Agung dalam Membentuk Peraturan Perundang-undangan Teknis. Jurnal Konstitusi, 17(1), 1–22.
  8. Kelsen, H. (2011). Pure Theory of Law (Terjemahan Raisul Muttaqien). Nuansa.
  9. Makarim, E. (2020). Keandalan Bukti Elektronik dalam Sistem Peradilan. Rajawali Pers.
  10. Mertokusumo, S. (2019). Mengenal Hukum: Suatu Pengantar. Cahaya Atma Pustaka.
  11. Njatrijani, R. (2020). Perkembangan Regulasi dan Pengawasan Teknologi Informasi dalam Transformasi Hukum Indonesia. Mimbar Hukum, 32(2), 241–255.
  12. Nurasiah, & Fakhriah, E. L. (2020). Tantangan Kedudukan Alat Bukti Elektronik dalam Sistem Hukum Acara Perdata Indonesia. Jurnal Bina Mulia Hukum, 5(1), 45–62.
  13. Nurjanah, S. (2022). Problematika Kesiapan Hakim dalam Transformasi Digital Peradilan Perdata. Jurnal Kertha Patrika, 44(2), 167–185.
  14. Pramono, B. (2021). Kekuatan Pembuktian Dokumen Elektronik dalam Persidangan Perdata di Era Pandemi. Jurnal Hukum Dan Peradilan, 10(2), 189–210.
  15. Radbruch, G. (2006). Five Minutes of Legal Philosophy (1945). Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, 26(1), 13–15.
  16. Rahmawati, R. (2020). Kendala dan Tantangan Implementasi E-Litigasi di Indonesia: Perspektif Infrastruktur Hukum. Jurnal Law Reform, 16(2), 205–220.
  17. Rifan, M., & Rahmawati, L. (2020). Pembaharuan UU Desain Industri: Tantangan Melindungi User Interface dan Komparasi Unsur Aesthetic Impression. Jurnal Rechts Vinding, 9(2), 295–312.
  18. Riyanto, H. R. B. (2020). Pembaruan Hukum Nasional Era 4.0. Jurnal Rechts Vinding: Media Pembinaan Hukum Nasional, 9(2), 161–182. https://doi.org/DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.33331/rechtsvinding.v9i2.455
  19. Siahaan, M. (2022). Kedudukan Alat Bukti Elektronik dalam Sistem Hukum Acara Perdata Indonesia. Jurnal Ius Quia Iustum, 29(1), 102–124.
  20. Sudirman, L. (2021). Reorientasi Kepastian Hukum dalam Hukum Acara Perdata di Era Disrupsi Digital. Jurnal Veritas et Justitia, 7(2).
  21. Syahrin, M. A. (2021). Menakar Kepastian Hukum Penggunaan Dokumen Elektronik sebagai Alat Bukti dalam Perkara Perdata. Jurnal Pro Justitia, 39(1), 12–30.
  22. Wibowo, A. (2020). Resistensi Budaya Hukum Masyarakat terhadap Digitalisasi Layanan Publik di Indonesia. Jurnal Masalah-Masalah Hukum, 49(2), 155–168.
  23. Wijayanti, S. N., Prasetyoningsih, N., Lailam, T., & Iswandi, K. (2023). Correction of the hierarchy of laws in Indonesia. Lambung Mangkurat Law Journal, 8(1), 45–60.