PERTIMBANGAN HAKIM PENGADILAN AGAMA BANTUL DALAM PUTUSAN DISPENSASI KAWIN ANAK SEBAGAI IMPLEMENTASI PERLINDUNGAN HAK KONSTITUSIONAL ANAK

Ahmad Sirojuddin Hakim, NIM.: 22103070108 (2026) PERTIMBANGAN HAKIM PENGADILAN AGAMA BANTUL DALAM PUTUSAN DISPENSASI KAWIN ANAK SEBAGAI IMPLEMENTASI PERLINDUNGAN HAK KONSTITUSIONAL ANAK. Skripsi thesis, UIN SUNAN KALIJAGA YOGYAKARTA.

Preview	Text (PERTIMBANGAN HAKIM PENGADILAN AGAMA BANTUL DALAM PUTUSAN DISPENSASI KAWIN ANAK SEBAGAI IMPLEMENTASI PERLINDUNGAN HAK KONSTITUSIONAL ANAK) 22103070108_BAB-I_IV-atau-V_DAFTAR-PUSTAKA.pdf - Published Version Download (9MB) | Preview
	Text (PERTIMBANGAN HAKIM PENGADILAN AGAMA BANTUL DALAM PUTUSAN DISPENSASI KAWIN ANAK SEBAGAI IMPLEMENTASI PERLINDUNGAN HAK KONSTITUSIONAL ANAK) 22103070108_BAB-II_sampai_SEBELUM-BAB-TERAKHIR.pdf - Published Version Restricted to Registered users only Download (14MB) | Request a copy

Abstract

Child marriage is an issue that not only relates to family law but also concerns the protection of children's constitutional rights as guaranteed by the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia. Although Law Number 16 of 2019 has increased the minimum marriage age to 19 years for both men and women, the practice of child marriage still occurs through the mechanism of marriage dispensation granted by the courts. In this context, judges, as executors of judicial power, play an important role in determining whether the granting of marriage dispensation is in accordance with the protection of children's constitutional rights. This study aims to analyze the construction of judges' legal reasoning in child marriage dispensation decisions at the Bantul Religious Court in 2020 and to examine its conformity with the state's constitutional obligation to protect children's constitutional rights. This research is a normative legal study employing a case approach. The primary data consist of ten child marriage dispensation decisions issued by the Bantul Religious Court in 2020, selected through purposive sampling. The analysis is conducted using the theory of judges as state actors proposed by Jimly Asshiddiqie and the State Obligation Theory developed by Henry Shue and Manfred Nowak, which includes the obligations to respect, protect, and fulfill human rights. The findings reveal that the judges' legal reasoning in child marriage dispensation cases is constructed through a combination of juridical, sociological, and philosophical considerations. Juridical considerations are based on Law Number 16 of 2019 on Marriage, Supreme Court Regulation Number 5 of 2019 concerning Guidelines for Adjudicating Marriage Dispensation Applications, and legal provisions regarding child protection. Sociological considerations are predominantly influenced by premarital pregnancy, close relationships between prospective spouses, family consent, and the readiness of the applicants for marriage. Philosophical considerations are directed toward preventing harm, promoting public benefit (maslahah), preserving family dignity, and ensuring legal certainty. Based on the theory of judges as state actors, judges have performed the state's function through the exercise of judicial power and the provision of legal protection to the parties involved. Furthermore, based on the State Obligation Theory, the judges' legal reasoning generally conforms to the state's obligations to respect, protect, and fulfill children's constitutional rights. However, this study finds that the protection of children's constitutional rights through marriage dispensation decisions tends to remain reactive.

Share this knowledge with your friends :

Actions (login required)

View Item