Utilitarian Justice in the Decision of the Land Exchange Agreement: A Case Study of Decision Number 241/Pdt.G/2016/Pn.Smn Reviewed from the Post-Positivism Paradigm
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.15294/iccle.v7i3.38180Keywords:
Land Swap Agreement, Utilitarianism, Post-PositivismAbstract
The Sleman District Court Decision Number 241/Pdt.G/2016/PN.Smn, which recognizes the validity of non-formal land exchange agreements, constitutes a significant case for understanding the realization of substantive justice beyond a positivistic legal framework. This study analyzes the decision using Jeremy Bentham’s utilitarianism approach within the post-positivist paradigm developed by Guba and Lincoln. Employing a normative legal research method with a case-based analytical approach, this research demonstrates that the judges did not merely assess the formal legality of the agreement but also took into account social consequences, practical benefits, and empirical realities existing within the community. Utilitarianism is applied to evaluate the extent to which the decision maximizes overall happiness and minimizes suffering for the disputing parties as well as society at large. Furthermore, post-positivism provides an epistemological framework that conceptualizes law as a contextual, non-final, and socially constructed phenomenon open to reinterpretation. The findings suggest that this combined approach yields a more responsive, flexible, and socially meaningful form of justice, while also generating significant methodological implications for research on non-formal agreements, particularly through the use of qualitative methods, data triangulation, and hermeneutical interpretation.
References
Arneil, Barbara. “Jeremy Bentham: Pauperism, Colonialism, and Imperialism.” American Political Science Review 115, no. 4 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055421000472.
Barak, Aharon. The Judge in a Democracy. The Judge in a Democracy, 2009. https://doi.org/10.5860/choice.44-2338.
Benazir, Benazir. “Tukar Menukar Barang Sejenis Menurut Hukum Islam Dan Hukum Positif.” SINTESA: Jurnal Kajian Islam Dan Sosial Keagamaan 4, no. 1 (2022). https://doi.org/10.22373/sintesa.v4i1.554.
Bentham, Jeremy. “Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation.” In Nineteenth-Century Philosophy: Philosophic Classics, Volume IV, 2023. https://doi.org/10.1093/oseo/instance.00077240.
Bizawu, Kiwongui, Marcos Alves da Silva, and Fernando Virmond Portela Giovannetti. “From Natural Law to Post-Positivism: A Brief Historical Report.” Relacoes Internacionais No Mundo Atual 3, no. 24 (2019). https://doi.org/10.21902/Revrima.v3i27.3921.
Bower-Bir, Jacob S. “Desert and Redistribution: Justice as a Remedy for, and Cause of, Economic Inequality.” Policy Studies Journal 50, no. 4 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1111/psj.12439.
Budd, John M., Heather Hill, and Brooke Shannon. “Inquiring into the Real: A Realist Phenomenological Approach.” Library Quarterly 80, no. 3 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1086/652876.
Cavallini, Cesare, and Stefania Cirillo. “Does Ginsburg’s Judicial Voice Get the International Level ?” Global Jurist 22, no. 1 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1515/gj-2021-0030.
Christina Endarwati, Aries Sholeh Efendi, Muhamad Baginda Rajoko Harahap. “Putusan Pengadilan Negeri Sleman 241/PDT.G/2016/PN.Smn.” Sleman, 2017.
Darus, Mariam, and Badrulzaman. Asas-Asas Hukum Perjanjian. Bandung: PT Citra Aditya Bakti, 2001.
Hanaya, Made Putri Shinta Dewi, and I Made Sarjana. “Akibat Hukum Wanprestasi Dalam Peralihan Hak Milik Atas Tanah Melalui Perjanjian Tukar Menukar.” Journal Ilmu Hukum 7, no. 2 (2019).
Hanifah, Isti, James F. Mendrofa, and Fristian Hadinata. “Freedom of Judgment: The Relationship between Court Decisions and Legal Realism.” In Philosophy and the Everyday Lives, 2021.
Holtz, Peter, and Özen Odağ. “Popper Was Not a Positivist: Why Critical Rationalism Could Be an Epistemology for Qualitative as Well as Quantitative Social Scientific Research.” Qualitative Research in Psychology 17, no. 4 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1080/14780887.2018.1447622.
Istianah, Z. A., M. Khaeruddin Hamsin, Rizaldy Anggriawan, and Andi Agus Salim. “Freedom of Contract and Judicial Intervention: Does the Court Have the Right?” Revista Opiniao Juridica 21, no. 36 (2023). https://doi.org/10.12662/2447-6641oj.v21i36.p205-221.2023.
Jayadi, Ahkam. “Beberapa Catatan Tentang Asas Demi Keadilan Berdasarkan Ketuhanan Yang Maha Esa.” Jurisprudentie : Jurusan Ilmu Hukum Fakultas Syariah Dan Hukum 5, no. 1 (2018). https://doi.org/10.24252/jurisprudentie.v5i2.5397.
Johnson, R. Burke, and Anthony J. Onwuegbuzie. “Mixed Methods Research: A Research Paradigm Whose Time Has Come.” Educational Researcher 33, no. 7 (2004). https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X033007014.
Kahneman, Daniel. “Experienced Utility and Objective Happiness a Moment-Based Approach.” In Choices, Values, and Frames, 2019. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511803475.038.
Kholiq, Abdul. “Kajian Budaya Hukum Progresif Terhadap Hakim Dalam Penegakan Hukum Pada Mafia Peradilan (Judicial Corruption) Di Indonesia.” Justisi Jurnal Ilmu Hukum 2, no. 1 (2018). https://doi.org/10.36805/jjih.v2i1.401.
Majot, Andrew M., and Roman V. Yampolskiy. “AI Safety Engineering through Introduction of Self-Reference into Felicific Calculus via Artificial Pain and Pleasure.” In 2014 IEEE International Symposium on Ethics in Science, Technology and Engineering, ETHICS 2014, 2014. https://doi.org/10.1109/ETHICS.2014.6893398.
Mohaisen, Amer Zghair, and Worood Lafta Muttair. “The Administrative Judge’s Role in Filling the Legislative Gaps.” International Journal of Innovation, Creativity and Change 9, no. 2 (2019).
Mohamed, Khadijah. “Combining Methods in Legal Research.” Social Sciences (Pakistan) 11, no. 21 (2016). https://doi.org/10.3923/sscience.2016.5191.5198.
Parekh, Bhikhu. Jeremy Bentham: Ten Critical Essays. Jeremy Bentham: Ten Critical Essays, 2013. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203153857.
Prokofyev, Andrey V. “Jeremy Bentham’s Theory of Moral Sanctions.” RUDN Journal of Philosophy 27, no. 3 (2023). https://doi.org/10.22363/2313-2302-2023-27-3-757-773.
Rafles, Ratu. “Aspek Hukum Perjanjian Tukar Menukar (Barter) Tanah Hak Milik.” Lex Crimen XI, no. 2 (2022).
Rahman Amin. Hukum Pembuktian Dalam Perkara Pidana Dan Perdata. I. Sleman: Deepublish, 2020.
Ryan, Phil. “Positivism: Paradigm or Culture?” Policy Studies 36, no. 4 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1080/01442872.2015.1073246.
Salim HS. Hukum Kontrak Elektronik: E-Contract Law. I. Mataram: PT. Rajagrafindo Persada, 2021.
Satiah, Satiah, and Riska Ari Amalia. “Kajian Tentang Wanprestasi Dalam Hubungan Perjanjian.” Jatiswara 36, no. 2 (2021). https://doi.org/10.29303/jatiswara.v36i2.280.
Schofield, Philip. Bentham: A Guide For The Perplexed. Bentham: A Guide for the Perplexed, 2009.
Setyanegara, Ery. “Kebebasan Hakim Memutus Perkara Dalam Konteks Pancasila (Ditinjau Dari Keadilan ‘Substantif’).” Jurnal Hukum & Pembangunan 44, no. 4 (2014). https://doi.org/10.21143/jhp.vol44.no4.31.
Sharp, Liz, Adrian Mcdonald, Patrick Sim, Cathy Knamiller, Christine Sefton, and Sam Wong. “Positivism, Post-Positivism and Domestic Water Demand: Interrelating Science across the Paradigmatic Divide.” Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 36, no. 4 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-5661.2011.00435.x.
Stoliarova, Olga E. “History and Philosophy of Science versus Science and Technology Studies.” Voprosy Filosofii, no. 7 (2015).
Suteki dan Galang Taufani. “Metodologi Penelitian Hukum.” Metodologi Penelitian Hukum. Jakarta: Rajawali Pers, 2018.
Taylor, Peter. “Researcher Know Thyself! Emerging Pedagogies for Participatory Research.” In Teaching Research Methods in the Social Sciences, 2009.
Tim hukumonline. “Pengertian Wanprestasi, Akibat, Dan Cara Menyelesaikannya.” hukumonline.com, 2022.
Zariski, Archie. “Mansfield, Atkin, Weinstein: Three Responsive Judges at the Nexus of Law, Politics, and Economy.” In Ius Gentium, Vol. 67, 2018. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-1023-2_12.
Downloads
Published
Article ID
38180Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Muhammad Syahri Ramadhan , Yuli Prasetyo Adhi, Rahayu Fery Anitasari (Author)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
