Direct-to-Consumer DNA Testing and Nasab in Indonesia: Genetic Privacy and Evidence in Comparative Perspective

Kudrat Abdillah; Maylissabet Maylissabet; Nasih Burhani

doi:10.66277/jldc.v1i2.161

Authors

Kudrat Abdillah Gadjah Mada University Yogyakarta, Indonesia https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3918-8480
Maylissabet Maylissabet Sekolah Tinggi Ilmu Syariah As-Salafiyah, Pamekasan, Indonesia https://orcid.org/0009-0009-7740-2108
Nasih Burhani Yarmouk University, Irbid, Jordan https://orcid.org/0009-0005-4636-9596

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.66277/jldc.v1i2.161

Keywords:

Genetic Privacy; Direct-to-Consumer DNA Testing; Paternity Evidence; Nasab; Personal Data Protection.

Abstract

Direct-to-consumer (DTC) DNA testing allows individuals to obtain parentage information through online platforms, outside clinical, forensic, and judicial control. When such reports enter Indonesian Religious Court proceedings, three legal regimes intersect: personal data protection, civil and electronic evidence, and the Islamic law of lineage (nasab). This article examines how Indonesian law governs genetic data generated by DTC services, under what conditions a commercial DNA report may be admitted and weighed in parentage disputes, and how genetic privacy can be reconciled with the protection of lineage and children’s interests. Using statutory, conceptual, and comparative approaches, the study analyses Indonesia’s Personal Data Protection Law, electronic evidence and civil procedure rules, Constitutional Court Decision Number 46/PUU-VIII/2010, the Compilation of Islamic Law, and fatwas on DNA evidence, and compares them with Jordan’s Personal Data Protection Law of 2023 and Personal Status Law of 2019. The findings show that Indonesia protects genetic and children’s data and recognises scientific evidence, but lacks an operational pathway for moving a privately generated report into judicial assessment. Its evidentiary weight depends on specimen identity, chain of custody, scientific interpretation, and document integrity, while biological relatedness does not automatically establish nasab. Jordan’s codification of court-controlled “definitive scientific means” offers a useful model. The article proposes a Four-Layer Genetic Data Governance Framework linking lawful processing, evidentiary reliability, maqāṣid-based assessment of lineage, and digital accountability.

References

AABB. Standards for Relationship Testing Laboratories. Bethesda, MD: AABB. https://www.aabb.org/standards-accreditation/standards/relationship-testing-laboratories.

Abu Tayeh, Tariq M., and Faisal S. Al-Abadi. “Genetic Fingerprinting and Its Role in Proving Paternity in the Jordanian Personal Status Law No. (15) of 2019: DNA as a Model.” IUG Journal of Sharia and Law Studies 31, no. 1 (2023): 64–85. https://doi.org/10.33976/IUGJSLS.31.1/2023/4.

ACCORD (Austrian Centre for Country of Origin and Asylum Research and Documentation). Anfragebeantwortung zu Jordanien: Behandlung von unehelichen Kindern [a-12230]. September 5, 2023. https://www.ecoi.net/de/dokument/2096757.html.

Afifah, Afifah, and Lilik Andar Yuni. “Penetapan Konstitusi dan Hukum Islam terkait Tes DNA sebagai Dalil Keabsahan Anak.” Maqasid: Jurnal Studi Hukum Islam 13, no. 2 (2024): 88–97. https://doi.org/10.30651/mqs.v13i2.24368.

Almazrouei, Saeed, Siti Aisyah Samudin, and Mahamatayuding Samah. “Examining the Validity of Genetic Fingerprints in Lineage Determination under Islamic Shariah and Malaysian Law.” Journal of Shariah Law Research 10, no. 1 (2025): 37–62. https://doi.org/10.22452/jslr.vol10no1.3.

Azzahra, Diana. “Acceptability of DNA as Evidence in Child Denial (Liʿān) Cases at Bangil Religious Court.” RIGGS: Journal of Artificial Intelligence and Digital Business 5, no. 2 (2026): 17495–17504. https://doi.org/10.31004/riggs.v5i2.11819.

Borry, Pascal, Martina C. Cornel, and Heidi C. Howard. “Where Are You Going, Where Have You Been: A Recent History of the Direct-to-Consumer Genetic Testing Market.” Journal of Community Genetics 1, no. 3 (2010): 101–106. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12687-010-0023-z.

Clyde & Co. “Jordan Issues First Personal Data Protection Law.” October 2023. https://www.clydeco.com/en/insights/2023/10/jordan-issues-first-personal-data-protection-law.

Compilation of Islamic Law (Kompilasi Hukum Islam), disseminated by Presidential Instruction Number 1 of 1991 (Republic of Indonesia).

Constitutional Court of the Republic of Indonesia. Decision Number 46/PUU-VIII/2010. February 17, 2012.

DLA Piper. “Data Protection in Jordan.” Data Protection Laws of the World. Last modified February 8, 2026. https://www.dlapiperdataprotection.com/?c=JO&t=law.

French Civil Code (Code civil).

General Iftaa’ Department of Jordan. Fatwa Number 2794, “Ruling on Proving or Disproving Paternity through DNA Testing.” 2013. https://aliftaa.jo/en-fatwas/2794/rss.aspx.

General Iftaa’ Department of Jordan. Fatwa Number 2795, “Correcting Mistake in DNA and Rulings Caused by It.” 2013. https://aliftaa.jo/en-fatwas/2795/rss.aspx.

German Genetic Diagnostics Act (Gendiagnostikgesetz) of 31 July 2009.

Gjertson, David W., Charles H. Brenner, Max P. Baur, Angel Carracedo, François Guidet, Juan A. Luque, Rüdiger Lessig, et al. “ISFG: Recommendations on Biostatistics in Paternity Testing.” Forensic Science International: Genetics 1, no. 3–4 (2007): 223–231. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsigen.2007.06.006.

Government Regulation Number 71 of 2019 on the Implementation of Electronic Systems and Transactions (Republic of Indonesia).

Gymrek, Melissa, Amy L. McGuire, David Golan, Eran Halperin, and Yaniv Erlich. “Identifying Personal Genomes by Surname Inference.” Science 339, no. 6117 (2013): 321–324. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1229566.

Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan. Personal Data Protection Law Number 24 of 2023. Official Gazette, September 17, 2023.

Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan. Personal Status Law Number 15 of 2019 (Qānūn al-Aḥwāl al-Shakhṣiyya). Official Gazette No. 5578, June 2, 2019.

Herzien Inlandsch Reglement (HIR), Staatsblad 1941 No. 44.

Hutchinson, Terry. “The Doctrinal Method: Incorporating Interdisciplinary Methods in Reforming the Law.” Erasmus Law Review 8, no. 3 (2015): 130–138.

Indonesian Civil Code (Burgerlijk Wetboek).

Law Number 1 of 1974 on Marriage, as amended by Law Number 16 of 2019 (Republic of Indonesia).

Law Number 7 of 1989 on Religious Courts, as amended by Law Number 3 of 2006 and Law Number 50 of 2009 (Republic of Indonesia).

Law Number 11 of 2008 on Electronic Information and Transactions, as amended by Law Number 19 of 2016 and Law Number 1 of 2024 (Republic of Indonesia).

Law Number 23 of 2002 on Child Protection, as amended by Law Number 35 of 2014 (Republic of Indonesia).

Law Number 27 of 2022 on Personal Data Protection (Republic of Indonesia).

Majelis Ulama Indonesia. Fatwa Number 11 of 2012 on Children Born of Zina and Their Treatment (Anak Hasil Zina dan Perlakuan terhadapnya). Jakarta, 10 March 2012.

Onstwedder, Suzanne Maria, Marleen Elizabeth Jansen, Martina Cornelia Cornel, and Tessel Rigter. “Policy Guidance for Direct-to-Consumer Genetic Testing Services: Framework Development Study.” Journal of Medical Internet Research 26 (2024): e47389. https://doi.org/10.2196/47389.

Phillips, Andelka M. “Only a Click Away—DTC Genetics for Ancestry, Health, Love…and More: A View of the Business and Regulatory Landscape.” Applied & Translational Genomics 8 (2016): 16–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atg.2016.01.001.

Qamar, Nurul, Aan Aswari, Hardianto Djanggih, Muhammad Syarif, Dachran S. Busthami, M. Kamal Hidjaz, and Rezah Farah Syah. Metode Penelitian Hukum (Legal Research Methods). Edited by Abd. Kahar Muzakkir. Makassar: CV. Social Politic Genius (SIGn), 2017.

Ram, Natalie. “DNA by the Entirety.” Columbia Law Review 115, no. 4 (2015): 873–939.

Ram, Natalie. “Genetic Privacy after Carpenter.” Virginia Law Review 105, no. 7 (2019): 1357–1424.

Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 (General Data Protection Regulation). Official Journal of the European Union L 119, 4 May 2016.

Shabana, Ayman. “Islamic Law of Paternity and DNA Evidence.” Islamic Law Blog, June 28, 2021. https://islamiclaw.blog/2021/06/28/islamic-law-of-paternity-and-dna-evidence/.

Shabana, Ayman. “Negation of Paternity in Islamic Law between Liʿān and DNA Fingerprinting.” Islamic Law and Society 20, no. 3 (2013): 157–201. https://doi.org/10.1163/15685195-0008A0001.

Shabana, Ayman. “Paternity between Law and Biology: The Reconstruction of the Islamic Law of Paternity in the Wake of DNA Testing.” Zygon 47, no. 1 (2012): 214–239.

Soroinda, Disriani Latifah, and Anandri Annisa Rininta Soroinda Nasution. “Kekuatan Pembuktian Alat Bukti Elektronik dalam Hukum Acara Perdata.” Jurnal Hukum & Pembangunan 52, no. 2 (2022): 384–405. https://doi.org/10.21143/jhp.vol52.no2.1474.

Stern, Hal S., Maria Cuellar, and David Kaye. “Reliability and Validity of Forensic Science Evidence.” Significance 16, no. 2 (2019): 21–24. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1740-9713.2019.01250.x.

World Health Organization. Guidance for Human Genome Data Collection, Access, Use and Sharing. Geneva: World Health Organization, 2024. https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789240102149.

Yeung, Karen. “Algorithmic Regulation: A Critical Interrogation.” Regulation & Governance 12, no. 4 (2018): 505–523. https://doi.org/10.1111/rego.12158.