Translating Adat Reform into Judicial Reasoning: Legal Pluralism and Women’s Inheritance Rights in Bali

Abstract

Balinese customary inheritance law operates within a plural legal order in which the traditional patrilineal kepurusa system interacts with evolving principles of gender equality and internal adat reform. This creates a legal problem when courts apply different understandings of the inheritance status of women who marry out of their natal families, particularly after the 2010 Decision of the Majelis Utama Desa Pakraman (MUDP) expanded recognition of women’s inheritance rights. This study examines the sources and forms of judicial incoherence in Balinese inheritance disputes and evaluates whether judicial reasoning reflects the normative development introduced by the 2010 MUDP Decision. Using normative legal research, the study applies statutory, conceptual, and case approaches to legislation, customary-law instruments, the MUDP Decision, relevant court decisions, legal doctrines, and scholarly literature. The comparative analysis shows that judicial reasoning remains divided between decisions that acknowledge the evolving character of Balinese customary law and those that continue to prioritize traditional patrilineal concepts such as purusa, sentana rajeg, and nyentana. This divergence demonstrates that judicial incoherence is not merely a consequence of legal pluralism but also reflects a gap between internal adat reform and its recognition in state adjudication. The study contributes theoretically by conceptualizing this inconsistency as an adjudicative recognition gap between normative change within customary law and its translation into judicial reasoning. It argues that greater consistency requires clearer recognition of adat reform, stronger incorporation into awig-awig and perarem, gender-sensitive interpretation, improved evidentiary standards, and consistent jurisprudential guidance to strengthen legal certainty and women’s protection in Indonesia.