The Reversal of the Burden of Proof; Between Presumption of Innocence and Presumption of Guilt

Roni Efendi,Ade Adhari,Afrian Raus,Fajar Dian Aryani,Musmuliadin Musmuliadin

DOI: https://doi.org/10.31958/jeh.v8i1.8996

2023-06-30

El-Hekam

Abstract:Actory in cumbit onus probandi was a basic principle in the law of proof which teaches that whoever demands it must prove it. This basic principle is implemented in the integrated criminal justice system and becomes the authority of the Public Prosecutor and ends with the defendant, the derivative of this principle is actore non probante reus absolvitur. However, in the renewal of criminal law, especially in eradicating corruption as a predicate crime, there has been a shift in the burden of proof, which can start with the accused first. This shifting burden of proof is certainly in conflict with the general principle of criminal procedural law which emphasizes the presumption of innocence. These clashes are not intended to become obstacles in the process of enforcing criminal law, especially in cases of corruption as an extra ordinary crime, so extra ordinary measures are needed to eradicate it. So reversing the burden of proof as one of the efforts that can be accounted for its truth in theory and philosophy, especially the purpose of law is not just legal certainty, but also justice and usefulness so that reversing the burden of proof can provide benefits in accelerating the eradication of criminal acts of corruption.