Penelitian ini mengkaji dua putusan yaitu Putusan Mahkamah Agung Nomor 39 K/AG/2013 dan Putusan Pengadilan Tinggi Agama Palembang Nomor 26/Pdt.G/2015/PTA.Plg. Hal yang menarik untuk dikaji yaitu pada 2 (dua) putusan tersebut memutus berbeda terhadap pemberian wasiat wajibah kepada anak angkat. Metode penelitian yang digunakan dalam penelitian ini yaitu menggunakan metode penelitian hukum normatif dengan pendekatan kasus (case approach) dan pendekatan perundang-undangan (statute approach). Hasil kajian menunjukkan bahwa Putusan Mahkaman Agung Nomor 39 K/AG/2013 yang memberikan wasiat wajibah tepat apabila ditinjau dari perspektif Al-Qur’an dan Sunnah. Namun, putusan tersebut kurang tepat menurut perspektif Kompilasi Hukum Islam karena Kompilasi Hukum Islam mengatur pemberian wasiat wajibah dalam Pasal 209 ayat (2) sebanyak-banyaknya 1/3 (sepertiga) bagian untuk anak angkat. Oleh karena itu, Putusan Nomor 909/Pdt.G/2011/PA.Mks paling tepat menurut Kompilasi Hukum Islam karena tidak lebih dari 1/3 (sepertiga) dan tidak melebihi bagian ahli waris yang mendapatkan bagian terkecil. Sementara, Putusan Pengadilan Tinggi Agama Palembang Nomor 26/Pdt.G/2015/PTA.Plg memberikan wasiat wajibah sebanyak 1/3 (sepertiga) bagian untuk anak angkat kurang tepat karena berakibat bagian yang diterima anak angkat melebihi bagian ahli waris. Oleh karena itu, Pengadilan Agama dalam memberikan wasiat wajibah harus memenuhi asas keadilan agar ahli waris tidak merasa dirugikan. Hal itu dikarenakan wasiat wajibah identik dengan pemberian waris kepada anak angkat. Namun, perbedaannya terletak pada wasiat wajibah tidak melekat pada asas ijbari. Kata kunci: Wasiat, Wasiat Wajibah, Anak Angkat, Peralihan Harta, Keadilan, Ijbari

This study examines the two decisions that Supreme Court Decision No. 39 K/ AG/2013 and Palembang Religious High Court decision No. 26/Pdt.G/2015/PTA.Plg. The interesting thing to study is in two distinct disconnect of the decision on the provision was borrowed to the adopted child. The method used in this research is using normative legal research methods to case approach and statute approach. The results showed that the Supreme Court Decision No. 39 K/AG/2013, which provides was borrowed the right when viewed from the perspective of the Qur'an and Sunnah. However, the decision is not appropriate from the perspective of Islamic Law Compilation for compilation of Islamic law governing the administration was borrowed in Article 209 paragraph (2) as much as 1/3 (one third) section for foster children. Therefore, Decision No. 909/Pdt.G/2011/PA.Mks most appropriate according to the Islamic Law Compilation for not more than 1/3 (one third) and not exceed that part of heirs who receive the smallest portion. Meanwhile, the High Court Religion Palembang No. 26/Pdt.G/2015/PTA.Plg give was borrowed as much as 1/3 (one third) part of the adopted child is less precise because the resulting share received exceed the adopted son heir part. Therefore, the Religious Courts in giving was borrowed must satisfy the principle of justice so that the heirs do not feel disadvantaged. That's because was borrowed the provision identical to the heir to the adopted child. However, the difference lies in was borrowed are not attached to the principle ijbari. Keywords: Wills, Was Borrowed, Lift Kids, Treasure Transitional Justice, Ijbari

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