Penelitian ini berawal dari putusan No. 53/Pdt.G/2011/PN.Sby mengenai perceraian yang telah berkekuatan hukum tetap. Namun pasangan suami istri tersebut ingin rujuk kembali dengan cara mengajukan gugatan pembatalan perceraian kepada Pengadilan Negeri karena dalam agama mereka proses rujuk melalui gereja tidak mungkin dilakukan. Permasalahannya adalah hakim mengabulkan gugatan tersebut melalui Putusan No.811/Pdt.G/2016/PN.Sby yang menyatakan Putusan No. 53/Pdt.G/2011/PN.Sby batal dan tidak mempunyai kekuatan hukum padahal putusan tersebut tidak termasuk dalam putusan yang cacat karena sudah memenuhi ketentuan perundang-undangan. Metode penelitian yang digunakan adalah penelitian hukum normatif adapun pendekatan yang dilakukan adalah pendekatan perundang-undangan dan pendekatan kasus. Mengenai pertimbangan hakim dalam putusan No.811/Pdt.G/2016/PN.Sby menyatakan bahwa majelis hakim memahami keinginan penggugat dan tergugat untuk hidup berumah tangga lagi. Hakim lebih mengutamakan dan mengedepankan aspek sosilogis dan kemanfaatannya, sedangkan aspek yuridisnya tidak ditonjolkan karena memang alasan hukum untuk membatalkan perceraian tidak ada dan tidak disediakan oleh ketentuan perundang-undangan yang berlaku. Oleh karena itu, pembatalan putusan No. 53/Pdt.G/2011/PN.Sby tidak sesuai dengan asas kepastian hukum. Kata kunci : Pembatalan, Putusan, Perceraian, Pertimbangan Hakim

This research started from decision No. 53/Pdt.G/2011/PN.Sby regarding divorce which has a permanent legal force. But the couple wanted to reconcile by filing a divorce lawsuit against the District Court because in their religion the process of reconciliation through the church was impossible. The problem was the judge granted the lawsuit through Decision No.811/Pdt.G/2016/PN.Sby declaring Decision No. 53 / Pdt.G / 2011 / PN.Sby was void and had no legal force when the decision was not included in the defect because it had complied with the provisions of the law. The research method used was normative legal research and the approach taken was the approach of legislation and case approach. Regarding the judges' consideration in the decision of No.811/Pdt.G/2016/PN.Sby stated that the judges understood the plaintiff's intentions and the defendant to live again. The judge prioritized the social aspects, while the juridical aspect was not highlighted because there was no legal reason for canceling the divorce and was not provided by the applicable laws and regulations. Therefore, the cancellation of decision No. 53/Pdt.G/2011/PN.Sby was not in accordance with the principle of legal certainty. Keywords: Cancellation, Decision, Divorce, Judge Consideration

Baca Jurnal Baca Jurnal Baca Jurnal Baca Jurnal Baca Jurnal Baca Jurnal Baca Jurnal Baca Jurnal Baca Jurnal Baca Jurnal Baca Jurnal Baca Jurnal Baca Jurnal Baca Jurnal Baca Jurnal Baca Jurnal Baca Jurnal Baca Jurnal Baca Jurnal