Evidentiary Standards and Limits of Criminal Liability for False Testimony under Oath in Indonesia’s Criminal Justice System

Abstract

The principal problem in proving false testimony under oath arises when objective falsity is treated as direct evidence of the defendant’s intent. This study aims to formulate evidentiary standards for the objective elements, proof of the defendant’s culpability, the limits of criminal liability, and the structure of judicial reasoning under Article 373 of Law Number 1 of 2023. This normative legal study is prescriptive in nature and employs statutory and conceptual approaches. The legal materials and supporting non-legal materials are examined through qualitative legal analysis using grammatical, systematic, and teleological interpretation. The study formulates a two-stage evidentiary framework. The first stage covers the legal circumstances governing the giving of testimony, an oath or a legally equivalent form, the form and manner in which the testimony is given, attribution of conduct, the portion of the testimony alleged in the indictment to be false, reference facts, and the function and legal validity of the evidence. The second stage covers actual knowledge of falsity, volition to give the testimony, circumstantial facts, alternative explanations, the capacity for criminal responsibility, and excuses. Motive, inconsistencies, official position, access arising from a legal relationship, or conduct during the proceedings is insufficient to serve as the sole basis for intent. Failure to prove knowledge or intent results in an acquittal. The existence of a ground precluding punishment after the conduct and culpability have been proven results in a judgment of discharge from all legal charges. The novelty of this study lies in integrating the elements, facts, evidence, mental state, and structure of judicial reasoning into a prospective evidentiary model for Indonesia’s new criminal law regime.