@phdthesis{digilib76927,
           month = {May},
           title = {LEGAL REASONING HAKIM DALAM PENYELESAIAN PERKARA IZIN POLIGAMI (STUDI PUTUSAN TERHADAP PERTIMBANGAN HUKUM DI PENGADILAN AGAMA SLEMAN TAHUN 2024)},
          school = {UIN SUNAN KALIJAGA YOGYAKARTA},
          author = {NIM.: 22103040162 Lalita Hidayati},
            year = {2026},
            note = {Taufiqurohman, M.H.},
        keywords = {Legal Reasoning, Ratio Decidendi, Izin Poligami},
             url = {https://digilib.uin-suka.ac.id/id/eprint/76927/},
        abstract = {Applications for polygamy permits are complex legal and social matters, as they involve the protection of the wife's rights, the interests of the family, and the application of the principle of justice in Indonesian marriage law. In practice, judges are guided not only by the normative provisions of Law Number 1 of 1974 concerning Marriage and the Compilation of Islamic Law, but also by constructing legal reasoning based on trial facts, evidence, and the concrete circumstances of the parties. The differences in decisions, whether applications for polygamy permits are granted or denied, indicate the existence of specific patterns of legal reasoning that are interesting to analyze.
This study aims to determine the legal reasoning structure developed by judges at the Sleman Religious Court in examining and deciding polygamy permit applications in 2024, and to analyze the pattern of legal reasoning (ratio decidendi) that forms the basis for distinguishing between granted and rejected decisions. This study uses a normative juridical method with a statutory, case-based, and comparative approach. Data were obtained through legislation, court decision studies, and literature review. Data collected through copies of judges' decisions were then analyzed descriptively and analytically.
The results of the study, conducted in the Sleman Religious Court's polygamy permit case in 2024, show that the judges' legal reasoning in polygamy permit cases is not merely mechanical and textual, but also dynamic and casuistic, applied through three stages of legal syllogism: constitutive, qualifying, and constitutive. The judges' ratio decidendi pattern demonstrates the application of three approaches that produce differences. The granted decision relied on the dominant force of cumulative conditions, overriding the rigidity of alternative conditions, leading the judge to apply rechtsvinding and the contra legem principle (a substantive justice and public interest approach). The rejected decision used the legism approach and legal certainty due to weak evidence for cumulative conditions. The revoked decision used a functional approach, with the court acting as the functional gatekeeper of the household. Thus, the primary distinguishing factor in polygamy permit decisions lies not in differences in legal norms, but in the evidence for cumulative conditions, namely the applicant's economic capacity and the validity of the first wife's consent.}
}