Abstract.The decision of the Supreme Court Number 46 P/HUM/2018 has triggered the division of the legal paradigm in Indonesia. The philosophical discourse between justice, certainty, and the legal use in the reality of Indonesian law reflects the strong grip of legal positivism that resides in the Supreme Court's decision and causes a waning sense of justice and public hope to obtain a track record of candidates who are proper and with integrity. This study aims to explain the philosophical dialectic between justice, certainty, and legal use in PMA No. 46 of 2018 while expressing a representation of justice, construction of legal certainty and legal use that is incarnated according to the judge's consideration in the decision. The approach through justice theory John Stuart Mill and John Rawls will be used to slice the conception of justice, certainty, and legal use that resides in the decision of the Supreme Court Number 46 P/HUM /2018. This research is a normative-philosophical legal research. The results showed that the construction of justice imprinted in the verdict tended to project the concept of justice as equality (justice as fairness) from John Rawls, this can be seen from the consideration of judges contained in decisions emphasizing individual freedom (political rights, elected and elected) as a form of efforts to strengthen libertarian rights or natural rights that cannot be negated by the freedom of others. The aspects of legal benefit and certainty reflect the grip of the positivistic paradigm in law. This is reflected in two lines of consideration, firstly there is no consideration of the common interest (the greatest benefit) in the decision which is a test stone to see the implications of the prohibition norm for former convicted corruption for the future of parliament and the regeneration of people's representatives. Whereas the aspect of legal certainty in the decision only touches the legal realm as lex and negates the ontological basis of the law as an ius which is full of consideration of morality and justice ideas without trying to reveal what is behind the text (meta-teleological aspects) PKPU No. 20 of 2018. Thus, three legal values (certainty, legal use, and justice) should have an equally important position within the framework of the state legal system. When all three are in conflict, the central role of the judge's duty to equally apply the three legal objectives.Keywords: Justice, certainty, legal use, Law, Supreme Court Decision.

The Supreme Court Decision Number 46 P / HUM / 2018 has triggered a split in the legal paradigm in Indonesia. The philosophical discourse between justice, certainty, and legal usefulness in the reality of Indonesian law reflect the intense symptoms of legal positivism in the Supreme Court decision. It causes the loss of a sense of justice and the hope of the community to obtain a track record of candidates who are clean and with integrity. This research is normative-philosophical legal research. The approach through the theory of justice by John Stuart Mill and John Rawls will be used to see the conception of truth, benefit, and legal certainty in decisions. The construction of sentences in a decision applies the concept of justice as equality (justice as fairness) seen from the judges' considerations. It emphasizes individual freedom (political rights, elect, and choice) as a form of an effort to assert libertarian rights or natural rights that cannot be negated by other people's freedom. Meanwhile, the aspects of benefit and legal certainty emphasize the positivistic paradigm in law. Three constitutional values (justice, certainty, and legal usefulness) have an equally important position in the framework of the country's legal system.

Wasiat wajibah merupakan salah satu produk ijtihad di bidang fikih Islam kontemporer. Perkara wasiat wajibah juga masuk ke dalam sub pembahasan Kewarisan dalam hukum keluarga atau perdata di beberapa negara dengan mayoritas masyarakat muslim. Ketentuan wasiat wajibah muncul sebagai alternatif atas beberapa problematika kewarisan, seperti hak atas harta warisan bagi kepada ahli waris beda agama, anak dan orang tua angkat. Kondisi ini dihadapkan pada realitas hukum kewaarisan suatu masyarakat yang tidak dapat lepas dari struktur, norma, dan tradisi, masyarakat yang sudah hidup (living law) selama bertahun-tahun. Salah satu praktek wasiat wajibah yang menjadi sorotan di Indonesia adalah kasus wasiat wajibah di dalam Putusan MA Nomor 331 K/Ag/2018. Putusan ini merupakan putusan terpilih Mahkamah Agung (landmark decision) yang mengubah putusan pengadilan Tinggi Agama Banten No. 78 Pdt.G/2017 PTA Btn terkait pembagian warisan bagi suami pewaris yang telah murtad. Melalui putusan ini, Majelis Kasasi menganggap sepantasnya pemohon kasasi yang beragama non muslim (murtad) diberi bagian harta warisan dalam bentuk wasiat wajibah sebesar ¼ dari harta warisan. Putusan MA Nomor 331 K/Ag/2018 merupakan putusan yang dikonstruksi  oleh pertimbangan berbasis perlindungan dan kesetaraan hak, keadilan dan kemanusiaan bagi suami murtad dalam kapasitasnya sebagai subjek yang berhak untuk harta peninggalan pewaris di depan hukum. Putusan ini memberikan gambaran bahwa Indonesia sebagai negara hukum tidak mengabaikan kenyataan bahwasanya terdapat perbedaan agama dalam suatu keluarga atau dalam kehidupan bermasyarakat. Kenyataan tersebut tidak menjadi hambatan bagi keluarga inti yang berbeda agama bahkan murtad untuk bisa saling berwasiat.