PERJANJIAN DALAM PERKAWINAN MENURUT PUTUSAN MAHKAMAH KONSTITUSI RI NO. 69/PUU-XIII/2015 DAN PENETAPAN PENGADILAN NEGERI TANGERANG NO.269/PEN.PDT.P/2015/PN.TNG

V. Abigail, Abdul Gan Abdulilah
{"title":"PERJANJIAN DALAM PERKAWINAN MENURUT PUTUSAN MAHKAMAH KONSTITUSI RI NO. 69/PUU-XIII/2015 DAN PENETAPAN PENGADILAN NEGERI TANGERANG NO.269/PEN.PDT.P/2015/PN.TNG","authors":"V. Abigail, Abdul Gan Abdulilah","doi":"10.24912/ADIGAMA.V2I1.5281","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"According to the Marriage Law Article 29 the marriage agreement is made before or at the time of marriage. But in October 2016 the Constitutional Court passed verdict No.69 / PUU-XIII / 2015 as a material test of Article 29 of the Marriage Law which with the ruling of the constitutional court the marriage agreement can be made before, at the time of marriage, even throughout the marriage. However, before the constitutional court issued the verdict, the Tangerang District Court issued a ruling stipulating the marriage agreement throughout the marriage, namely the decision No. 269 / PEN.PDT.P / 2015 / PN.TNG which the parties were mixed marriages couple. The problem discussed is what the judge considers in deciding the marriage agreement when there is no provision that the marriage agreement can be made throughout the marriage. The legal research method used is a normative research method. Based on the research’s result, the judge granted and stipulated the marriage agreement based on the Marriage Law Article 4 which states that the marriage agreement is possible to be changed as long as there is agreement between the two parties and does not harm the third party In conclusion, the judge did not decide in accordance with the law regulating at the time. The suggestion is that it is expected that the judge as a law enforcer can make a decision in accordance with the law regulating at that time. Because ideally the judge's decision must contain justice, legal certainty, and expediency.","PeriodicalId":206816,"journal":{"name":"Jurnal Hukum Adigama","volume":"132 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-07-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Jurnal Hukum Adigama","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.24912/ADIGAMA.V2I1.5281","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

According to the Marriage Law Article 29 the marriage agreement is made before or at the time of marriage. But in October 2016 the Constitutional Court passed verdict No.69 / PUU-XIII / 2015 as a material test of Article 29 of the Marriage Law which with the ruling of the constitutional court the marriage agreement can be made before, at the time of marriage, even throughout the marriage. However, before the constitutional court issued the verdict, the Tangerang District Court issued a ruling stipulating the marriage agreement throughout the marriage, namely the decision No. 269 / PEN.PDT.P / 2015 / PN.TNG which the parties were mixed marriages couple. The problem discussed is what the judge considers in deciding the marriage agreement when there is no provision that the marriage agreement can be made throughout the marriage. The legal research method used is a normative research method. Based on the research’s result, the judge granted and stipulated the marriage agreement based on the Marriage Law Article 4 which states that the marriage agreement is possible to be changed as long as there is agreement between the two parties and does not harm the third party In conclusion, the judge did not decide in accordance with the law regulating at the time. The suggestion is that it is expected that the judge as a law enforcer can make a decision in accordance with the law regulating at that time. Because ideally the judge's decision must contain justice, legal certainty, and expediency.
《宪法》第五条裁定的婚姻协议。- = tlf字幕组= -翻译
根据《婚姻法》第二十九条的规定,婚约是在结婚前或者结婚时订立的。但在2016年10月,宪法法院通过了第69 / PUU-XIII / 2015号判决,作为对《婚姻法》第29条的实质性检验,根据宪法法院的裁决,婚姻协议可以在结婚前,结婚时,甚至整个婚姻期间达成。然而,在宪法法院发布判决之前,坦格朗地方法院发布了一项规定婚姻协议贯穿整个婚姻的裁决,即第269 / PEN.PDT.P / 2015 / PN号决定。双方都是跨国婚姻。本文讨论的问题是,在没有规定婚姻协议可以在整个婚姻期间订立的情况下,法官在决定婚姻协议时应考虑什么。所使用的法律研究方法是一种规范研究方法。根据研究结果,法官依据《婚姻法》第四条规定的“只要双方有协议,且不损害第三人利益,就可以变更婚姻协议”,对婚姻协议进行了认定和规定。由此可见,法官并没有按照当时的法律规定作出判决。建议是,希望作为执法者的法官能够根据当时的法律规范做出决定。因为理想情况下,法官的判决必须包含公正、法律确定性和权宜之计。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信