THE AUTHENTICITY OF VOICE RECORDING EVIDENCE IN THE ERA OF AI VOICE CLONING: A REEVALUATION OF WIRETAPPING EVIDENCE METHODS IN CRIMINAL CASES
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.33603/responsif.v18i1.12470Keywords:
Voice Cloning, AI, Pembuktian Pidana, Penyadapan, Otentisitas, Beban PembuktianAbstract
Background. The development of artificial intelligence (AI), especially Voice Cloning technology, poses new challenges in the criminal justice system in Indonesia. Voice recordings that have been used as eavesdropping evidence are vulnerable to questions about their authenticity because AI technology can reproduce a person's voice with a high level of similarity.
Aims. This study aims to analyze the mechanism for testing the authenticity of wiretapping recordings when the Defendant submits an exception that the recording is the result of AI-based Voice Cloning and to analyze the fair distribution of the burden of proof between the Public Prosecutor and the Defendant in proving the authenticity or falsity of the digital voice.
Methods. The research method used is normative juridical with a statutory approach, a case approach, and a conceptual approach.
Result. The results of the study show that the provisions in Article 184 of the Criminal Procedure Code, Article 235 of Law No. 20 of 2025 concerning the Criminal Code, Article 5 of Law No. 1 of 2024 concerning the Second Amendment to the ITE Law, and the Constitutional Court Decision No. 20/PUU-XIV/2016 have not provided a mechanism for testing the authenticity of electronic evidence that is adaptive to the threat of AI Voice Cloning.
Implementation. This study recommends establishing a nationally standardized AI-based forensic audio protocol and implementing a balanced burden of proof that remains grounded in due process of law and the principle of presumption of innocence.
References
Aditia, A. B., & Iksan, M. (2025). The Relevance of Judicial Beliefs in the Negative Proof System of Article 183 of the Criminal Procedure Code: Analysis of Surabaya District Court Decision Number 454/Pid.B/2024/Pn.Sby. Academia Open, 10(2). https://doi.org/10.21070/acopen.10.2025.12995
Apolo, Y., & Michael, K. (2024). Beyond A Reasonable Doubt? Audiovisual Evidence, AI Manipulation, Deepfakes, and the Law. IEEE Transactions on Technology and Society, 5(2), 156–168. https://doi.org/10.1109/TTS.2024.3427816
Astrid, A., Erliyani, R., & Ramadhany, I. (2023). Rekaman Suara Sebagai Alat Bukti dalam Penyidikan Perkara Tindak Pidana Korupsi. Lex Positivis, 1(1), 24–28. https://jtamfh.ulm.ac.id/index.php/jtamfh/article/view/6
Harahap, P., Utami, G. C., & Kamilah, T. (2025). Mekanisme Pemeriksaan Perkara Pidana dalam Sistem Peradilan Pidana di Indonesia: Kitab Undang-Undang Hukum Acara Pidana. Jurnal Hukum Lex Generalis, 6(7), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.56370/JHLG.V6I7.3011
Imani, Y. N., Amaliah, S. N., Abdul, R. R., Desi, D., & Tarina, Y. (2023). Analisis Sumber Hukum Formil dan Materil dalam Pembentukan Hukum Adat Jinayat di Aceh. Intelektiva: Jurnal Ekonomi, Sosial Dan Humaniora, 4(10), 51–56. https://jurnalintelektiva.sthf.ac.id/index.php/jurnal/article/view/966
Juliani, J. (2022). Analisis Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 20/PUU-XIV/2016 Tentang Perekaman yang Dilakukan Secara Tidak Sah. Tanfidziy: Jurnal Hukum Tata Negara Dan Siyasah, 1(2), 101–119. https://doi.org/10.47766/TANFIDZIY.V1I2.947
Junaidi, R. (2022). Tinjauan Yuridis Hak-Hak Tersangka Sebagai Perwujudan Asas Praduga Tidak Bersalah. Journal Justice, 4(2), 1–12. https://ejurnal.unikarta.ac.id/jlj/article/view/1154
Kulangareth, N. V., Kaufman, J., Oreskovic, J., & Fossat, Y. (2024). Investigation of Deepfake Voice Detection Using Speech Pause Patterns: Algorithm Development and Validation. JMIR Biomedical Engineering, 9, e56245. https://doi.org/10.2196/56245
Lubis, F., Khairani, S. W., Ardiansyah, D., Zibron, Y., & Alamsyah, H. (2025). Analisis Hukum Bukti Elektronik sebagai Alat Bukti dalam Pemeriksaan Hukum Acara Perdata. Jispendiora: Jurnal Ilmu Sosial Pendidikan Dan Humaniora, 4(1), 614–626. https://doi.org/10.56910/JISPENDIORA.V4I2.2505
Motian, Y. N., & Pura, M. H. (2024). Kekuatan Keterangan Ahli Forensik dalam Perkara Tindak Pidana Pembunuhan Berdasarkan Pasal 184 Undang -Undang Nomor 08 Tahun 1981 Tentang Kitab Undang -Undang Hukum Acara Pidana (Studi Putusan Mahkamah Agung Nomor 320 K/PID/2017). Innovative: Journal of Social Science Research, 4(4), 9048–9057. https://doi.org/10.31004/INNOVATIVE.V4I4.13624
Nurdiansyah, R., Mugni, M., & Lailiyah, M. R. (2024). Efektivitas Penegakan Hukum terhadap Tindak Pidana Judi Online. Federalisme: Jurnal Kajian Hukum Dan Ilmu Komunikasi, 1(3), 219–238. https://doi.org/10.62383/federalisme.v1i3.79
Pandey, K. (2026). The Permanence of Burden of Proof: A Doctrinal Principle or a Functional Myth? In Social Science Research Network. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.6323100
Perdana, R. A., & Aprilia, I. S. (2023). Aspek Pembangunan Berkelanjutan dalam Politik Hukum Pembentukan Peraturan Perundang-Undangan di Indonesia. Jurnal Muara Ilmu Sosial, Humaniora, Dan Seni, 6(2), 566–573. https://doi.org/10.24912/jmishumsen.v6i2.18231.2022
Putri, R. (2025). Kekuatan Pembuktian Keterangan Saksi Melalui Teleconference sebagai Alat Bukti dalam Perkara Pidana. Universitas Jambi.
Putri, Z. D., & Suryani, V. (2025). Detection of Audio Attacks (Deepfake) Using Time-Based and Cepstral Domain Features with Stacking Classifier. 2025 International Conference on Data Science and Its Applications, ICoDSA 2025, 304–309. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICODSA67155.2025.11157101
Rakanadi, B. G. M. (2026). Legalitas Penyadapan Sebagai Alat Bukti dalam Sistem Peradilan Pidana Indonesia. Jurnal Media Akademik (JMA), 4(4), 3031–5220. https://doi.org/10.62281/C0NZGA51
Rosidi, A., Zainuddin, M., & Arifiana, I. (2024). Metode dalam Penelitian Hukum Normatif dan Sosiologis (Field Research). Journal Law and Government, 2(1), 46. https://doi.org/10.31764/jlag.v2i1.21606
Seitz, S. (2024). The Rule of Lenity and Affirmative Defenses . Washington University Law Review, 102, 427–478. https://wustllawreview.org/2024/12/06/the-rule-of-lenity-and-affirmative-defenses/
Syarief, E. (2025). Menjelajahi Hubungan Antara Hukum - Teknologi & Perkembangan Teknologi Informasi di Indonesia. Lex Aeterna Law Journal, 3(4), 132–142. https://doi.org/10.69780/LEXAETERNALAWJOURNAL.V3I4.98
Umam, C., Chandra, T. Y., & Ismed, M. (2026). Implementasi Sistem Pembuktian Terbalik dalam Tindak Pidana Pencucian Uang di Indonesia. Sinergi : Jurnal Riset Ilmiah, 3(2), 864–874. https://doi.org/10.62335/sinergi.v3i2.2409
Wibowo, K. T., Rasiwan, I., Haning, S., Rosita, D., Juita, S. R., Putri, W. A. C., & Kartono, K. (2025). Hukum Acara Pidana. In AMU Press . AMU Press. https://ejournal.amertamedia.co.id/index.php/press/article/view/584
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
Citation Check
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Kurdi, Maydika Ramadani, Teuku Ahmad Dadek
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
The Authors submitting a manuscript do so on the understanding that if accepted for publication, copyright of the article shall be assigned to Jurnal HUKUM RESPONSIF, Fakultas Hukum Universitas Swadaya Gunung Jati. Universitas Swadaya Gunung Jati as publisher of the journal. Copyright encompasses rights to reproduce and deliver the article in all form and media, including reprints, photographs, microfilms, and any other similar reproductions, as well as translations.
Jurnal HUKUM RESPONSIF, Universitas Swadaya Gunung Jati and the Editors make every effort to ensure that no wrong or misleading data, opinions or statements be published in the journal. In any way, the contents of the articles and advertisements published in Jurnal HUKUM RESPONSIF the sole responsibility of their respective authors and advertisers.
