Measuring Ex Officio Judge Rights and Application of the Ultra Petitum Partium Principle in Deciding Cases in Religious Courts

Abstract

The judge carries out the authority to try based on independent judicial power. Judges in examining cases are guided by, among other things, two things: making decisions based on applicable laws and regulations and being obliged to explore the values that live in society. The procedural law of the religious courts also originates from the civil procedural law, which applies to general courts. One of the distinctive characteristics of civil cases is the judge's restriction not to grant the petitum of a lawsuit that was not requested by the plaintiff (ultra petitum partium). The threat to the ban on the use of the ultra petitum partium principle is that the decision is declared null and void. On the other hand, in practice, judges at religious courts often use ex officio rights to decide something that was not requested by the plaintiff, not even limited to that; instead, the judge adds a ruling that benefits the defendant. This often occurs in examinations of cases of marital dissolution filed by the husband (cerai talak) or by the wife (cerai gugat), and in some cases, it also occurs in claims for the division of joint assets in a marriage. The judge's consideration of using ex officio rights and going beyond ultra petitum partium is to provide balance in court decisions. In addition, it is also based on the concepts of justice and benefit. The application of ex officio rights by judges needs to be explained in laws and regulations. This is to guarantee legal certainty and the understanding of judges and justice seekers so that limiting the use of rights officio, does not conflict with the principle of ultra petitum partium.