SUMMARY
The rapid use of information technology in electronic-based activities in various fields, including in the business sector, has not been followed by legal developments that can keep up with the speed of advances in communication and information technology. Therefore, it is necessary to have a law that can resolve problems/disputes that occur in cyberspace. This research was conducted with the aims of (1) To find out and analyze the position of electronic documents as evidence before the court, especially in proving civil Law in Indonesia; and (2) To find out and analyze the legal power of electronic documents as evidence in civil evidence law in Indonesia. This study uses primary data from a literature review, namely the Civil Procedure Code (KUHPerdata), Law no. 11 of 2008, concerning Information and Electronic Transactions and Jurisprudence. The results of this study indicate that: (1) The position of electronic documents in judicial practice is often equated with written evidence instead of a deed because several types of electronic documents can be transferred into paper form (printout). However, electronic documents as evidence in a formal juridical manner have not been explicitly regulated in civil procedural Law, for electronic document arrangements in Law no. 8 of 2011 concerning Information and Electronic Transactions do not contain regulations regarding the procedure for submitting electronic documents in court so that according to the author, as a country that adheres to a continental European legal system, electronic documents need to be regulated in civil procedural Law or Supreme Court regulations so that. (2) The power of proof from electronic document evidence, it is recognized that its essence in judicial practice has the power of independent evidence, which is left to the discretion of the judge. The recommendation from this study is that considering that electronic documents have often been used in the trial process, it is time to formulate normatively in binding civil procedural Law and must be followed to meet the needs of judicial practice to provide a sense of justice based on achieving legal order and legal certainty.