Javascript must be enabled to continue!
Implications of Supreme Court Jurisprudence No.1400k/Pdt/1986 on Marriage Different Religions
View through CrossRef
In Indonesian law, Marriage Law does not provide for marriages of different religions. Thus, Indonesia's positive law does not recognize the term interfaith or interfaith marriage. But, after the Supreme Court decision Number 1400K / Pdt / 1986, the existence of interfaith marriage in Indonesia is getting bigger. Supreme Court Decision No. 1400k/Pdt/1986, states that couples of different faiths can ask for a court determination. However, Constitutional Court Decision No.68/PUU-XII/2014 rejected the legalization of interfaith marriage. This research is normative legal research, as it is based on library research that takes reference from text books, as well as supporting data related to the problem studied assisted by primary, secondary and tertiary data sources. This research uses qualitative data analysis and produces descriptive data. From the results of the study, it was concluded that, first, the position of interfaith marriage in Indonesia is not regulated in Law No. 1 of 1974 concerning Marriage and the latest Marriage Law, namely Law No. 16 of 2019 concerning Marriage. The regulation of interfaith marriage in Indonesia at this time is based on the jurisprudence of Supreme Court Decision No. 1400K / Pdt / 1986. Second, the position of interfaith marriage in Indonesia according to the Constitutional Court Decree No. 86/PUU-XII/2014 is prohibited because interfaith marriage is not by the values of the Godhead in the First Precept of Pancasila, it is also contrary to the 1945 Constitution and contrary to the values of Pancasila.. However, in some plea for interfaith marriage in the court by the bride and the groom, the judge did not abide to constitutional court decision No. 86/PUU-XII/2014, so the implementation of the constitutional court's decision was ineffective. Meanwhile, in principle, according to the jurisprudence of Supreme Court Decision No. 1400K/Pdt/1986, the State merely responsible for the registration of interfaith marriages, and is not responsible for the legitimacy of interfaith marriages.
Universitas Mataram
Title: Implications of Supreme Court Jurisprudence No.1400k/Pdt/1986 on Marriage Different Religions
Description:
In Indonesian law, Marriage Law does not provide for marriages of different religions.
Thus, Indonesia's positive law does not recognize the term interfaith or interfaith marriage.
But, after the Supreme Court decision Number 1400K / Pdt / 1986, the existence of interfaith marriage in Indonesia is getting bigger.
Supreme Court Decision No.
1400k/Pdt/1986, states that couples of different faiths can ask for a court determination.
However, Constitutional Court Decision No.
68/PUU-XII/2014 rejected the legalization of interfaith marriage.
This research is normative legal research, as it is based on library research that takes reference from text books, as well as supporting data related to the problem studied assisted by primary, secondary and tertiary data sources.
This research uses qualitative data analysis and produces descriptive data.
From the results of the study, it was concluded that, first, the position of interfaith marriage in Indonesia is not regulated in Law No.
1 of 1974 concerning Marriage and the latest Marriage Law, namely Law No.
16 of 2019 concerning Marriage.
The regulation of interfaith marriage in Indonesia at this time is based on the jurisprudence of Supreme Court Decision No.
1400K / Pdt / 1986.
Second, the position of interfaith marriage in Indonesia according to the Constitutional Court Decree No.
86/PUU-XII/2014 is prohibited because interfaith marriage is not by the values of the Godhead in the First Precept of Pancasila, it is also contrary to the 1945 Constitution and contrary to the values of Pancasila.
However, in some plea for interfaith marriage in the court by the bride and the groom, the judge did not abide to constitutional court decision No.
86/PUU-XII/2014, so the implementation of the constitutional court's decision was ineffective.
Meanwhile, in principle, according to the jurisprudence of Supreme Court Decision No.
1400K/Pdt/1986, the State merely responsible for the registration of interfaith marriages, and is not responsible for the legitimacy of interfaith marriages.
Related Results
Envisioning Originalism Applied to Bioethics Cases
Envisioning Originalism Applied to Bioethics Cases
Photo ID 123697425 © Alexandersikov | Dreamstime.com
Abstract
Originalism is an increasingly prevalent method for interpreting provisions of the US Constitution. It requires strict...
Advantages of laserphyrin compared with photofrin in photodynamic therapy for bile duct carcinoma
Advantages of laserphyrin compared with photofrin in photodynamic therapy for bile duct carcinoma
AbstractBackgroundThe aim of this study was to compare the effects of laserphyrin‐PDT (L‐PDT) on biliary cancer with those of the conventional photosensitizer, photofrin‐PDT (P‐PDT...
The Function of Judiciary towards Harmonizing Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles of State Policy: An Overview
The Function of Judiciary towards Harmonizing Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles of State Policy: An Overview
1. Austin, G. (1999). The Indian Constitution: Cornerstone of a nation. Oxford University Press.
2. Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India, AIR 1984 SC 802 (Supreme Court of India ...
Itsbat Nikah Terhadap Pernikahan Dibawah Umur Perspektif Mashlahah Mursalah (Studi Analisis Penetapan Nomor 4/Pdt.P/2022/PA.PP)
Itsbat Nikah Terhadap Pernikahan Dibawah Umur Perspektif Mashlahah Mursalah (Studi Analisis Penetapan Nomor 4/Pdt.P/2022/PA.PP)
The author's reason for raising this issue into a scientific work in the form of a thesis is because there are differences of opinion among judges at the Padang Panjang Religious C...
PENERAPAN SANKSI DENDA TERHADAP KASUS PERSEKONGKOLAN TENDER JALAN NASIONAL
PENERAPAN SANKSI DENDA TERHADAP KASUS PERSEKONGKOLAN TENDER JALAN NASIONAL
ABSTRAKKomisi Pengawas Persaingan Usaha (KPPU) dalam Putusan Nomor 09/KPPU-L/2013 menyatakan bahwa terlapor I, terlapor II, terlapor III, terlapor IV, terlapor V, terlapor VI, terl...
PENETAPAN PENGADILAN SEBAGAI BENTUK UPAYA HUKUM PADA PROSES EKSEKUSI
PENETAPAN PENGADILAN SEBAGAI BENTUK UPAYA HUKUM PADA PROSES EKSEKUSI
ABSTRAKPengadilan Negeri Meulaboh melalui Putusan Nomor 12/Pdt.G/2012/PN.Mbo jo. Putusan Pengadilan Negeri Banda Aceh Nomor 50/Pdt/2014/PN.Bna jo. Putusan Mahkamah Agung Nomor 651 ...
Pembagian Harta Bersama dalam Perceraian Ditinjau dari Perspektif Teori Keadilan
Pembagian Harta Bersama dalam Perceraian Ditinjau dari Perspektif Teori Keadilan
This thesis examines the Division of Joint Property in Divorce from the Perspective of Justice Theory using 2 court decisions, namely the Banjarmasin Religious Court and the Banten...
Amici Curiae Brief of Robert P. George, Sherif Girgis, and Ryan T. Anderson in Support of Hollingsworth and Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group Addressing the Merits and Supporting Reversal
Amici Curiae Brief of Robert P. George, Sherif Girgis, and Ryan T. Anderson in Support of Hollingsworth and Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group Addressing the Merits and Supporting Reversal
At stake in these cases is not who is and is not eligible to marry but what marriage is. Today’s debates offer rival answers to that question, two substantive marriage definitions....

