A Measuring Justice and Child Protection: A Juridical Study of Marriage Dispensation After the Enactment of Law Number 16 of 2019

Abstract

Research Objective: This study evaluates the normative framework governing marriage dispensation in Indonesia after Law Number 16 of 2019 raised the minimum marriage age to 19 for both sexes, and assesses the adequacy of judicial reasoning in relation to the best interests of the child standard. Research Method: A normative juridical (doctrinal) design was employed, drawing on statutory and conceptual approaches. Primary materials include Law Number 16 of 2019, Law Number 35 of 2014, PERMA Number 5 of 2019, and religious court decisions. Secondary materials were drawn from peer-reviewed journals in Google Scholar and SINTA (2010–2025). Results: Dispensation applications surged by over 177%, from approximately 23,000 (2018) to 64,000 (2020), indicating that the reform redirected rather than reduced child marriage through formal channels. Judicial reasoning predominantly prioritizes premarital pregnancy over the child’s long-term welfare, falling short of the holistic standard required by PERMA Number 5 of 2019 and CRC General Comment No. 14. Findings and Implications: The dispensation mechanism operates as a legitimizing instrument rather than an exceptional safeguard. Unregistered marriages (nikah siri) leave children legally unprotected, exposing a systemic gap unreachable by judicial reform alone. Conclusion: Law Number 16 of 2019 has not achieved its protective purpose. Realizing its promise requires coordinated judicial, executive, and civil society reform grounded in the substantive application of the best interests of the child. Contribution: This study integrates maqāṣid al-sharī‘ah analysis with statutory child protection standards, offering a multi-framework evaluation and institutional reform proposals across five key actors. Limitations and Suggestions: As a doctrinal study, this study does not capture empirical data on judges’ attitudes and applicants’ profiles. Future research should employ mixed-methods approaches to examine judicial decision-making patterns and the effectiveness of community-based interventions.