<![CDATA[This study is motivated by the ambiguity of the phrase “very urgent reasons” in Article 7(2) of Law Number 16 of 2019 amending Law Number 1 of 1974 on Marriage. Although the official elucidation defines the phrase as a situation in which there is no other option and marriage must be conducted under compelling circumstances, it does not provide clear legal parameters. This ambiguity may result in differences in judicial interpretation, inconsistent decisions, and legal uncertainty. This study examines: (1) how judges interpret the phrase “very urgent reasons”; (2) factors influencing differences in judicial interpretation in granting or rejecting marriage dispensation applications; and (3) the legal implications for legal certainty and child protection. This study employs normative legal research using statutory, case, and conceptual approaches. Primary and secondary legal materials were analyzed qualitatively using grammatical, authentic, historical, sociological, and teleological interpretation, as well as the theory of legal discovery (rechtsvinding). The results indicate that judges apply different interpretive methods, leading to disparities in decisions. Some applications are granted based on pregnancy or premarital relationships, while others are rejected to prioritize the best interests of the child. Therefore, clearer legal parameters and uniform judicial guidelines are needed to ensure legal certainty while prioritizing child protection.]]>
