Judicial Discretion and Legal Certainty in Marriage Dispensation: A Normative Analysis of Supreme Court Regulation No. 5 of 2019 Implementation in Indonesian Religious Courts

Abstract

Background: As part of efforts to protect young people and reduce underage marriage, the legal marriage age was raised to 19 for everyone under Law No. 16 of 2019. This regulatory change has, in fact, led to a surge in requests for exemptions within the judicial system, raising questions about its overall impact. Although the Supreme Court has intervened with the Supreme Court Regulation (PERMA) No. 5 of 2019 to provide guidelines for judges, differing viewpoints in court rulings continue to undermine legal consistency.

Objective: This research investigates the judicial reasoning behind the approval of marriage exceptions under PERMA Number 5 of 2019 and what it signifies for the predictable and consistent application of Law Number 16 of 2019.

Methods: The methodology for this research relies on normative legal studies, utilizing case, conceptual, and statutory approaches. It gathers foundational evidence from primary instruments like Law Number 16 of 2019, PERMA Number 5 of 2019, and judicial decisions, alongside secondary data from legal doctrines, journals, and books. To evaluate the information, a qualitative analysis was conducted to compare legal standards against their implementation.

Results: Findings identify three dominant judicial reasoning patterns: pregnancy-based considerations (most frequent), family pressure, and economic hardship. Although PERMA emphasizes child welfare, its application is inconsistent, resulting in disparities in court decisions.

Conclusion: The study shows a gap between normative regulation and judicial practice, which weakens legal certainty. It proposes strengthening the binding force of PERMA No. 5 of 2019 to improve consistency and child protection outcomes.