On Tuesday (August 5, 2025), Dr. Khotibul Umam, S.H., LL. M., a lecturer in the Department of Islamic Law at the Faculty of Law, Gadjah Mada University, held a Focus Group Discussion (FGD) as part of a research series titled “Implications of the Enforcement of Supreme Court Circular Letter (SEMA) No. 2 of 2019 on the Annulment of Contracts that Contradict Sharia Principles.” This event aimed to gather empirical data regarding the implementation of Supreme Court Circular (SEMA) No. 2 of 2019 within the Religious Courts (PA), particularly in the Special Region of Yogyakarta.
The FGD was attended by the Chairs of the Religious Courts in the Special Region of Yogyakarta, including the Chair of the Sleman Religious Court, Dr. Yuniati Faizah, S.Ag., S.H., M.SI.; the Chair of the Bantul Religious Court, Septianah, S.H.I., M.H.; the Chief Judge of the Wonosari Religious Court, Lutfi Muslih, S.Ag., M.A.; the Chief Judge of the Wates Religious Court, Taufik, S.H.I., M.A.; and the Chief Judge of the Yogyakarta City Religious Court, Dr. Khoiriyah Roihan, S.Ag., M.H.
Dr. Yuniati Faizah noted that in some cases, requests to annul contracts are filed by Financial Service Providers (PUJK), in addition to those filed by borrowers who received the facilities. However, judges within the religious court system do not rely solely on SEMA No. 2 of 2019 as the sole basis for their decisions; rather, they combine it with principles of justice and rules of Islamic jurisprudence such as al-ghurmu bil al-ghurmi (profit commensurate with risk). This principle affirms that if a person (customer) has received a benefit, they are also obligated to bear the corresponding risk.
Lutfi Muslih, S.Ag., M.A., further explained that SEMA No. 2 of 2019 allows for broad interpretation. Citing the view of Prof. Dr. Amran Suadi (former Chair of the Religious Chamber, Supreme Court of the Republic of Indonesia), namely that SEMA in question was issued due to the large number of contract annulments by judges that were not accompanied by the settlement of principal obligations, thereby causing losses to PUJK.
Dr. Khoiriyah Roihan, S.Ag., M.H., added that SEMA No. 2 of 2019 is a continuation of SEMA No. 4 of 2016 and PERMA No. 14 of 2016, which were issued in response to the practice of judges annulling contracts ex officio—that is, judges directly reviewing contracts when presented with Islamic economic disputes and annulling them, even though the main subject of the lawsuit was not the annulment of the contract. He further emphasized that SEMA stems from the Supreme Court’s legal policy direction to prevent the misuse of annulment lawsuits as a means to evade the legal obligations of customers of a sharia financial institution. After SEMA took effect, requests for contract annulment showed a significant downward trend due to binding sanctions, such as the obligation to repay the principal loan amount and margin, even if the contract’s status is annulled.
Taufik, S.H.I., M.A., on the other hand, believes that SEMA No. 2 of 2019 is important for maintaining a balance between Sharia principles, the protection of business operators, and legal certainty. Meanwhile, Septianah, S.H.I., M.H., cited a pawn (rahn) case in which, although the contract raised legal issues, because the funds had already been utilized, the judge focused on resolving other claims rather than on annulling the contract itself—in order to provide a solution beneficial to both parties, including by facilitating a settlement.
This FGD demonstrated that the implementation of SEMA No. 2 of 2019, particularly in religious courts in the Special Region of Yogyakarta, has had a significant impact in curbing the practice of baseless contract annulment lawsuits. Nevertheless, judges’ interpretations must continue to prioritize substantive justice while taking into account the unique circumstances of each case.
In addition to serving research purposes, this FGD aligns with several objectives of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), including Goal 16 on peace, justice, and strong institutions—by enhancing the effectiveness of the religious justice system through critical discussions of legal policies. Goal 4 on Quality Education by providing an academic space for the development of legal research and a deep understanding of regulations, as well as Goal 17 on Partnerships to achieve the Goals through collaboration between academics and judicial institutions.
Author: Farihaini (Research Assistant, Student ID 22/492660/HK/23126)
