Reconstructing Ex Officio Authority in Hadhanah Determination: Balancing Ultra Petita and the Best Interests of the Child under SEMA No. 1 of 2025

Syahril Anwar; Rudi Apriandi; Bagus Wahyuda Utama; Rayhan Putra Anugrah

doi:10.24952/el-thawalib.v7i5.21285

Reconstructing Ex Officio Authority in Hadhanah Determination: Balancing Ultra Petita and the Best Interests of the Child under SEMA No. 1 of 2025

Syahril Anwar - Universitas Islam Negeri Sultan Syarif Kasim Riau, Indonesia

Rudi Apriandi* - Universitas Islam Negeri Sultan Syarif Kasim Riau, Indonesia

Bagus Wahyuda Utama - Universitas Islam Negeri Sumatra Utara, Indonesia

Rayhan Putra Anugrah - Universitas Cokroaminoto Yogyakrta, Indonesia

Abstract

The determination of hadhanah in divorce proceedings raises a legal issue when custody is not requested by the parties, while the trial facts indicate that a custody ruling is necessary to protect the best interests of the child. This study asks how Supreme Court Circular Letter (SEMA) No. 1 of 2025 reconstructs the relationship between ultra petita and the judge’s ex officio authority, and what limits apply to that authority when custody has not been requested. It aims to formulate a model for exercising ex officio authority that balances ultra petita and the best interests of the child. This normative legal research uses a statutory approach and a conceptual approach. The primary materials are legislation, the Compilation of Islamic Law, and the SEMAs; the secondary materials are books, journals, and research findings. They were collected through library research and analyzed qualitatively using descriptive-analytical and prescriptive methods. The results show that SEMA No. 1 of 2025 does not abolish ultra petita, but reconstructs its relationship with ex officio authority. The SEMA is a judicial policy instrument, so the authority must be anchored in the HIR/RBg, the statutory consequences of divorce, and child protection law. The reconstruction yields a model of limited, conditional, fact-based, and accountable judicial discretion with three layers of parameters: jurisdictional (divorce proceedings), procedural (no hadhanah claim, no agreement between the parties, and relevant facts established at trial), and substantive (the determination is necessary in the best interests of the child). Legal certainty and the right to be heard are protected through foreseeable conditions, notice and hearing of the parents, the child’s voice, and reasoned decisions. Constructed scenarios illustrate the model, which is not empirically validated against decisions.

Keywords

Ex Officio, Ultra Petita, Hadhanah, Substantive Justice, Best Interests Of The Child.

Full Text:

PDF

References

Afkariah, Mutia Diliana, Ikhwan Hamdani, and Ade Irma Imamah. “Efektivitas Implementasi Perma Dan Sema Tentang Perceraian Dan Nafkah Anak Di Pengadilan Agama Cibinong Kelas Ia.” Bustanul Fuqaha: Jurnal Bidang Hukum Islam 7, no. 2 (2026): 273–89. https://doi.org/10.36701/bustanul.v7i2.3190.

Agusta, Lunggi, and Athina Kartika Sari. “Analisis Hukum Atas Kepentingan Terbaik Bagi Anak Dalam Penetapan Hadhanah Anak Di Bawah 12 Tahun.” Cessie: Jurnal Ilmiah Hukum 3, no. 4 (2025): 130–55.

Aisyi, Rahazatul, Riyan Ramdani, and Ahmad Maula Hadi. “Perlindungan Hak Anak Pasca Perceraian Melalui Kewenangan Ex Officio Hakim Dalam Perspektif Best Interest of the Child.” As-Syar’i: Jurnal Bimbingan & Konseling Keluarga 8 (2026): 669–83. https://doi.org/10.47476/assyari.v8i2.11943.

Alamsyah, Asrianti Sukirman, Oyo Sunaryo Mukhlas, and Aden Rosadi. “Islamic Judicial Activism in Determining Child Maintenance: Ex Officio Authority and Peaceful Settlement in Indonesian Religious Courts.” Al-Istinbath: Jurnal Hukum Islam 10, no. 2 (2025): 671–99. https://doi.org/10.29240/jhi.v10i2.12755.

Alfikri, Ahmad Faiz Shobir, Maziya Rahma Wahda, Ahmad Zulfi Wahyudi, and M. Azam Rahmatullah. “Dari Ultra Petita ke Ex Officio: Reorientasi Kewenangan Hakim dalam Penetapan Hadhanah Pasca SEMA Nomor 1 Tahun 2025.” Journal of Islamic Law and Wisdom 2, no. 1 (2026): 41–60. https://doi.org/10.30983/jilaw.v1i1.11103.

Ali, Moh. “Measuring Ex Offico Judge Righta and Application of the Ultra Petitum Partium Principiple in Deciding Cases in Religious Courts.” Journal of Law and Legal Reform 5, no. 1 (2024): 383–408.

Al Pani, Muhammad, Miftahus Sholehuddin, and Noorjehan Safia Niaz. “Implementation of Ex Officio Rights of Judges of the Kediri District Religious Court: An Analysis of Non-Cumulation of Divorce and Child Custody Rights.” Jurnal Mahkamah : Kajian Ilmu Hukum Dan Hukum Islam 8, no. 2 (2023): 163–74. https://doi.org/10.25217/jm.v8i2.4119.

Amina, Siti, and Sri Lum’atus Sa’adah. “Operasionalisasi Prinsip The Best Interest Of The Child Dalam Putusan Ex Officio: Studi Harmonisasi Fikih Klasik Dan Psikologi Kontemporer.” Rausyan Fikr Journal 5, no. 1 (2026): 1–10.

Anam, Khairul, and Jamiliya Susantin. “Ex Officio Authority of Judges in Divorce Suit Decisions: An Analyis of Article 41 of Law Number 1 of 1974 on Marriage in the Pamekasan Religious Court.” Hakam : Jurnal Kajian Hukum Islam Dan Hukum Ekonomi Islam 10, no. 1 (2026): 215–32. https://doi.org/10.33650/jhi.v10i1.14592.

Ase, Muhammad Fadhly. “Ex-Officio Rights of the Judges in Signating the Holder of Currency: Hadhanah in Directions of Divorce at the Religious Court as an Efforts of Legal Protection and Administration of Legal Certainity for Children.” International Journal of Nusantara Islam 7, no. 2 (2019): 252–60.

Budi, Kukuh Pramono, Ghansham Anand, Shintya Yulfa Septiningrum, Nur Ezan Rahmat, and Xavier Nugraha. “Adjudicating Joint Property Dispute in Islamic Jurisprudence: Balancing the Best Interests of the Child With a Focus on Residency.” Syariah: Jurnal Hukum Dan Pemikiran 23, no. 2 (2023): 245–66. https://doi.org/10.18592/sjhp.v23i2.12278.

Convention on the Rights of the Child. Ratified by Keputusan Presiden Republik Indonesia Nomor 36 Tahun 1990.

Fadhli, Risma Safitri. “Putusan Ultra Petitum Partium Perkara Perdata Ditinjau Dari Pasal 178 Ayat (3) HIR (Studi Kasus Putusan Nomor 445/Pdt.G/2018/PA. Kab. Mn).” Jurnal Hukum Magnum Opus 4, no. 1 (2021): 81–92.

Firdawaty, Linda, Siti Mahmudah, and Rozana Isa. “The Implementation of Dwangsom in the Execution of Hadhanah Matters and Its Relationship to the Ultra Petita Basis.” Jurnal Mahkamah : Kajian Ilmu Hukum Dan Hukum Islam 8, no. 2 (2023): 203–14. https://doi.org/10.25217/jm.v8i2.3648.

Hasna Putri, Nabila, Palmawati Tahir, and Muhamad Muslih. “Konsistensi Hukum Hadhanah Di Indonesia: Studi Yuridis Normatif Terhadap Putusan Pengadilan.” Qanun: Jurnal Hukum Keluarga Islam 1, no. 2 (2023): 111. https://doi.org/10.51825/qanun.v1i2.24727.

Hasriyanti, Mulyadi Golap, and Akhmad Faqih Mursid. “Batas Kewenangan Hakim Dalam Rekonstruksi Gugatan Perdata: Antara Asas Hakim Pasif Dan Independensi Kekuasaan Kehakiman Dalam Sengketa Tanah.” Datuk Sulaiman Law Review DalRev 3, no. 1 (2022): 43–50.

Herzien Inlandsch Reglement (HIR). Staatsblad 1941 No. 44.

Instruksi Presiden Republik Indonesia Nomor 1 Tahun 1991 tentang Penyebarluasan Kompilasi Hukum Islam.

Kadarisman, Achmad, Alfarid Fedro, and Zainal Arifin. “Best Interest of the Child in Islamic Family Law: Integrating Maqāṣid Al-Sharīʿah and Double Movement Theory in Ḥaḍānah Cases.” Jurnal Al-Dustur 8, no. 2 (2025): 145–62. https://doi.org/10.30863/aldustur.v8i2.10459.

Kholidiya, Sunniyatul, and M. Amir Mahmud. “Analisis Putusan Hak Asuh Anak Pasca Perceraian Dalam Perspektif Hukum Keluarga Islam.” IJILE: International Journal of Islamic Law and Economics 1, no. 1 (2026): 36–49.

Mahkamah Agung Republik Indonesia. Surat Edaran Mahkamah Agung Nomor 1 Tahun 2025 tentang Pemberlakuan Hasil Rumusan Rapat Pleno Kamar Mahkamah Agung Tahun 2025 sebagai Pedoman Pelaksanaan Tugas bagi Pengadilan. 30 December 2025.

Mahkamah Agung Republik Indonesia. Surat Edaran Mahkamah Agung Nomor 3 Tahun 2015 tentang Pemberlakuan Hasil Rumusan Rapat Pleno Kamar Mahkamah Agung Tahun 2015 sebagai Pedoman Pelaksanaan Tugas bagi Pengadilan.

Mahkamah Agung Republik Indonesia. Surat Edaran Mahkamah Agung Nomor 3 Tahun 2018 tentang Pemberlakuan Hasil Rumusan Rapat Pleno Kamar Mahkamah Agung Tahun 2018 sebagai Pedoman Pelaksanaan Tugas bagi Pengadilan.

Mubaroq, Afif, Jumni Nelli, and Zulikromi Zulikromi. “Child Custody Contest : Islamic Jurisprudence and Indonesian Positive Law on Remarried Mothers” 6, no. 1 (2026): 85–95.

Munthe, Iqbal Pinayungan, and Nursania Dasopang. “Konsep Hadhanah Dalam Hukum Islam Dan Implementasinya Dalam Kompilasi Hukum Islam Di Indonesia.” Journal of Legal, Political, and Humanistic Inquiry 1, no. 3 (2026): 307–17. https://doi.org/10.65310/t91a3c45.

Musfa, De, Nurul Huda, and Ahmad Syaufi. “Asas Ultra Petita Dalam Perspektif Keadilan.” Jurnal Pendidikan Tambusai 8, no. 2 (2024).

Naswa, Aksa Arobi, Yernati Ulfazah, Putri Hasmanita, and Al Kausar. “Between Normative Provisions and Social Reality: The Implementation of Child Custody Under Article 105 of the Indonesian Compilation of Islamic Law in Sialang Munggu, Pekanbaru.” USRIYYĀT: Indonesian Journal of Islamic Family Law 1, no. 1 (2026): 59–77. https://doi.org/10.66277/uijifla.1.1.5.

Nisa, Adila Syaidatun, Fitria Adzuhri Mahyudin, Tufatul Kholisoh, Muhammad Hapipi Roif, Rafli Ramdan, and Ahmad Fahrul Fauji. “Rekonstruksi Hak Hadhanah Dalam Hukum Keluarga Islam: Analisis Yuridis Pemberian Hak Asuh Anak Kepada Ayah Pasca Perceraian.” Journal of Legal, Political, and Humanistic Inquiry 1, no. 3 (2026): 171–79. https://doi.org/10.65310/4bbczr85.

Nursobah, Asep. “Kaidah-Kaidah Hukum Rumusan Kamar yang Diubah.” Kepaniteraan Mahkamah Agung, 4 April 2026. https://kepaniteraan.mahkamahagung.go.id/id/artikel-hukum/2951-kaidah-kaidah-hukum-rumusan-kamar-yang-diubah-asep-nursobah.

Nursobah, Asep. “Sah! MA Berlakukan 24 Rumusan Kamar Hasil Pleno Kamar 2025 sebagai Pedoman Pelaksanaan Tugas Pengadilan.” Kepaniteraan Mahkamah Agung, 2 January 2026. https://kepaniteraan.mahkamahagung.go.id/id/registry-news/2856-sah-ma-berlakukan-24-rumusan-kamar-hasil-pleno-kamar-2025-sebagai-pedoman-pelaksanaan-tugas-pengadilan.

Putra, Hendra Catur. “Kedudukan SEMA Dalam Sistem Hierarki Perundang-Undangan Di Indonesia.” ELQONUN: Jurnal Hukum Ketatanegaraan 1, no. 2 (2023): 130–43. https://doi.org/10.19109/elqonun.v1i2.21727.

Putri, Viorizza Suciani, Sonny Dewi Judiasih, and Hazar Kusmayanti. “The Best Interest of the Child in Islamic Family Law: Declarative and Enforceable Custody Protection in Indonesia and Malaysia.” International Journal of Nusantara Islam 14, no. 1 (2026): 273–90. https://doi.org/10.15575/ijni.v14i1.54393.

Rechtsreglement voor de Buitengewesten (RBg). Staatsblad 1927 No. 227.

Rihdo, Maulana, Ishaq Maulana Sudur, Ahsandy Ramadhan Suardi, Satriya Pamungkas, and Fauziyah Putri Meilinda. “Kedudukan Surat Edaran Mahkamah Agung (SEMA) Dalam Perspektif Akademisi: Kekuatan Hukum, Ketetapan Dan Konsistensi, Pengaruh Terhadap Putusan Hukum.” USRAH: Jurnal Hukum Keluarga Islam 4, no. 2 (2023): 230–40. https://doi.org/10.46773/usrah.v4i2.791.

Saraswati, Rika. “Accommodating the ‘Best Interests of the Child’ in Custody Disputes in the Indonesian System/s of Family Law.” International Journal of Law, Policy and the Family 35, no. 1 (2021): ebab011. https://doi.org/10.1093/lawfam/ebab011.

Sururie, Ramdani Wahyu, and Fahadil Amin Al Hasan. “Pelaksanaan Pemeriksaan Setempat (Descente) Pada Perkara Hak Asuh Anak.” Jurnal Yudisial 15, no. 2 (2023): 187–205. https://doi.org/10.29123/jy.v15i2.500.

Undang-Undang Republik Indonesia Nomor 1 Tahun 1974 tentang Perkawinan.

Undang-Undang Republik Indonesia Nomor 12 Tahun 2011 tentang Pembentukan Peraturan Perundang-undangan.

Undang-Undang Republik Indonesia Nomor 14 Tahun 1985 tentang Mahkamah Agung.

Undang-Undang Republik Indonesia Nomor 35 Tahun 2014 tentang Perubahan atas Undang-Undang Nomor 23 Tahun 2002 tentang Perlindungan Anak.

Undang-Undang Republik Indonesia Nomor 48 Tahun 2009 tentang Kekuasaan Kehakiman.

Wulandari, Yudha Sri. “Nafkah Madhiyah Anak Pasca Perceraian: Studi Komparatif Hukum Perdata Dan Hukum Islam Di Indonesia.” The Juris 10, no. 1 (2026): 1–8. https://doi.org/10.56301/juris.v10i1.2246.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.24952/el-thawalib.v7i5.21285