<![CDATA[ABSTRAK Alat bukti elektronik merupakan alat bukti baru yang diakui sebagai perluasan dari ketentuan Pasal 184 ayat (1) Kitab Undang-Undang Hukum Acara Pidana. Adapun ketentuan tentang alat bukti elektronik diatur dalam suatu Undang-Undang yang bersifat khusus (lex specialis derogat legigenerally), yaitu di pertegas lagi dalam Undang-Undang Republik Indonesia Nomor 11 Tahun 2008 tentang Informasi dan Transaksi Elektronik. Pasca Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 20/PUU-XIV/2016, secara tidak langsung menjelaskan alat bukti elektronik, khususnya yang berwujud penyadapan termasuk didalamnya perekaman harus dilakukan dalam rangka penegakan hukum dan atas permintaan aparat penegak hukum berdasarkan ketentuan Undang-Undang. Hal ini menimbulkan permasalahan terhadap nilai kekuatan dan pembuktian alat bukti elektronik yang berwujud perekaman yang diperoleh menggunakan CCTV (Closed Circuit Television) dalam proses penegakan hukum. Adapun hasil penelitian menjelaskan bahwa Hakim Mahkamah Konstitusi menilai alat bukti elektronik berupa penyadapan yang termasuk di dalamnya berupa perekaman bersifat terbatas, yang artinya harus diatur ketentuannya dengan Undang-Undang. Hakim Mahkamah Konstitusi menyikapi bahwa penyadapan yang termasuk di dalamnya perekaman jika tidak dibatasi dapat melanggar hak privasi seseorang yang sudah diatur ketentuannya dalam Pasal 28G ayat (1) Undang-Undang Dasar Negara Republik Indonesia 1945. Perihal pembuktian alat bukti elektronik berwujud CCTV ini sama seperti alat bukti lainnya, yaitu dengan menggunakan parameter hukum pembuktian pada hukum acara pidana, serta adanya peran digital forensic yang dapat merekonstruksi alat bukti elektroni sehingga membuat terang jalannya persidangan. Kata Kunci: Alat bukti elektronik, CCTV, pembuktian alat bukti elektronik ABSTRACT Electronic evidence is a new evidence that is recognized as an extension of the provisions of Article 184 paragraph (1) of the Criminal Procedure Code. The provisions concerning electronic evidence are regulated in a special law (lex specialis derogat legigenerally), which is reaffirmed in the Law of the Republic of Indonesia Number 11 of 2008 concerning Information and Electronic Transactions. Post-Decision of the Constitutional Court Number 2 /PUU-XIV/2016, indirectly explaining electronic evidence, especially tangible forms including recording must be carried out in the context of law enforcement and at the request of law enforcement officials based on the provisions of the Act. This raises problems with the value of strength and the proof of electronic evidence in the form of recording obtained using CCTV (Closed Circuit Television) in the law enforcement process. The results of the study explained that the Constitutional Court Judges considered electronic evidence in the form of eavesdropping included in the form of recording is limited, which means that the provisions must be regulated by law. The Constitutional Court Judge responded that tapping, which included recording if it was not restricted, could violate the privacy rights of someone who had been regulated in Article 28G paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia. Regarding the proof of electronic evidence as CCTV by using the legal evidentiary parameters in criminal procedural law, as well as the role of digital forensic that can reconstruct electronic evidence so as to make clear the course of the trial. Keywords: Electronic evidence, CCTV, proof of electronic evidence]]>
