This study examines the application of the contra legem principle in the adjudication of joint property disputes within both Religious and General Courts in Indonesia, focusing on three landmark decisions: No. 283/Pdt.G/2017/PA Mtr, No. 42/Pdt.G/2015/PTA Jk, and No. 1710 K/Pdt/2020. Employing a qualitative library research method, the analysis draws upon primary legal sources—court decisions and statutory regulations—as well as secondary literature including legal texts and academic journals. Data collection was conducted through document analysis, and data validation employed source triangulation. The findings reveal that judges in Religious Courts tend to apply the contra legem principle through a combination of legal reasoning, judicial prudence, jurisprudence, and ijtihad to achieve substantive justice, particularly in cases 283/Pdt.G/2017/PA Mtr and 42/Pdt.G/2015/PTA Jk. Similarly, in General Court case 1710 K/Pdt/2020, judges refer to the Compilation of Islamic Law while still incorporating ijtihad-based considerations. Across both jurisdictions, judges rely on established jurisprudence, the Qur'an and Sunnah, and contextual interpretation to ensure fairness in joint property disputes—even in cases involving non-Muslim parties. This study highlights the dynamic interplay between statutory law and judicial interpretation in resolving family law conflicts.
Putra et al. (Wed,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: