<![CDATA[Financial protection for women after divorce within Indonesia’s Religious Court system has undergone significant developments through Supreme Court regulations, particularly following the issuance of PERMA No. 3 of 2017 and a number of SEMA rulings that expand and strengthen protections regarding mut’ah and iddah alimony. Although previous literature has extensively discussed judges’ considerations in determining post-divorce alimony rights and amounts, there remains a limited number of studies that comprehensively explain the relationship between the expansion of substantive rights, the strengthening of procedural mechanisms, variations in judicial interpretation, and enforcement issues. This study employs a doctrinal legal research method combined with a systematic and comparative analysis of Supreme Court regulations and Religious Court rulings. The results indicate a dual transformation in post-divorce protections. On the substantive track, protection has evolved from status-based recognition of rights toward context-sensitive adjudication, including the extension of mut’ah and iddah alimony to cases of divorce by petition. On the procedural track, protection has evolved from condemnatory rulings toward the use of divorce proceedings as procedural leverage, through payments made prior to the pronouncement of divorce or before the issuance of the divorce decree. However, these two tracks do not always operate uniformly due to claim dependency, variations in judicial interpretation, and enforcement gaps. This study develops the concept of “protective judicial lawmaking” to explain these developments and analytically distinguish between progressive regulation, protective adjudication, and effective remedies. The findings indicate that existing reforms have moved toward enforcement-oriented protection but cannot yet be equated with effective enforcement without evidence of actual post-judgment compliance. Perlindungan finansial perempuan pascaperceraian dalam sistem Peradilan Agama Indonesia mengalami perkembangan penting melalui regulasi Mahkamah Agung, terutama setelah diterbitkannya PERMA Nomor 3 Tahun 2017 serta sejumlah SEMA yang memperluas dan memperkuat perlindungan terhadap mut’ah dan nafkah iddah. Meskipun literatur sebelumnya telah banyak membahas pertimbangan hakim dalam menentukan hak dan besaran nafkah pascaperceraian, masih terbatas kajian yang menjelaskan secara terpadu hubungan antara perluasan hak substantif, penguatan mekanisme prosedural, variasi penerjemahan oleh pengadilan, dan persoalan penegakan. Penelitian ini menggunakan metode penelitian hukum doktrinal yang dipadukan dengan analisis putusan secara sistematis dan komparatif terhadap regulasi Mahkamah Agung dan putusan Pengadilan Agama. Hasil penelitian menunjukkan adanya transformasi ganda perlindungan pascaperceraian. Pada lintasan substantif, perlindungan berkembang dari pengakuan hak berbasis status menuju adjudikasi yang lebih sensitif terhadap konteks, termasuk perluasan mut’ah dan nafkah iddah ke dalam cerai gugat. Pada lintasan prosedural, perlindungan berkembang dari amar condemnatoir menuju penggunaan tahapan perceraian sebagai procedural leverage, melalui pembayaran sebelum ikrar talak atau sebelum pengambilan akta cerai. Namun, kedua lintasan tersebut tidak selalu bekerja secara seragam akibat claim dependency, variasi penerjemahan yudisial, dan kesenjangan penegakan. Penelitian ini mengembangkan konsep protective judicial lawmaking untuk menjelaskan perkembangan tersebut serta membedakan secara analitis antara progressive regulation, protective adjudication, dan effective remedy. Temuan ini menunjukkan bahwa reformasi yang ada telah bergerak menuju enforcement-oriented protection, tetapi belum dapat disamakan dengan effective enforcement tanpa bukti kepatuhan aktual pascaputusan]]>
Copyrights © 2023
