Reconstruction of the Ultra Petita Principle in Judicial Decisions as an Effort to Achieve Substantive Justice

This study examines the reconstruction of the ultra petita principle in judicial decision-making as a strategic effort to promote substantive justice within the Indonesian legal system. The ultra petita prohibition traditionally restricts judges from granting relief beyond what is requested by the parties. However, the evolving complexity of legal disputes and the growing emphasis on justice-oriented adjudication have prompted scholarly and practical debates on whether this principle should be interpreted more flexibly. Through a normative juridical approach supported by case analyses, this research explores how judges may exercise a balanced degree of discretion to address legal issues that are inseparably connected to the claims submitted, even when such issues extend beyond the explicit petitum. The findings indicate that a reconstructed interpretation of the principle—one that remains aligned with procedural fairness yet responsive to material justice—provides a stronger foundation for delivering court decisions that genuinely protect rights, uphold equity, and reflect societal values. The study also highlights the need for clearer doctrinal guidelines and judicial parameters to prevent abuse of authority while enabling judges to bridge gaps between formal legal demands and substantive justice outcomes. Overall, the reconstruction of the ultra petita principle serves as a crucial step toward creating a more adaptive and justice-oriented judiciary.