Indeed, the regulation of electronic evidence classified as legal evidence in court has been regulated specifically in the provisions of Article 5 jo. Article 44 of Law Number 11 of 2008 regarding Electronic Information and Transactions (Law 11/2008 regarding ITE) as amended by Law Number 19 of 2016 regarding Amendments to Law 11/2008 regarding ITE (Law 19/2016 regarding ITE). However, in the implementation, electronic evidence is still debated in the trial process due to differences in interpretation of the provisions of Article 5 paragraph (1) and (2) of Law 11/2008 regarding ITE. However, after the issuance of the Constitutional Court Decision Number 20/PUU-XIV/2016 in this case the Court stated that electronic evidence (electronic information and/or documents) including the results of wiretapping (interception) can be used as legal evidence, if legally obtained in the context of law enforcement.

In fact, well before the emergence of Law 11/2008 regarding ITE and jurisprudence, electronic evidence was recognized and formulated in Article 26A of Law Number 2001 regarding Amendments to Law Number 31 of 1999 regarding the Eradication of Corruption (Law 20/2001 regarding PTPK) which briefly explains that legal evidence in the form of guidance can be obtained from other evidence and electronically inputted documents. Furthermore, in the civil law level, Law Number 8 of 1997 on Company Documents (Law 8/1997 on DP) contained in Article 12 paragraph (1) jo. 15 paragraph (1) basically states that company documents that have been loaded in microfilm or other media are legal evidence. Refer to the explanation of Article 12 paragraph (2) of Law 8/1997 regarding DP that the purpose of media is a non-paper information storage tool and has a level of security that is able to secure the authenticity of documents such as Compact Disk-Read Only Memory (CD-ROM). CDs are classified as an example of digital evidence so that it can be submitted in court.

Albert Husada, Chairman of the Central Jakarta District Court Class IA Special in a seminar organized by the Indonesian Supreme Court's Judicial Technical Training Center with the theme of the discussion entitled "Examining the Authenticity of Electronic Evidence in Court" emphasized that an electronic evidence can be considered as "evidence" that can be used if it has passed through police action by the Investigator in the form of confiscation. In this case, the object that was confiscated had to be assessed first by the Judge by measuring whether something was obtained legally or not. It aims to identify and determine the level of authenticity or integrity of the object whether it can be included as evidence in the trial process or not considering the nature of electronics which is vulnerable to damage, engineering, and change. Therefore, if it is interpreted that electronic evidence can be valid evidence after the results of an assessment by the judge of the accuracy of the evidence. It should be noted, considering that electronic evidence has a value of free evidentiary power which by its nature does not have perfect and decisive evidentiary value, it requires an objective judge's assessment. On this matter, it can be interpreted that the judge has an essential role in the burden of proof of electronic evidence.

Subsequently, Debra L. Shinder also explained that there are 3 (Three) things that must be considered so that electronic evidence can be accepted in court, first, the evidence must be competent so that its legitimacy is guaranteed. Second, the evidence must have relevance which can be done by proving the facts of a case. Third, the evidence must be material. In addition, Edmon Makarim elaborated on the functional equivalent approach by functionally equating that an electronic information or document can be written evidence so that it fulfills electronic evidentiary power if it meets 3 (Three) pillars, first, information is considered written if it can be stored and found again. Second, information is categorized as original if it is stored, found, read again, its substance does not change or its authenticity and integrity are guaranteed. Third, information is considered signed when there is information that explains the existence of a legal object that can be responsible for it or an authentication system that can be trusted in explaining the identity or authority of the related party.

Nevertheless, the thing that needs to be underlined is that in principle national law through Law 11/2008 regarding ITE as amended by Law 19/2016 regarding ITE has clearly regulated that electronic evidence can become legal evidence if it meets the formal and material requirements in the Law on ITE. The formal requirements are found in the provisions of Article 5 paragraph (4) of Law 11/2008 regarding ITE as amended by Law 19/2016 regarding ITE regarding electronic information or documents which according to the law must be in writing and made in the form of notarial deeds or deeds made by deed-making officials. Meanwhile, the material requirements are found in Article 6 jis. Article 15 paragraphs (1), (2), and (3) and Article 16 (1), (2), and (3) of Law 11/2008 regarding ITE. These three provisions basically regulate the specific criteria for the validity of electronic evidence. Thus, electronic evidence can be valid as a burden of proof in the trial process by fulfilling the provisions formulated in Law 8/1997 regarding DP, Law 20/2001 regarding PTPK, Constitutional Court Decision Number 20/PUU-XIV/2016, and Law 11/2008 regarding ITE as amended by Law 19/2016 regarding ITE, as well as paying attention to the matters described by legal experts in the previous discussion.