@mastersthesis{digilib74636,
           month = {December},
           title = {PERBEDAAN ARGUMEN HUKUM HAKIM DALAM PERKARA PEMBATALAN PERKAWINAN POLIGAMI AKIBAT PEMALSUAN IDENTITAS},
          school = {UIN SUNAN KALIJAGA YOGYAKARTA},
          author = {NIM.: 23203012042 Monica Loenxy, S.H.},
            year = {2025},
            note = {Dr. Muhrisun, S.Ag., BSW., M.Ag., MSW.},
        keywords = {Putusan Hakim, Pembatalan Perkawinan, Ma{\d s}la{\d h}ah},
             url = {https://digilib.uin-suka.ac.id/id/eprint/74636/},
        abstract = {Differences in judges? legal reasoning in marriage annulment cases arise when judicial panels assess the formal, material, philosophical, and legal-reasoning aspects differently. This study focuses on a marriage annulment case involving polygamy based on falsified personal data, filed by the Head of the Religious Affairs Office (KUA) of Cikalongwetan District in Decision Number 794/Pdt.G/2024/PA.Nph and subsequently reviewed at the appellate level in Decision Number 226/Pdt.G/2024/PTA.Bdg. The falsification committed by Respondent I included marital status, age, and occupation to enable polygamy without obtaining the mandatory court permission. The Religious Court of Ngamprah granted the annulment, whereas the Bandung High Religious Court overturned the decision and declared the petition inadmissible on the ground that the Petitioner lacked direct legal standing. Accordingly, this study aims to analyze the judges? legal considerations and identify the factors underlying the differences in their reasoning across the two judicial levels.
This research employs a juridical-empirical approach with descriptive-analytical methods. Primary data were obtained from court decisions and interviews with judges and expert informants, while secondary data were drawn from literature and statutory regulations. The analysis centers on four key aspects formal, material, philosophical, and legal reasoning using Gustav Radbruch?s theory of legal purposes (justice, certainty, and utility) and al-Ghaz{\=a}l{\=i}?s concept of ma{\d s}la{\d h}ah (the protection of the five essential human interests).
The findings reveal significant differences in judicial reasoning. In terms of formal aspects, the Religious Court of Ngamprah interpreted Article 23 of the Marriage Law broadly, thereby accepting the Petitioner?s legal standing, whereas the Bandung High Religious Court adopted a narrow interpretation and used it as the basis to declare the petition inadmissible. Regarding material aspects, the Ngamprah court viewed the falsification of identity as a legal defect warranting annulment, while the appellate court considered the erroneous data correctable through administrative procedures without annulling the marriage. Philosophically, Ngamprah prioritized legal certainty and administrative order, whereas the appellate court emphasized family protection, the welfare of children, and broader social benefit. In legal reasoning, Ngamprah applied a grammatical-systematic approach, while the appellate court employed teleological-sociological interpretation. From the perspective of legal purpose and ma{\d s}la{\d h}ah, Ngamprah emphasized legal certainty and ma{\d s}la{\d h}ah ?{\=a}mmah by prioritizing {\d h}if{\d z} al-ni{\d z}{\=a}m, while the appellate court prioritized substantive justice and ma{\d s}la{\d h}ah kh{\=a}{\d s}{\d s}ah, focusing on the protection of {\d h}if{\d z} al-nafs, {\d h}if{\d z} al-?ir{\d d}, and {\d h}if{\d z} al-m{\=a}l.}
}