CASE ANALYSIS OF CONSTITUTIONAL COURT DECISION NO. 46/PUU-VIII/2010 FROM A JURIDICAL PERSPECTIVE (LOGICAL, CRITICAL, AND RADICAL)

Abstract

Legal reasoning is an intellectual process of discovering, interpreting, and applying the law appropriately in resolving legal issues. This study aims to analyze the objectives of legal reasoning through three forms of juridical thinking, namely logical, critical, and radical, by examining its application in Constitutional Court Decision Number 46/PUU-VIII/2010. The type of research used is normative legal research with a statute approach and case approach. The results show that the Constitutional Court used logical legal thinking to ensure consistency between Article 43 paragraph (1) of the Marriage Law and the 1945 Constitution, thereby guaranteeing legal certainty. Critical legal thinking was applied by prioritizing the principle of the best interests of the child to avoid discrimination against children born out of wedlock. Meanwhile, radical legal thinking is manifested through changes in the interpretation of norms that fundamentally change the paradigm of family law in Indonesia, so that children born out of wedlock have a civil relationship with their biological fathers as long as it can be legally proven. The integration of these three forms of legal thinking proves that legal reasoning not only upholds written norms but also adapts the law to the values of justice, benefit, and the development of modern society