{"title":"Legal Effects of the Constitutional Court's Ruling Against Marital Agreement in Mixed Marriages","authors":"Maulidia Mulyani","doi":"10.14421/ajish.v56i2.660","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":": Prior to the issuance of the Constitutional Court (MK) decision Number 69/PUU-XIII/2015, some mixed-marriage couples complained about the state policy that does not allow mixed-marriage couples to own assets, both in the form of building use rights (HGB) and business use rights (HGU). This article examines a marriage agreement made by a mixed marriage couple, namely Indonesian and foreign couples after the Constitutional Court decision Number 69/PUU-XIII/2015. The fundamental issues that is the focus of this article is how is the legal impact of the Constitutional Court Decision Number 69/PUU-XIII/2015 on marriage agreements in mixed marriages? The following findings were obtained using a juridical-normative approach and utilizing Gustav Radburch's theory of the legal purpose: first, after the Constitutional Court decision the perpetrators of mixed marriages had a looser time to make a marriage agreement. They can agree before the marriage contract or during the marriage bond. Second, a marriage agreement made during the marriage period will be valid the moment after it is made, and the separation of the joint property of both parties can immediately follow it. Third, when viewed from the theory of Gustav Radburch's legal objectives, the Constitutional Court Decision has fulfilled the purpose of making law: the realization of justice, certainty, and legal expediency. However, on the other hand, the Constitutional Court ruling has also put third parties in a vulnerable position.","PeriodicalId":138405,"journal":{"name":"Asy-Syir'ah: Jurnal Ilmu Syari'ah dan Hukum","volume":"97 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-06-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Asy-Syir'ah: Jurnal Ilmu Syari'ah dan Hukum","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.14421/ajish.v56i2.660","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
: Prior to the issuance of the Constitutional Court (MK) decision Number 69/PUU-XIII/2015, some mixed-marriage couples complained about the state policy that does not allow mixed-marriage couples to own assets, both in the form of building use rights (HGB) and business use rights (HGU). This article examines a marriage agreement made by a mixed marriage couple, namely Indonesian and foreign couples after the Constitutional Court decision Number 69/PUU-XIII/2015. The fundamental issues that is the focus of this article is how is the legal impact of the Constitutional Court Decision Number 69/PUU-XIII/2015 on marriage agreements in mixed marriages? The following findings were obtained using a juridical-normative approach and utilizing Gustav Radburch's theory of the legal purpose: first, after the Constitutional Court decision the perpetrators of mixed marriages had a looser time to make a marriage agreement. They can agree before the marriage contract or during the marriage bond. Second, a marriage agreement made during the marriage period will be valid the moment after it is made, and the separation of the joint property of both parties can immediately follow it. Third, when viewed from the theory of Gustav Radburch's legal objectives, the Constitutional Court Decision has fulfilled the purpose of making law: the realization of justice, certainty, and legal expediency. However, on the other hand, the Constitutional Court ruling has also put third parties in a vulnerable position.