Power of Electronic Letters as Evidence in Proof Civil Cases (Study of Supreme Court Ruling no. 300k/Pdt/2010)

Abstract

Proof and evidence in the Civil Procedure Law are very important in order to seek truth and legal certainty regarding a case submitted by the plaintiff, if evidence cannot be found or the governing legal rules can be put forward, then law enforcement officials will have difficulty in enforce the civil rights of the parties.  This research looks at the strength of electronic mail as evidence in proving civil cases in Supreme Court Decision No. 300K/PDT/2010. And to find out what is the basis of the judge’s considerations in civil court cases in Supreme Court Decision No. 300K/PDT/2010. This research uses normative juridical methods, with a statutory-regulatory approach and a descriptive conceptual approach, secondary data sources in the form of primary legal materials in the form of the Civil Code, ITE Law, Supreme Court Decision Number 300K/PDT/2010. Secondary legal materials in the form of all legal publications regarding law which are not official documents. And tertiary law is in the form of legal materials that provide instructions or explanations in the form of understanding primary data and secondary data. Analysis uses qualitative. The results of the research show that (1) The strength of e-mail evidence as a proof process in conferences when linked to Article 164 HIR regarding valid evidence, then the strength of e-mail when printed is considered the same as an original letter and has the same strength as a deed authentic. The main requirement for electronic documents to be declared as valid evidence is the use of an electronic system that has received electronic certification from the government (Articles 13-16 of the ITE Law). (2) In the decisions of the District Court and the High Court, it was stated that Prita Mulyasari was guilty and had committed an unlawful act, but in the decision of the Supreme Court stated the reasons in exceptions 1,2,3 in the main case up to 23 and in the response that the reasons were This reason can be justified, the High Court judec facti has misapplied the law with the following considerations, one of which is that expressing feelings about what is experienced cannot be said to be an unlawful act, because the expression is only in the form of a complaint.