INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)  
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025  
Proving Domestic Violence Using Social Media Posting As Evidence: A  
Comparison between Common Law and Civil Law Systems  
1Yasmirah Mandasari Saragih, 2Haswira Nor Mohamad Hashim*  
1Faculty of Law, Universitas 17 Agustus 1945 Jakarta  
2Faculty of Law, Universiti Teknologi MARA, Shah Alam, Selangor, Malaysia  
*Corresponding Author  
DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.47772/IJRISS.2025.910000827  
Received: 10 November 2025; Accepted: 20 November 2025; Published: 25 November 2025  
ABSTRACT  
The digital transformation of communication has revolutionized evidentiary practices, particularly in the  
prosecution of domestic violence. Social media postings—ranging from text messages and photographs to videos  
and digital comments—have become critical forms of evidence revealing coercive control, intimidation, and  
abuse. This paper examines the admissibility, authentication, and probative value of social media evidence in  
Malaysia and Indonesia, representing the common law and civil law traditions respectively. Drawing from  
Malaysia’s Domestic Violence Act 1994 and Evidence Act 1950, and Indonesia’s Law No. 23 of 2004 on the  
Elimination of Domestic Violence (PKDRT) and ITE Law (UU No. 11/2008 jo UU No. 19/2016), the study  
analyzes how courts navigate questions of digital authorship, privacy, and forensic reliability. Integrating trauma-  
informed adjudication and feminist jurisprudence, this paper argues that while Malaysia’s common law system  
offers interpretive flexibility, Indonesia’s codified evidentiary framework ensures procedural predictability.  
Drawing on comparative legal analysis, the study concludes that authentication and forensic preservation are  
indispensable for justice and proposes a harmonization of evidentiary standards for social media in domestic  
violence cases between the common law and civil law systems.  
Keywords: social media, digital evidence, domestic violence, Malaysia, Indonesia, authentication, forensic.  
INTRODUCTION  
The digital revolution has transformed social media into both a site of personal expression and a critical  
evidentiary frontier. Platforms such as Facebook, Instagram, X (formerly Twitter), and WhatsApp now serve  
dual roles: enabling communication and preserving real-time documentation of abuse. Survivors of domestic  
violence increasingly rely on these digital platforms to chronicle their experiences—through posts, private  
messages, images, or live-streamed videos—creating spontaneous, timestamped digital evidence that reveals  
coercive control, psychological intimidation, and patterns of abuse that traditional evidence law often fails to  
capture (Grice & Schwartz, 2012).  
Social media operates as a socio-legal ecosystem, bridging emotional expression with legal accountability.  
Defined by Boyd and Ellison (2008) as web-based platforms that allow users to construct public profiles and  
share user-generated content, these networks serve as digital diaries of behavior and emotion. For survivors,  
social media thus functions as both a therapeutic outlet and a repository of potential evidence. Krisvianti and  
Triastuti (2020) found that Indonesian women use Facebook groups to document abuse and mobilize collective  
support, forming what they term “digital sanctuaries” — online spaces that provide safety, solidarity, and  
empowerment. From a theoretical perspective, the Uses and Gratifications Theory (Katz, Blumler, & Gurevitch,  
1973) explains this behavior as an active pursuit of validation and social connection, while the Trauma-Informed  
Evidence Theory (Glancy, Heintzman, & Wheeler, 2019) interprets fragmented or delayed digital disclosures as  
consistent with trauma rather than inconsistency.  
Page 10170  
www.rsisinternational.org  
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)  
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025  
Yet, the same communicative affordances that empower survivors also expose them to risk. Marder (2014)  
cautions that the discoverability of social media evidence in harassment and abuse litigation may subject  
survivors to invasive cross-examination, moral scrutiny, and reputational harm, especially when unrelated  
private content is introduced in court. The paradox of social media as both an empowering and perilous space  
reflects broader gendered dynamics within legal institutions that still privilege traditional forms of testimony  
over digital self-narratives.  
In Malaysia, the Evidence Act 1950 has evolved to accommodate electronic records under Sections 90A and  
90B, yet questions of authorship, manipulation, and authenticity remain contentious. Courts rely on judicial  
discretion, a hallmark of the common law system, allowing case-by-case flexibility similar to practices in the  
United States and the United Kingdom (Flanagan, 2016). Malaysian courts have occasionally accepted Facebook  
messages and screenshots as proof of threats or harassment in domestic violence prosecutions, but the lack of  
uniform forensic standards creates inconsistent outcomes.  
By contrast, Indonesia operates under a codified civil law model, where the ITE Law (UU No. 11/2008 jo UU  
No. 19/2016) explicitly recognizes digital communications as legal evidence. However, the requirement of  
formal verification by certified cyber experts—while ensuring procedural rigor—often delays justice and  
imposes barriers on victims who lack access to forensic expertise (Budi Santoso, 2024).  
Across both systems, the judicial community continues to grapple with the epistemic legitimacy of social media  
as evidence. Garfield Tenzer (2019) notes that despite social media’s ubiquity, courts worldwide continue to  
undervalue digital communications as “less formal” or “inherently unreliable,” thereby silencing survivors’  
digital testimonies. This skepticism echoes early North American jurisprudence, where courts were hesitant to  
admit social media postings without corroborating witnesses or expert validation (Grice & Schwartz, 2012;  
Flanagan, 2016).  
The tension between technological innovation and evidentiary conservatism reflects a broader shift in the  
philosophy of proof — from tangible, document-based evidence to dynamic, participatory, and data-driven forms  
of legal truth. As Murphy and Fontecilla (2013) argue, social media evidence now permeates nearly all criminal  
and regulatory investigations, requiring courts to balance technological sophistication with procedural fairness.  
Lev-On and Steinfeld (2020) describe this transformation as a form of “open justice from below,” where digital  
narratives challenge traditional hierarchies of proof and expand the public’s participation in the justice process.  
Ultimately, in domestic violence prosecutions, the challenge is to establish a balanced evidentiary framework  
that values both authenticity and context — one that interprets social media posts not merely as casual  
expressions but as potentially forensic narratives of abuse. Comparative insights from Malaysia’s discretionary  
model and Indonesia’s codified structure demonstrate how differing legal traditions can illuminate  
complementary paths toward digital justice, where survivor agency, technological reliability, and evidentiary  
integrity coexist within a trauma-informed jurisprudence.  
Problem Statement  
The increasing digitization of human communication has fundamentally reshaped evidentiary practices in  
criminal justice, particularly in domestic violence (DV) prosecutions. Social media platforms—Facebook,  
Instagram, WhatsApp, and X (formerly Twitter)—have become not only sites of social interaction but also  
archives of real-time, self-generated digital evidence. Posts, photographs, messages, and videos often capture  
recurring acts of coercive control, threats, and psychological intimidation that are otherwise invisible in  
conventional testimonial or documentary evidence. Yet, as Silver (2020) notes, courts continue to struggle with  
integrating social media evidence into traditional evidentiary paradigms, resulting in “an unclear picture” of  
authenticity, reliability, and admissibility standards in digital contexts.  
While the promise of social media evidence lies in its ability to provide contemporaneous and spontaneous  
documentation of abuse, the same immediacy also raises procedural and ethical challenges. Murphy and  
Fontecilla (2013) highlight that despite its increasing prevalence in government investigations and criminal  
proceedings, the procedural architecture for admitting social media evidence remains underdeveloped, leaving  
Page 10171  
www.rsisinternational.org  
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)  
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025  
authentication largely to judicial discretion. This has resulted in inconsistent evidentiary thresholds across  
common law jurisdictions, where issues of authorship, manipulation, and contextual integrity remain unresolved  
(Grice & Schwartz, 2012; Flanagan, 2016).  
Recent empirical research demonstrates the complex social dimensions of digital disclosures. Chen et al. (2017)  
found that victims frequently use Facebook to share personal crises and seek community support, illustrating  
how social media can function as a Domestic Violence Crisis Service (DVCS) proxy. Their study achieved a  
94% accuracy rate in detecting critical posts through deep learning analysis, evidencing the potential of  
computational forensics in identifying DV incidents from online behavior. However, this technological  
capability contrasts sharply with the limited evidentiary recognition such posts receive in courtrooms, including  
in Malaysia and Indonesia, where formal admissibility still depends on documentary-style verification.  
At the same time, the discursive environment surrounding domestic violence on social media remains fraught  
with hostility and victim-blaming. Whiting, Dansby Olufuwote, Cravens-Pickens, and Banford Witting (2019)  
observed that in public discussions of high-profile DV cases, 37% of online commenters blamed the victim while  
only 9% blamed the perpetrator. This “digital backlash” not only distorts public perception but also shapes  
judicial attitudes toward digital disclosures, where survivors’ posts are often interpreted through lenses of  
credibility skepticism and moral judgment (Whiting et al., 2019; Marder, 2014). Such cultural biases further  
exacerbate evidentiary barriers, as courts must navigate between protecting privacy, avoiding prejudice, and  
ensuring fair trial rights (Garfield Tenzer, 2019).  
The problem is compounded by jurisdictional diversity. In Malaysia, the Evidence Act 1950 (Sections 90A–90B)  
accommodates electronic records, yet their authenticity depends heavily on discretionary judicial interpretation  
and expert certification, often lacking standardized forensic procedures. In contrast, Indonesia’s ITE Law (UU  
No. 11/2008 jo UU No. 19/2016) codifies digital evidence recognition but imposes rigid formal requirements,  
such as verification by accredited cyber experts (Budi Santoso, 2024). The resulting dichotomy—between  
Malaysia’s flexibility without uniformity and Indonesia’s procedural certainty without accessibility—reveals an  
evidentiary gap in both systems.  
Consequently, despite the transformative role of social media in amplifying survivor voices and documenting  
abuse, legal institutions in both common law and civil law jurisdictions remain inadequately equipped to evaluate  
such evidence. As Hall-Coates (2015) and Janoski-Haehlen (2011) argue, the judiciary’s hesitation to fully  
embrace social media as a legitimate evidentiary source reflects an outdated attachment to analog paradigms of  
proof. Without reforming authentication protocols, integrating trauma-informed judicial perspectives, and  
developing regional digital forensics frameworks, the evidentiary potential of social media in domestic violence  
cases risks being underutilized or misinterpreted.  
Therefore, this study interrogates the tension between technological affordance and legal formalism by  
comparing the Malaysian and Indonesian approaches to social media evidence in domestic violence  
prosecutions. It contends that the lack of harmonized evidentiary standards undermines both survivors’ access  
to justice and the courts’ capacity to establish digital truth, necessitating a recalibration of evidentiary doctrines  
to align with the realities of communication in the digital age.  
Research Objectives  
The overarching aim of this study is to examine the evolving role of social media postings as admissible evidence  
in domestic violence prosecutions, comparing Malaysia’s common law framework and Indonesia’s civil law  
framework. It seeks to identify doctrinal, procedural, and technological gaps in authenticating and evaluating  
digital evidence, particularly in cases where survivors use social media to document abuse.  
Specifically, this study aims to:  
1. Analyze the legal recognition and evidentiary treatment of social media postings under Malaysia’s  
Evidence Act 1950 and Indonesia’s ITE Law (UU No. 11/2008 jo UU No. 19/2016) in domestic violence  
cases.  
Page 10172  
www.rsisinternational.org  
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)  
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025  
2. Evaluate the challenges of authentication, reliability, and chain of custody in admitting social media  
content as evidence, drawing on comparative jurisprudence and empirical scholarship.  
3. Examine how trauma-informed and feminist communication perspectives can improve judicial  
interpretation of survivors’ digital disclosures and prevent secondary victimization.  
4. Assess the potential of digital forensic and AI-assisted methodologies in verifying the authenticity of  
online postings, as proposed by Subramani et al. (2018), to enhance evidentiary reliability in both  
jurisdictions.  
5. Propose a harmonized evidentiary framework that integrates Malaysia’s judicial flexibility and  
Indonesia’s procedural codification to improve the probative use of social media evidence in domestic  
violence prosecutions.  
Based on the objectives above, the study is guided by the following key research questions:  
1. How do Malaysia and Indonesia define and regulate the admissibility of social media postings as  
evidence in domestic violence prosecutions within their respective legal traditions (common law vs. civil  
law)?  
2. What are the principal evidentiary challenges—such as authentication, authorship verification, and  
reliability—associated with admitting social media content in court proceedings?  
3. In what ways do judicial attitudes, technological limitations, and societal perceptions of credibility  
influence the probative value of survivors’ digital disclosures on social media?  
4. How can trauma-informed and feminist communication theories inform evidentiary reform to reduce  
victim-blaming and strengthen judicial sensitivity toward online narratives of abuse?  
5. What cross-legal system mechanisms could be developed to harmonize evidentiary standards for social  
media authentication and admissibility?  
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY  
The present study adopts a comparative doctrinal and socio-legal research design to examine the evidentiary use  
of social media postings in domestic violence prosecutions within the legal systems of Malaysia and Indonesia.  
These two jurisdictions were chosen because they represent distinct legal traditions—Malaysia’s common law  
framework and Indonesia’s civil law model—yet share similar sociocultural and technological challenges in  
integrating digital evidence into the judicial process. The study aims to evaluate how both legal systems  
authenticate, admit, and assess the probative value of social media content as evidence in cases involving  
domestic violence.  
This research is qualitative in nature and relies primarily on doctrinal legal analysis, which involves the  
systematic study of legal principles, statutes, and judicial decisions to identify patterns, contradictions, and gaps  
in evidentiary law. The doctrinal component focuses on statutory interpretation, particularly Malaysia’s Evidence  
Act 1950 and Indonesia’s ITE Law (UU No. 11/2008 jo UU No. 19/2016), as well as the Domestic Violence Act  
1994 (Malaysia) and Law No. 23 of 2004 on the Elimination of Domestic Violence (Indonesia). This analysis  
seeks to understand how these statutes have evolved to accommodate social media evidence and the extent to  
which courts have recognized digital communication as credible and admissible proof. In Malaysia, for example,  
the study examines how Sections 90A and 90B of the Evidence Act 1950 regulate electronic records and how  
judicial discretion influences decisions concerning authenticity and authorship. In Indonesia, attention is given  
to the codified treatment of electronic information under the ITE Law and the procedural requirement for forensic  
verification by certified cyber experts, which may enhance reliability but can also impede accessibility for  
victims seeking justice.  
Page 10173  
www.rsisinternational.org  
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)  
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025  
In addition to the doctrinal dimension, the research employs a comparative legal analysis to highlight the  
functional differences between these two legal traditions in handling similar evidentiary problems. This  
comparative approach allows for an understanding of how each system balances the competing objectives of  
fairness, truth-finding, and procedural certainty. Malaysia’s reliance on judicial interpretation embodies  
flexibility and adaptability but risks inconsistency, while Indonesia’s codified structure ensures clarity but may  
limit responsiveness to evolving technological realities. The comparison focuses on three core evidentiary  
concerns: authentication and admissibility, probative value and reliability, and procedural safeguards for victims’  
privacy and dignity.  
Beyond doctrinal inquiry, this study adopts a socio-legal approach that situates the evidentiary issues within  
broader cultural, psychological, and communicative contexts. The analysis is informed by Trauma-Informed  
Evidence Theory (Glancy et al., 2019), Feminist Communication Theory (Whiting et al., 2019), and digital  
forensics frameworks. These theories provide interpretive tools for understanding how survivors’ digital  
disclosures on social media reflect patterns of trauma, empowerment, and credibility construction. Trauma-  
informed theory explains why survivors’ online narratives may appear fragmented or delayed and cautions  
against interpreting such inconsistencies as indicators of fabrication. Feminist communication theory highlights  
the duality of social media as both an empowering space and a site of surveillance and victim-blaming,  
emphasizing the need for courts to interpret online disclosures with sensitivity to gendered power dynamics.  
Meanwhile, the digital forensics perspective contributes technical parameters for assessing authenticity, such as  
metadata verification, hash values, and chain-of-custody procedures.  
The data sources for this study are derived from a combination of primary and secondary legal materials. Primary  
sources include statutes, judicial decisions, and official case law from both Malaysia and Indonesia, with  
particular focus on domestic violence prosecutions where digital or social media evidence was introduced.  
Secondary sources include peer-reviewed law journal articles, empirical research, and scholarly commentaries  
that discuss digital evidence, forensic verification, and evidentiary reform. Seminal works such as Murphy and  
Fontecilla (2013), Silver (2020), Flanagan (2016) provide critical insights into the challenges of authenticity,  
reliability, and admissibility of social media content in legal proceedings. Empirical studies such as Subramani  
et al. (2018) and Whiting et al. (2019) contribute valuable data on how survivors use social media platforms for  
crisis expression, as well as the societal backlash and credibility skepticism that often follow such disclosures.  
The analysis procedure involves thematic synthesis, where findings from statutes, case law, and literature are  
coded into recurring themes: authentication standards, judicial discretion, survivor credibility, digital privacy,  
and regional harmonization. The doctrinal and comparative analyses are conducted concurrently to reveal  
convergences and divergences in legal reasoning and policy implementation. The socio-legal component  
complements this by examining how cultural attitudes, gender norms, and technological access shape evidentiary  
outcomes. By triangulating findings across legal, theoretical, and empirical domains, the study ensures analytical  
robustness and validity.  
Ethical considerations are integral to the research process. Although the study does not involve direct human  
participants, it handles case materials and survivor-related narratives with confidentiality and sensitivity. Any  
examples of social media disclosures referenced in this research are anonymized and contextualized within  
academic discussion, avoiding any potential harm to individuals involved in real cases. The interpretation of  
evidence emphasizes respect for survivor agency and the avoidance of victim-blaming narratives, aligning with  
trauma-informed research ethics.  
The expected outcome of this methodology is a comprehensive understanding of how social media evidence  
operates within two divergent legal systems and what reforms are necessary to bridge evidentiary rules with  
technological realities. The research is anticipated to produce a comparative model for evidentiary reform that  
harmonizes Malaysia’s judicial flexibility with Indonesia’s procedural codification.  
Ultimately, the methodological integration of doctrinal, comparative, and socio-legal inquiry allows this research  
to move beyond static legal analysis toward a more dynamic understanding of digital justice. It not only examines  
how courts currently treat social media postings as evidence but also envisions how evidentiary doctrine can  
evolve to meet the moral and technological challenges of the digital age.  
Page 10174  
www.rsisinternational.org  
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)  
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025  
Legal Framework In Malaysia: Common Law Flexibility And Forensic Challenges  
Malaysia’s evidentiary regime exemplifies both the adaptability and fragility of the common law tradition in  
accommodating the realities of digital communication. Sections 90A and 90B of the Evidence Act 1950 were  
introduced to modernize evidentiary law by allowing the admissibility of electronic records, provided they are  
accompanied by a certificate of authenticity. However, the underlying assumption of these provisions—that  
electronic records can be verified through procedural compliance—does not adequately address the technical  
complexities of social media data. The absence of standardized forensic procedures for metadata extraction, hash  
value generation, and timestamp verification often leaves courts dependent on judicial discretion, which results  
in divergent rulings across similar cases.  
The challenge of authentication is further compounded by the “investigative paradox” identified by Brown,  
Robertson, and Sullivan (2012): while social networks provide a vast repository of behavioural and contextual  
data that can reveal patterns of coercive control, their inherent mutability undermines evidentiary reliability.  
Malaysian courts have grappled with this dilemma in cases where social media screenshots were tendered to  
prove threatening conduct under the Domestic Violence Act 1994. Although the court admitted the evidence, the  
defence successfully questioned its authenticity due to the absence of verifiable metadata and the possibility of  
digital manipulation. This illustrates a systemic weakness: without a statutory presumption of authenticity akin  
to the U.S. “sublet standard” (Flanagan, 2016), Malaysian prosecutors must prove the integrity of digital  
evidence through corroboration and expert testimony, a process that is both time-consuming and technically  
demanding.  
The evidentiary barriers disproportionately affect victims of domestic violence. The requirement under Section  
90A that a certificate be issued by a system operator or expert creates a procedural hurdle for survivors who rely  
on personal devices to document abuse. Many victims record threats or harassment using their own phones or  
through social media platforms such as WhatsApp or Facebook, yet the evidentiary value of such data is often  
diminished in court due to the lack of formal certification. This procedural rigidity prioritizes form over  
substance, inadvertently silencing survivors who lack access to forensic or institutional resources.  
The Malaysian courts traditionally rely on the doctrine of “best evidence” and the principle of judicial discretion  
to determine admissibility. However, in the digital context, this discretion operates without clear forensic  
standards or evidentiary presumptions. The result, as Arshad et. al. (2018) argue, is a fragmented approach where  
some judges adopt pragmatic flexibility by admitting screenshots or chat logs as corroborative evidence, while  
others insist on strict compliance with procedural formalities. This inconsistency reflects the broader structural  
gap between evidentiary law and technological capability.  
The social dimensions of digital evidence also complicate judicial assessment. Saifuddin and Zanuddin (2020)  
observe that social media postings not only serve as repositories of evidentiary material but also shape public  
narratives surrounding domestic violence. The viral nature of online content can influence public and judicial  
perceptions of victim credibility, reinforcing stereotypes of the “ideal victim” who behaves consistently with  
social expectations. This dynamic echoes Janoski-Haehlen’s (2011) in The Courts Are All A Twitter that judicial  
impartiality can be compromised when digital visibility exposes litigants to public scrutiny. In Malaysia, where  
community norms often emphasize modesty and familial privacy, survivors who disclose abuse online risk social  
backlash that may later affect judicial interpretation of their motives or credibility.  
Ultimately, Malaysia’s evidentiary framework reflects a tension between common law flexibility and forensic  
uncertainty. Judicial discretion allows adaptation to new technological contexts but, in the absence of codified  
forensic standards, produces a patchwork of rulings that undermine predictability. The current regime depends  
heavily on expert testimony to authenticate digital evidence, yet this reliance creates inequities between well-  
resourced parties and survivors with limited access to technical expertise. To ensure consistency and fairness,  
legislative reform should clarify the evidentiary threshold for electronic authentication, establish national  
forensic guidelines for metadata verification, and incorporate trauma-informed judicial training to mitigate the  
secondary victimization of survivors.  
Page 10175  
www.rsisinternational.org  
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)  
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025  
In essence, while Sections 90A and 90B represent Malaysia’s initial attempt to bring evidentiary law into the  
digital era, they remain conceptually anchored in a pre-digital understanding of “documents” and “records”. The  
transformation of communication into dynamic, interactive, and context-dependent forms of expression—  
typified by social media—demands an equally dynamic legal response. Without a unified forensic framework  
and consistent judicial standards, Malaysia risks perpetuating evidentiary inequities that privilege procedural  
orthodoxy over substantive justice.  
Legal Framework In Indonesia: Codified Certainty And Forensic Formalism  
Indonesia’s legal framework demonstrates a contrasting model of evidentiary regulation—one defined by  
codified certainty and procedural formalism. Rooted in its civil law tradition, Indonesia’s Law No. 11 of 2008  
on Electronic Information and Transactions (Undang-Undang Informasi dan Transaksi Elektronik, or ITE Law),  
as amended by Law No. 19 of 2016, explicitly affirms that electronic data holds the same evidentiary value as  
written documents. Article 5(1) of the ITE Law declares that “electronic information and/or electronic documents  
and their printouts constitute valid legal evidence,” provided their authenticity is verified by authorized forensic  
experts. This approach, as explained by Budi Santoso (2024), ensures procedural integrity and legal certainty,  
but simultaneously imposes high evidentiary thresholds that may limit access to justice—particularly for  
domestic violence survivors who rely on digital media as the primary means of documentation.  
The procedural rigor of Indonesia’s forensic verification process reflects its civil law ethos, emphasizing legality,  
documentation, and state-certified validation. Electronic evidence—such as WhatsApp messages, social media  
posts, and video recordings—can only be recognized as valid once examined by a certified digital forensic  
examiner authorized under police and prosecutorial guidelines. This requirement, while reinforcing the reliability  
of evidence, creates what Oktana, Akub, and Maskun (2023) describe as a form of forensic formalism: a  
procedural rigidity that may delay justice, especially in cases requiring urgent protection for victims of domestic  
violence. Verification is often constrained by limited access to digital forensic laboratories, uneven technological  
capacity across regions, and the high costs associated with expert certification.  
Indonesian jurisprudence has progressively expanded the notion of admissible digital evidence. Landmark  
decisions such as Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi No. 65/PUU-VIII/2010 and No. 20/PUU-XIV/2016 affirmed  
that digital screenshots, recordings, and electronic messages can serve as “digital testimony,” provided their  
source integrity is demonstrable. This judicial recognition has elevated the probative value of social media  
evidence—transforming online interactions into legitimate evidentiary material in both criminal and domestic  
violence proceedings. As Yuni Sara and Punta Yoga Astoni (2025) note, the intersection of the ITE Law and Law  
No. 23 of 2004 on the Elimination of Domestic Violence (UU PKDRT) has created new pathways for victims to  
present digital documentation of abuse, such as social media posts or CCTV footage, as corroborative evidence  
in court.  
However, Indonesia’s commitment to codified certainty has also produced a paradox. While the law guarantees  
equal recognition of electronic and physical evidence, its formalistic verification process can disadvantage  
marginalized victims. Budi Santoso’s (2024) empirical study found that social media evidence—though  
increasingly used in investigations—remains categorized as “preliminary evidence” until validated through  
official seizure and forensic analysis. The chain-of-custody process requires judicial authorization for digital  
confiscation, followed by a formal examination conducted by police or state-certified experts. This bureaucratic  
sequence often prolongs the investigative phase and deters victims who lack resources or legal assistance from  
pursuing formal complaints.  
Nevertheless, Indonesia’s model contributes valuable lessons in procedural discipline. The integration of  
forensic science into evidentiary law strengthens judicial confidence in digital materials and mitigates the risk  
of manipulation—a persistent concern in social media–based prosecutions. The Indonesian National Police  
(Polri)’s adherence to Perkapolri No. 6 of 2019 mandates meticulous handling, preservation, and reporting of  
digital evidence, ensuring that authenticity, reliability, and relevance remain central to the process. As  
emphasized by Yuni Sara and Punta Yoga (2025), such codification not only enhances evidentiary integrity but  
also fosters a culture of accountability within law enforcement agencies, where digital forensics bridges  
technological evidence with legal procedure.  
Page 10176  
www.rsisinternational.org  
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)  
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025  
Yet, the need for reform remains pressing. Scholars and practitioners advocate for a more balanced approach that  
combines forensic rigor with survivor accessibility. As Hadi (2024) and Sujatmiko & Soesatyo (2025) argue, the  
rapid evolution of cybercrime and social media–related offences demands that the ITE Law be continuously  
revised to reflect technological and social realities. Simplified verification procedures, greater regional access to  
forensic facilities, and state-funded certification for digital evidence in domestic violence cases could bridge the  
gap between procedural legality and substantive justice.  
In sum, Indonesia’s evidentiary framework represents a model of codified certainty, embedding forensic  
verification at the core of its digital justice architecture. While this structure ensures the authenticity and  
probative reliability of electronic evidence, it risks alienating vulnerable victims through procedural rigidity. The  
challenge moving forward lies in harmonizing forensic formalism with equitable access—ensuring that the law  
not only secures evidence but also protects those it was designed to serve.  
Comparative Discussion: Divergent Paths Toward Digital Justice Toward A Dual-Legal System  
Evidentiary Convergence  
The contrast between Malaysia’s discretionary jurisprudence and Indonesia’s codified rigidity illustrates two  
paradigms of digital justice. Malaysia’s courts, influenced by common law reasoning, mirror North American  
and UK trends where judges evaluate social media evidence based on contextual indicators of authenticity  
(Flanagan, 2016; Grice & Schwartz, 2012). This flexibility allows adaptation but risks inconsistent rulings.  
Indonesia’s civil law approach, as seen in PKDRT-ITE Law integration, ensures evidentiary uniformity through  
procedural mandates. Yet, the dependency on forensic certification centralizes expertise in state institutions,  
potentially limiting victim agency.  
Garfield Tenzer’s (2019) concept of “digital bias” underscores that judicial reluctance to treat social media as  
equal to traditional evidence undermines fairness and reflects outdated epistemologies. In both Malaysia and  
Indonesia, similar reluctance persists in evaluating online abuse narratives, often framed as “private  
communication” rather than public harm. The synthesis of these systems reveals a need for middle-ground  
reform—balancing flexibility with procedural safeguards and emphasizing survivor-centered authenticity  
evaluations. The convergence of common law and civil law approaches offers an opportunity to establish a  
harmonized evidentiary framework for digital evidence—one that is technologically robust, procedurally  
coherent, and socially responsive.  
The harmonized evidentiary framework envisions a synthesis between the adaptability of common law systems,  
which rely on judicial discretion and case-by-case interpretation, and the procedural certainty of civil law  
systems, which prioritize codified verification mechanisms. As Arshad & Omolara (2019) emphasize,  
contemporary forensic research underscores the necessity of integrating metadata authentication, hash  
verification, and secure chain-of-custody mechanisms into standardized digital evidence protocols. These  
scientific methods ensure evidentiary integrity while accommodating the dynamic nature of electronic  
communications.  
From a comparative perspective, Brown, Robertson, and Sullivan (2012) illustrate that North American courts—  
operating within common law jurisdictions—have increasingly emphasized flexible standards of authenticity,  
allowing digital and social media evidence to be admitted if contextual and circumstantial indicators establish  
credibility. Conversely, civil law systems such as Indonesia’s require formal certification by digital forensic  
experts before evidence is deemed admissible. As Silver (2020) argues in The Unclear Picture of Social Media  
Evidence, this divergence reflects deeper epistemological differences: common law systems value interpretive  
pragmatism and judicial balancing, whereas civil law systems emphasize administrative certainty and  
evidentiary predictability.  
A harmonized evidentiary framework for digital evidence within common law and civil law legal systems could  
thus integrate the strengths of both traditions. First, it would involve establishing uniform authentication  
standards that rely on scientifically verifiable indicators such as metadata trails, hash values, and algorithmic  
integrity markers. These techniques, supported by research in Discovery of Evidence with Social Media (Murphy  
& Fontecilla, 2013) and Authenticity and Admissibility of Social Media Website Printouts (Angus-Anderson,  
Page 10177  
www.rsisinternational.org  
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)  
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025  
2015), minimize subjective evaluation and create replicable verification models for courts. Such standards would  
allow evidence from social platforms—posts, messages, videos—to maintain evidentiary value regardless of the  
jurisdictional origin or the platform’s technical architecture.  
Second, judicial capacity building must become both legal systems’ priority. As Garfield Tenzer (2019) and  
Janoski-Haehlen, (2011) contend, the exponential rise of social media evidence requires judges to develop digital  
literacy and trauma-informed sensitivity, particularly in domestic violence cases where survivors’ posts,  
messages, or digital diaries serve both therapeutic and evidentiary functions. Judicial training programs between  
Malaysia and Indonesia could therefore integrate modules on digital forensics, online privacy ethics, and  
survivor-centred evaluation, enabling courts to assess authenticity without retraumatizing victims or perpetuating  
gendered biases.  
Importantly, this dual-legal synthesis would also address what Silver (2020) terms “digital inequality”—the  
structural imbalance between victims who possess technological access and those who do not. In many domestic  
violence prosecutions, the ability to authenticate digital evidence determines the viability of the complaint.  
Without equitable forensic access, marginalized victims risk exclusion from the justice process. Thus, the  
harmonized evidentiary framework should incorporate legal aid schemes and state-funded digital verification  
mechanisms to ensure that the right to prove abuse is not contingent upon technological privilege.  
Ultimately, convergence does not entail homogenization but rather the creation of interoperable evidentiary  
principles grounded in authenticity, privacy, and empathy. Common law adaptability can coexist with civil law  
precision if both are anchored in shared forensic science and human rights values. This dual-legal evidentiary  
paradigm would not only elevate the reliability of digital evidence but also reaffirm the moral legitimacy of  
justice systems in an increasingly digitalized world.  
CONCLUSION  
Social media evidence embodies the intersection of technology, gender, and justice. Comparative lessons from  
global jurisprudence—including Garfield Tenzer (2019) critique of judicial conservatism and Brown et al.’s  
(2012) framework for digital investigation—demonstrate that authenticity, chain of custody, and contextual  
interpretation are indispensable. The authentication of social media evidence is therefore not merely a technical  
task but a moral obligation to acknowledge survivors’ digital voices within formal justice.  
In Malaysia, the fluid common law model accommodates evolving communication platforms but suffers from  
procedural inconsistency. In Indonesia, codified evidentiary certainty ensures reliability but may entrench  
bureaucratic barriers. By bridging Malaysia’s interpretive adaptability with Indonesia’s procedural discipline,  
both countries can formulate an evidentiary paradigm that is both technologically robust and human-centered—  
transforming social media from ephemeral communication into enduring proof of truth.  
Looking forward, future research should focus on several key areas. First, empirical studies examining judicial  
reasoning patterns in cases involving social media evidence could illuminate how cognitive biases, technological  
gaps, and societal perceptions influence verdicts. Second, interdisciplinary research combining law, computer  
science, and psychology is needed to design automated yet privacy-preserving forensic tools capable of verifying  
authenticity without retraumatizing survivors. Third, comparative research extending beyond Malaysia and  
Indonesia to include other ASEAN members—such as Singapore, the Philippines, and Thailand—would provide  
a comprehensive regional model for harmonized digital evidence governance. Finally, future studies should  
explore how artificial intelligence (AI) and natural language processing (NLP) could assist in identifying  
coercive and abusive communication patterns in online discourse, while maintaining safeguards against data  
misuse.  
In conclusion, the digital transformation of evidence law in Southeast Asia represents both a challenge and an  
opportunity. The challenge lies in reconciling legal formalism with the fluid, decentralized nature of digital  
communication. The opportunity lies in building a more inclusive, survivor-centered evidentiary paradigm—one  
that recognizes social media not as a mere data source, but as a living archive of human experience. The path  
forward demands interdisciplinary collaboration, regional coordination, and a deep commitment to justice that  
Page 10178  
www.rsisinternational.org  
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)  
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025  
transcends procedural boundaries. Only through such integrated reform can Malaysia and Indonesia ensure that  
the digital age becomes not a barrier, but a bridge to truth and accountability.  
REFERENCES  
1. Adams, Richard, Hobbs, Val & Mann, Graham (2013). The Advanced Data Acquisition Model (ADAM):  
A Process Model for Digital Forensic Practice. Journal of Digital Forensics, Security and Law, 8(4), 25–  
48.  
2. Ademu, Inikpi O., Inmafidon, Cris O., & Preston, David S. (2011). A New Approach of Digital Forensic  
Model for Digital Forensic Investigation. International Journal of Advanced Computer Science and  
Application, 2(12), 175–178.  
3. Andrews, Lori (2012). I Know Who You Are and I Saw What You Did: Social Networks and the Death  
of Privacy. Free Press.  
4. Angus-Anderson, W. (2015). Authenticity and admissibility of social media website printouts. Duke L.  
& Tech. Rev., 14, 33.  
5. Angus-Anderson, Wendy (2016). Authenticity and Admissibility of Social Media Website Printouts.  
Duke Law & Technology Review, 14, 33–51.  
6. Arshad, H., Jantan, A. B., & Abiodun, O. I. (2018). Digital forensics: Review of issues in scientific  
validation of digital evidence. Journal of Information Processing Systems, 14(2).  
7. Arshad, H., Jantan, A., & Omolara, E. (2019). Evidence collection and forensics on social networks:  
Research challenges and directions. Digital Investigation, 28, 126-138.  
8. Astoni, P. Y., & Sara, Y. (2025). Peran media sosial dalam penyebaran informasi dugaan kekerasan dalam  
rumah tangga (KDRT) guna penegakkan hukum tindak pidana KDRT pada era digital. Jurnal Riset  
Multidisiplin Edukasi, 2(7), 212–230.  
9. Bowles, Stephen & Hernandez-Castro, Julio (2015). The First 10 Years of the Trojan Horse Defence.  
Computer Fraud & Security, January 2015, 5–13.  
10. Boyd, d. m., & Ellison, N. B. (2007). Social Network Sites: Definition, History, and Scholarship. Journal  
of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13(1).  
11. Brenner, Susan W., Carrier, Brian, & Henninger, Jef (2004). The Trojan Horse Defense in Cybercrime  
Cases. Santa Clara High Technology Law Journal, 21, 1–42.  
12. Brown, D. B., Robertson, T. J., & Sullivan, L. L. (2012). I see what you did there: The use of social  
networks to gather evidence. Southern Law Journal, 22(2), 242–266.  
13. Brown, R., Robertson, D., & Sullivan, J. (2012). The risks of taking Facebook at face value: Why the  
psychology of social networking evidence matters in court. Stanford Law Journal, 22(1), 45–78.  
14. Budi Santoso. (2024). Evidence of social media accounts in the investigation process. Legal Brief, 13(3),  
960–968.  
15. Chen, L., Li, W., & Haddad, R. J. (2017). Special Issue on Mobile Systems, Mobile Networks, and  
Mobile Cloud: Security, Privacy, and Digital Forensics. Information, 8(3), 99.  
16. Cummings, Douglas J. Jr. (2015). Authenticating Social Media Evidence at Trial: Instruction from Parker  
v. State. Delaware Law Review, 15, 107–136.  
17. Daniel, Larry E., & Daniel, Lars E. (2012). Digital Forensics for Legal Professionals: Understanding  
Digital Evidence from the Warrant to the Courtroom. Elsevier: Massachusetts, USA.  
18. Flanagan, E. A. (2016). Guilty? Sublet v. State and the authentication of social media evidence in criminal  
proceedings. Villanova Law Review, 61(2), 287–316.  
19. Garfield Tenzer, L. Y. (2019). Social media, venue, and the right to a fair trial. Baylor L. Rev., 71, 421.  
20. Gladysz, L. M. (2012). Status Update: When Social Media Enters the Courtroom. Journal of Law &  
Policy for Information Society, 7, 691–714.  
21. Glancy, G., Heintzman, M., & Wheeler, A. (2019). Battered woman syndrome: Updating the expert  
checklist. International Journal of Risk and Recovery, 2(2), 4–17.  
22. Grice, D., & Schwartz, B. (2012). Social Incrimination: How North American Courts Are Embracing  
Social Network Evidence in Criminal and Civil Trials. Man. LJ, 36, 221.  
23. Hadi, A. M. (2024). Cyber Crime in Renewing The ITE Law to Realize The Goals of Legal  
Justice. Journal of Law, Society, and Islamic Civilization, 12(1), 49-60.  
Page 10179  
www.rsisinternational.org  
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)  
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025  
24. Hall-Coates, S. (2015). Following Digital Media into the Courtroom: Publicity and the open court  
principle in the information age. Dalhousie J. Legal Stud., 24, 101.  
25. Janoski-Haehlen, E. M. (2011). The Courts Are All a Twitter: The implications of social media use in  
the courts. Val. UL Rev., 46, 43.  
26. Janoski-Haehlen, E. M. (2011). The courts are all a Twitter: The implications of social media for judicial  
proceedings and the administration of justice. Northern Kentucky Law Review, 39(3), 293–310.  
27. Katz, E., Blumler, J. G., & Gurevitch, M. (1973). Uses and gratifications research. Public Opinion  
Quarterly, 37(4), 509–523.  
28. Krisvianti, S., & Triastuti, E. (2020). Facebook group types and posts: Indonesian women free themselves  
from domestic violence. SEARCH Journal of Media and Communication Research, 12(3), 1–17.  
29. Laurin, Jennifer E. (2015). Criminal Law’s Science Lag: How Criminal Justice Meets Changed Scientific  
Understanding. Texas Law Review, 93, 1751–1790.  
30. Marder, N. S. (2014). Jurors and social media: Is a fair trial still possible. SMUL Rev., 67, 617.  
31. Murphy, S., & Fontecilla, A. (2013). Social media evidence in government investigations and criminal  
proceedings. The Computer & Internet Lawyer, 30(4), 1–10.  
32. Oktana, R., Akub, S., & Maskun, M. (2023). Social media in the process of evidence of electronic  
information and transaction crimes. SIGn Jurnal Hukum, 4(2), 320–331.  
33. Saifuddin, N., & Zanuddin, H. (2020). Malaysian social media postings and public agenda setting in the  
portrayal of interpersonal violence. European Journal of Molecular & Clinical Medicine, 7(8), 490–497.  
34. Sholl, E. W. (2013). Exhibit Facebook: The discoverability and admissibility of social media evidence.  
Tulane Journal of Technology and Intellectual Property, 16(2), 208–229.  
35. Silver, L. A. (2020). The unclear picture of social media evidence. Manitoba Law Journal, 43(3), 111–  
136.  
36. Subramani, S., Wang, H., Vu, H. Q., & Li, G. (2018). Domestic violence crisis identification from  
Facebook  
posts  
based  
on  
deep  
learning.  
IEEE  
Access,  
6,  
54075–54085.  
[https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2018.2871446](https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2018.2871446)  
37. Sujatmiko, B., & Soesatyo, B. (2025). The Urgency of Using Electronic Evidence in Trials as an Effort  
to Answer the Challenges of Law Enforcement in the Digital Era and Social Media Dynamics. Asian  
Journal of Social and Humanities, 3(9), 1604-1613.  
38. Uncel, Megan (2011). Facebook Is Now Friends with the Court: Current Federal Rules and Social Media  
Evidence. Jurimetrics, 51, 43–60.  
39. Valverde, Mariana (2009). Law’s Dream of a Common Knowledge. Princeton University Press.  
40. Whiting, J. B., Dansby Olufuwote, R., Cravens-Pickens, J. D., & Banford Witting, A. (2019). Online  
blaming and intimate partner violence: A content analysis of social media comments. The Qualitative  
Report, 24(1), 78–94.  
Page 10180  
www.rsisinternational.org