<![CDATA[The existence of customary law is constitutionally guaranteed under Article 18B, paragraph (2), of the 1945 Constitution. However, within the normative framework of customary inheritance, Lampung practices remain entangled in the rigidity of a discriminatory patrilineal system. This system leads to the absolute centralization of hereditary estates to the eldest son (anak tuha), creating a normative antinomy to the constitutional principle of equality. This study employs a doctrinal approach to analyze the constitutional and structural defects within Lampung customary inheritance law, dissect the normative factors driving gender inequality, and formulate a new theoretical framework for asset distribution based on substantive justice. Employing statutory, conceptual, and philosophical approaches, this study analyzes regional customary codifications in light of national constitutional mandates. The results indicate a profound normative disharmony between the constitutional ideal of equality and the rigid unwritten norms of male primogeniture. To resolve this conflict, this study offers a theoretical breakthrough by normatively reinterpreting the life philosophy of Piil Pesenggiri. This philosophy is reconstructed through Satjipto Rahardjo’s progressive law paradigm as an inclusive moral-legal norm to protect material rights, rather than a textual tool to legitimize the centralization of wealth. As a conceptual output, this formulation produces a dynamic “rights-dichotomy model” and proposes a normative institutional framework for a Customary Mediation Body. This proposed model harmonizes Lampung customary inheritance within the national legal pluralism system, offering a structured conceptual recommendation that ensures legal protection for both daughters and non-successor sons.]]>
