Tes DNA sebagai Alat Bukti Penyangkalan Hubungan Biologis: Studi Putusan Nomor 5571/Pdt.G/2022/PA.JT
Test DNA as Evidence to Denial Biological Relationship: A Study Decision Number 5571/Pdt.G/2022/PA.JT
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.36701/bustanul.v7i2.3066Keywords:
biological relationship, child status, DNA testing, legal discovery, legal idealsAbstract
This study aims to analyze the use of DNA testing as evidence in the denial of a child’s biological relationship in the East Jakarta Religious Court Decision Number 5571/Pdt.G/2022/PA.JT. The main issue in this study is how the judges discovered and considered the law regarding DNA testing when the claim concerning the child’s biological status was declared inadmissible due to the limited authority contained in the applicant’s special power of attorney, as well as the extent to which the decision reflects the values of justice, utility, and legal certainty. This study employs normative legal research with a statutory, case, and conceptual approach and is descriptive-analytical in nature. The results indicate that regarding divorce, the judges applied legal discovery by connecting the facts established at trial with the provisions of the Marriage Law and the Compilation of Islamic Law. However, regarding the child’s status, the judges did not conduct a substantive examination of the DNA test because the legal representative’s special power of attorney was limited to filing a divorce petition and did not include claims concerning DNA testing and denial of the child’s status. Consequently, those claims were declared inadmissible (niet ontvankelijk verklaard). From the perspective of Sudikno Mertokusumo’s theory of legal discovery, the judges’ position cannot simply be regarded as formalistic because the examination of the merits requires the fulfillment of procedural requirements. Meanwhile, based on Gustav Radbruch’s theory of legal ideals, legal certainty in this case functions as a prerequisite for achieving substantive justice. DNA testing nevertheless remains relevant as scientific evidence if submitted through a procedurally valid claim while taking into account the best interests of the child.
Downloads
References
Adilla, Hidayatul. “Dinamika Hukum Penetapan Anak dalam Perkawinan yang Tidak Tercatat Perspektif Hukum Islam.” Mahkamah: Jurnal Kajian Ilmu Hukum dan Hukum Islam 10, no. 1 (n.d.): 1–22. doi: https://doi.org/10.25217/jm.v10i2.6816.
Afifah, and Lilik Andar Yuni. “Penetapan Konstitusi dan Hukum Islam Terkait Tes DNA Sebagai Dalil Keabsahan Anak.” Maqasid: Jurnal Studi Hukum Islam 13, no. 2 (2024): 88–97. https://doi.org/10.30651/mqs.v13i2.24368.
Astuti, Priscilla Eka, Baharudin, and Angga Alfiyan. “Tinjauan Yuridis Mengenai Penetapan Perubahan Nama Identitas Anak pada Akta Kelahiran dalam Perspektif Hukum Perdata: Studi Putusan Nomor 261/Pdt.G/2023/PN.Tjk.” Case Law: Journal of Law 5, no. 2 (2024): 15–27. https://doi.org/10.25157/caselaw.v5i2.4088.
Harahap, M. Yahya. Hukum Acara Perdata Tentang Gugatan, Persidangan, Penyitaan, Pembuktian Dan Putusan Pengadilan. Jakarta: Sinar Grafika, 2017.
Kitab Undang-Undang Hukum Perdata.
Kompilasi Hukum Islam.
Mertokusumo, Sudikno. Penemuan Hukum: Sebuah Pengantar. Yogyakarta: Liberty, 2001.
Al-Nawawī, Abū Zakariā Yaḥyā. al-Majmū’ Syarḥ al-Muhażżab. Beirut: Dār al-Kutub al-’Ilmiyyah, 2003.
Al-Nawawī. Rauḍah al-Ṭālibīn. Beirut: Dār al-Kutub al-’Ilmiyyah, 2003.
Nugraha, Janine Marieta Ajesha Mantili, Rai Mantili, and Betty Rubiati. “Gugatan Pengingkaran Anak Oleh Ibu dalam Putusan Nomor Media Hukum Indonesia (MHI).” Media Hukum Indonesia (MHI) Published 3, no. 3 (2025): 471–84. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.15650636.
Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 46/PUU-VIII/2010.
Putusan Pengadilan Agama Jakarta Timur Nomor 5571/Pdt.G/2022/PA.JT.
Radbruch, Gustav. “Gesetzliches Unrecht Und Übergesetzliches Recht.” Süddeutsche Juristen-Zeitung, no. 5 (1946): 105–8.
Radbruch, Gustav. Tujuan Hukum. Edited by Sidharta. Jakarta: Gramedia Pustaka Utama, 2012.
Santoso, Hari Agus. “Perspektif Keadilan Hukum Teori Gustav Radbruch Dalam Putusan PKPU PTB.” Jatiswara 36, no. 3 (2021): 325–34. https://doi.org/10.29303/jtsw.v36i3.341.
Soekanto, Soerjono. Pengantar Penelitian Hukum. Jakarta: UI Press, 1986.
Srivastava, Ankit, Abhimanyu Harshey, Tanurup Das, Akash Kumar, Murali Manohar Yadav, and Pankaj Shrivastava. “Impact of DNA Evidence in Criminal Justice System: Indian Legislative Perspectives.” Egyptian Journal of Forensic Sciences 12, no. 1 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1186/s41935-022-00309-y.
Sugiyono. Metode Penelitian Kombinasi (Mix Methods). Bandung: Alfabeta, 2017.
Surat Edaran Mahkamah Agung Nomor 6 Tahun 1994 tentang Surat Kuasa Khusus (n.d.).
Syadid Jiddan Alharun, Tiara Ramadhani, Aldi Prasetiawan Saputra, Aulia Rexana Sitaresmi, and Ria Anggraeni Utami. “Telaah Normatif Kedudukan dan Kekuatan Pembuktian Tes Deoxyribonucleic Acid Sebagai Alat Bukti Sah dalam Sistem Pembuktian Hukum Pidana Nasional.” Jurnal Kajian Hukum Dan Kebijakan Publik | E-ISSN : 3031-8882 3, no. 1 (2025): 343–51. https://doi.org/10.62379/c942fe67.
Undang-Undang Nomor 1 Tahun 1974 tentang Perkawinan.
Undang-Undang Nomor 39 Tahun 1999 tentang Hak Asasi Manusia.
United Nations. Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989).
Watson, J. D., and F. H.C. Crick. “Molecular Structure of Nucleic Acids: A Structure for Deoxyribose Nucleic Acid.” 50 Years of DNA 171, no. November 2004 (2016): 83–84. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature01396.
Wijoyo, Suparno Suryo. “Juridical Analysis of the Use of DNA Forensic Evidence in the Indonesian Criminal Justice System.” Locus: Jurnal Penelitian Dan Pengabdian 3, no. 11 (2024): 864–73. https://doi.org/10.58344/locus.v3i11.3278.
Al-Zuḥailī, Waḥbah. Al-Fiqh Al-Islāmī Wa Adillatuhu. Damaskus: Dār al-Fikr, 1985.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Zahri Sofyan Aljibra
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
