The Legal Vacuum Of Interreligious Marriage In Indonesia: The Study Of Judges’ Consideration In Interreligious Marriage Court Decisions 2010 -2021

• Published in: Prophetic Law Review Vol. 4; no. 2; pp. 177 - 194
• Main Authors: Noormansyah, Andra, Sanjaya, Umar Haris
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Universitas Islam Indonesia 01.01.2023
• Subjects: court decision; interreligious marriage; legal vacuum; not emphasized
• ISSN: 2686-2379; 2686-3464
• DOI: 10.20885/PLR.vol4.iss2.art3

There are a legal vacuum and contradictory provisions in the Marriage Law, which states that it is not permissible for an Indonesian citizen to have an interreligious marriage. It has been requested for judicial review through the Decision of the Constitutional Court No. 68/PUU-XII/2014. Article 2 paragraph (1) of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage stated that marriage is legitimate if the parties concerned have similar religions and beliefs. Moreover, it has become more obvious through judicial review of the Decision on Indonesian Constitutional Court Number 68/PUU-XII/2014, which decided that Article 2 paragraph (1) Law No. 1 of 1974 which amendment by Law No. 16 of 2019 required similarity in religions and beliefs of the marriage concerned parties are not necessary to do a judicial review. On interfaith marriage, the application proved that the judge on the district court’s decisions stated that Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage is not regulated, not emphasized, and not containing regulation of any sort about interfaith marriage. It’s proven in most judges’ court considerations of interreligious marriage around 2010 – 2021. This study takes two research formulations such as how a legal vacuum in interreligious marriage happens and how the judges in the court consider the law of interreligious marriage. This research uses a normative method which uses a conceptual and law approach. This research results that judges always consider interreligious marriages as a legal vacuum, it happened because the law that marriages do not clearly determine textually in law no. 1 of 1974. Therefore, even if clarified by Constitutional Court is clearly but practically interpreter different by judges in district court.