Evidentiary Status of Crown Witnesses in Indonesia’s Anti-Corruption Proceedings: Legal Challenges and Human Rights Implications
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.64780/rolsj.v1i3.90Keywords:
Anti-Corruption Law, Crown Witness, Criminal Procedure Code, Evidentiary StatusAbstract
Background: In corruption trials in Indonesia, the reliance on crown witnesses is widely debated. Their testimony may fill evidentiary gaps, yet the lack of explicit rules in KUHAP raises serious concerns about fairness and the protection of defendants’ rights.
Aims: This paper examines how crown witnesses are positioned as evidence in anti-corruption proceedings, explores the legal complexities of their use, and considers the broader consequences for fair trial principles and human rights.
Methods: Using a normative juridical approach, the study reviews KUHAP, the Anti-Corruption Law (Law No. 31/1999), and selected court cases. It also draws on academic literature and expert opinions to provide comparative insights into judicial practice.
Result: The findings suggest that crown witness testimony, once given under oath, formally carries the same weight as ordinary witnesses. However, credibility issues persist, particularly when corroborating evidence is lacking, which risks undermining the presumption of innocence and creating conflicts among co-defendants. Courts often admit such testimony to address evidentiary shortages, but this practice places justice and human rights in delicate balance.
Conclusion: While crown witness testimony can strengthen corruption cases, its unregulated use threatens fair trial guarantees. Clear legislative guidance is urgently needed to safeguard due process, harmonize practice with international human rights norms, and reinforce public confidence.
References
Ažubalytė, R., & Fedosiuk, O. (2021). Legal Principles vs. Statutory Ambiguity in Criminal Justice: Lithuanian Court Experience. Criminal Law Forum, 32(3), 435–457. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10609-021-09421-5
Baker, A. W. (2022). A child psychiatrist’s expert roles in the criminal court: Children as vulnerable witnesses. BJPsych Advances, 28(2), 122–131. https://doi.org/10.1192/bja.2020.84
Balatska, O., & Lotysh, T. (2024). The Right to a Fair Trial: Between Normative Doctrine and Practice in the Face of Global Challenges. Comparative Law Review, 30, 35–61. https://doi.org/10.12775/CLR.2024.002
Beltrán Calfurrapa, R. (2025). Miscarriage of justice and expert evidence on the credibility of children’s testimony: Some issues regarding its use in Chile and Spain. The International Journal of Evidence & Proof, 29(2), 79–97. https://doi.org/10.1177/13657127241253019
Berdaliyeva, A. S., Kim, A. I., Seraliyeva, A. M., Gassanov, A. A., & Dunentayev, M. V. (2021). Criminological measures to counteract corruption offences in the field of illegal gambling. Journal of Financial Crime, 30(1), 4–23. https://doi.org/10.1108/JFC-11-2021-0246
Butt, S. (2021). Indonesia’s Criminal Justice System on Trial: The Jessica Wongso Case. New Criminal Law Review, 24(1), 3–58. https://doi.org/10.1525/nclr.2021.24.1.3
Butt, S. (2023). Indonesia’s new Criminal Code: Indigenising and democratising Indonesian criminal law? Griffith Law Review, 32(2), 190–214. https://doi.org/10.1080/10383441.2023.2243772
Craig, L. A., Koch, H. C. H., & Baker, G. A. (2024). Psychologists as Expert Witnesses. In L. A. Craig, H. C. H. Koch, & G. A. Baker (Eds.), Psychology and the Law: Case Studies of Expert Witnesses (pp. 3–13). wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781394155767.ch1
Cressy, D. (2022). Shipwrecks and the Bounty of the Sea. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780192863393.001.0001
Daly, T. G. (2022). “Good” Court-Packing? The Paradoxes of Constitutional Repair in Contexts of Democratic Decay. German Law Journal, 23(8), 1071–1103. https://doi.org/10.1017/glj.2022.75
Davis, K. E. (2021). Anti-corruption Law and Systemic Corruption: The Role of Direct Responses. Revista Direito GV, 17, e2129. https://doi.org/10.1590/2317-6172202129
de Vries, A. (2022). Recent Developments Concerning the Right to Silence and Privilege Against Self-Incrimination Under the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU – A Critical Reflection on Case C-481/19 DB v Consob. Review of European Administrative Law, 15(1), 31–44. https://doi.org/10.7590/187479822X16484711705990
Fazekas, M., Sberna, S., & Vannucci, A. (2022). The extra-legal governance of corruption: Tracing the organization of corruption in public procurement. Governance, 35(4), 1139–1161. https://doi.org/10.1111/gove.12648
Galoob, S. R., & Sheley, E. (2022). Reconceiving Coercion-Based Criminal Defenses. The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology (1973-), 112(2), 265–328.
Garrett, B. L., Scurich, N., Tucker, E., & Bloom, H. (2023). Judging Firearms Evidence and the Rule 702 Amendments. Judicature, 107, 40.
Hansen, D. T., & Sullivan, R. (2022). What Renders a Witness Trustworthy? Ethical and Curricular Notes on a Mode of Educational Inquiry. Studies in Philosophy and Education, 41(2), 151–172. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11217-021-09800-w
Hartanto, D., & Hidayat, N. (2021). Application of Reverse Evidence for The Crime of Money Laundering Based on The Origin of Narcotics. Croatian International Relations Review, 27(88), 14–33.
Hickman, E., & Petrin, M. (2021). Trustworthy AI and Corporate Governance: The EU’s Ethics Guidelines for Trustworthy Artificial Intelligence from a Company Law Perspective. European Business Organization Law Review, 22(4), 593–625. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40804-021-00224-0
Jancsics, D., & Costa, J. (2024). Organizational forms of corruption networks: The Odebrecht-Toledo case. International Public Management Journal, 27(4), 559–582. https://doi.org/10.1080/10967494.2023.2260368
Kalenge, B., & Mauki, Z. (2024). Time for Complementarity? Journal of International Criminal Justice, 22(5), 701–711. https://doi.org/10.1093/jicj/mqaf025
Kaplan, J., & Lundy, J. (2024). Contesting Confessions: Opinions of Expert Witnesses. Journal of Forensic Psychology Research and Practice, 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1080/24732850.2024.2408388
Karas, E. I., Burić, Z., & Pajčić, M. (2021). COLLABORATORS OF JUSTICE: COMPARATIVE LEGAL SOLUTIONS AND CROATIAN CRIMINAL PROCEDURAL LAW. Pravni Vjesnik, 37(1), 35–56. https://doi.org/10.25234/pv/13602
Khoday, A. (2021). Black Voices Matter Too: Counter-Narrating Smithers v The Queen. Osgoode Hall Law Journal, 58(3), 567–621. https://doi.org/10.60082/2817-5069.3712
Kitagawa, R. (2024). Justice as fairness or retribution? Citizen reactions to domestic trials of wartime violence. Journal of Peace Research, 61(4), 612–626. https://doi.org/10.1177/00223433221148223
Kowalewska-Łukuć, M., & Pohl, Ł. (2023). Small crown witness in Polish criminal law. In S. Pawelec (Ed.), Consensual Procedures in Criminal Law—Comparative Perspective (pp. 201–216). Peter Lang Publishing Group.
Melkamu, M. T., & Teshome, W. (2023). Public trust in the police: Investigating the influence of police performance, procedural fairness, and police-community relations in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. Cogent Social Sciences, 9(1), 2199559. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311886.2023.2199559
Miller, C. M. (2022). A survey of prosecutors and investigators using digital evidence: A starting point. Forensic Science International: Synergy, 6, 100296. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsisyn.2022.100296
Mota Prado, M. (2024). Redundancy as a Legal Strategy to Combat Corruption: Exploring the Potential of Institutional Multiplicity to Create Fail-Safe Systems. Current Legal Problems, 77(1), 335–376. https://doi.org/10.1093/clp/cuae010
Nahouli, Z., Dando, C. J., Mackenzie, J.-M., & Aresti, A. (2021). Rapport building and witness memory: Actions may ‘speak’ louder than words. PLOS ONE, 16(8), e0256084. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0256084
Nugroho, F., Hartiwiningsih, H., & Handayani, I. G. A. K. R. (2025). Rethinking Subsidiary in Corruption Cases: Indonesian Experiences. Journal of Human Rights, Culture and Legal System, 5(2), 686–713. https://doi.org/10.53955/jhcls.v5i2.714
Osa, D. U. S. de la, & Remolina, N. (2024). Artificial intelligence at the bench: Legal and ethical challenges of informing—or misinforming—judicial decision-making through generative AI. Data & Policy, 6, e59. https://doi.org/10.1017/dap.2024.53
Ostavciuc, D., & Osoianu, T. (2023). Freedom of Self-Incrimination. Cogito: Multidisciplinary Research Journal, 15, 72.
Sunde, N. (2022). Strategies for safeguarding examiner objectivity and evidence reliability during digital forensic investigations. Forensic Science International: Digital Investigation, 40, 301317. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsidi.2021.301317
Teichmann, F. M. J., & Wittmann, C. (2022). International implications of corruption in Eastern European prosecution offices: A field report. Journal of Financial Crime, 30(2), 512–521. https://doi.org/10.1108/JFC-01-2022-0006
Walter, P. (2023). The Civil Legal Process of the Builder Jan Valihrachwith the Congregation of Dominican Sisters. Studia Theologica, 25(3), 179–204. https://doi.org/10.5507/sth.2023.038
Widyawati, A., Adhari, A., Masyhar, A., Syahputra, B. D., & Purnomo, D. (2025). DYNAMICS OF THE PENITENTIARY SYSTEM, TRANSPARENT AND ACCOUNTABLE HANDLING OF CRIMINAL CASES IN CRIMINAL EXECUTION LAW IN SOUTHEAST ASIA: CONVERGENCE AND DIVERGENCE OF INTERNATIONAL PERSPECTIVES. Indonesia Law Review, 15(1). https://doi.org/10.15742/ilrev.v15n1.1
Wurzer, G. (2022). Compensation Claims of the Hohenzollern. Novaya i Novejshaya Istoriya, 66(3), 113–116. https://doi.org/10.31857/S013038640020242-4
Young, G., & Goodman-Delahunty, J. (2021). Revisiting Daubert: Judicial Gatekeeping and Expert Ethics in Court. Psychological Injury and Law, 14(4), 304–315. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12207-021-09428-8
Zulhendra, J., Firdaus, & Wirman, H. P. (2023). The Crown Witness From the Point of View of Islamic Criminal Law in Truth Discovery of Criminal Cases in Indonesia. Al-Istinbath: Jurnal Hukum Islam, 8(1), 155–172. https://doi.org/10.29240/jhi.v8i1.6918
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Dwi Putri, Sumaidi, Nur Fauzi, Abdul Qadir Jaelani
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.