<![CDATA[ABSTRAKPutusan Nomor 329 K/AG/2014 terkait kedudukan anak di luar kawin yang berinisial MIR. MIR tidak diakui oleh ayahnya. Ibunya yang berinisial AM mengajukan gugatan isbat nikah (pengesahan perkawinannya) yang dikumulasikan dengan pengesahan kedudukan anaknya berdasarkan pada Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 46/PUU-VIII/2010. Putusan tersebut menolak seluruh gugatan AM dengan pertimbangan pengadilan agama tidak berwenang mengesahkan perkawinan yang terjadi setelah berlakunya Undang-Undang Nomor 1 Tahun 1974, dan permohonan pengesahan kedudukan anak di luar kawin bukan kewenangan pengadilan agama. Dari beberapa permasalahan yang ditemui, penelitian ini mengulas tiga rumusan masalah. Pertama, apakah dalam Putusan Nomor 329 K/AG/2014 sudah tercermin aspek yuridis, aspek sosiologis, dan aspek filosofis. Kedua, apakah pertimbangan hukum dalam Putusan Nomor 329 K/AG/2014 telah mengimplementasikan Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 46/PUUVIII/2010? Ketiga, bagaimana kondisi petitum tentang anak di luar kawin apabila ditinjau menurut teori keadilan, teori perlindungan, teori kewenangan, teori hukum progresif, dan teori mashlahah? Metode yang digunakan dalam penelitian ini adalah deskriptif analitis. Hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwa dalam putusan tersebut lebih mengutamakan aspek yuridis, sedangkan aspek sosiologis dan filosofis cenderung diabaikan. Putusan tersebut tidak mengimplementasikan Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 46/PUU-VIII/2010. Berdasarkan teori keadilan, teori perlindungan hukum, teori kewenangan, teori hukum progresif, dan teori mashlahah, petitum tentang anak di luar kawin dapat dikabulkan.Kata kunci: anak di luar kawin, anak biologis, Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi, Putusan Mahkamah Agung.ABSTRACTThe Supreme Court Decision Number 329 K/AG/2014 concerns on the case of an out-of-wedlock status with the initials MIR who was disowned by her father. The mother of the child initials AM, filed a lawsuit related to itsbat marriage (marriage ratification) which was accumulated with the ratification of her child’s status based on the Constitutional Court Decision Number 46/PUU-VIII/2010. The decision completely rejected the lawsuit considering that the Religious Court was not authorized to ratify a marriage that occurred after the enactment of Law Number 1 of 1974, and the request to legalize the status of an extramarital child was not the authority of the religious court. Of the several problems encountered, in this analysis three formulations of the problem were discussed. First, has the Decision Number 329 K/AG/2014 reflected the juridical, sociological, and philosophical aspects? Second, have these legal considerations of Decision Number 329 K/AG/2014 implemented the Constitutional Court Decision Number 46/PUU-VIII/2010? Third, how is the condition of petitum related to extramarital children viewed from the theory of justice, protection theory, authority theory, progressive legal theory, and mashlahah theory? The method used in this research is descriptive-analysis. The results showed that the decision prioritize the juridical aspect. Meanwhile, the sociological and philosophical aspects tend to be neglected. The decision does not seem to implement the Constitutional Court Decision Number 46/PUU-VIII/2010. Based on the theory of justice, legal protection, authority, progressive law and mashlahah, petitum regarding extramarital children can be granted.Keywords: extramarital children, biological child, Constitutional Court Decision, Supreme Court Decision.]]>
