A

number of NGOs in the Indonesian Women'€™s Coalition have expressed disappointment over the recent ruling of the Constitutional Court, which refused to increase the minimum marriageable age for females from 16 to 18 years.

'€œThis means that our country allows girls to experience death and disability as a risk of giving birth at the age of children,'€ their statement said.

The plaintiffs had, among other things, argued that article 7 of the 1974 Marriage Law was unconstitutional. There are at least three interesting points to observe.

First, the court was not unanimous in its verdict. Judge Maria Farida Indrati offered the sole dissenting opinion, saying that the legal age of 16 creates uncertainties and contradicts the guarantee of the rights of children in the Constitution.

The panel had declared there is no guarantee that increasing the marriageable age for females would reduce the rate of divorce, domestic violence and other social problems.

Chief justice Arief Hidayat also said that if needed, changing the marriageable age should be done through an amendment at the House of Representatives.

Despite disappointment over the verdict, the dissension on the panel of judges can be the catalyst to propose changes to the Marriage Law.

Second, the ruling must be read from two sides: sociological and epistemological approaches.

When the 1974 law was passed, the marriageable age was hard to define. Muslim clerics and scholars
who were consulted during the bill'€™s deliberation defined the marriageable age for females and males as maturity (Arabic: aqil-baligh), not a certain age.

In Islamic jurisprudence, endorsing a marriage was based not on age, but rather by biological symptoms, which are menstruation for females and ejaculation for males.

However, biological symptoms are not precisely determined by age. That is why plaintiffs argued the age of 16 for females in the Marriage Law caused a legal uncertainty. It was a compromise age to explain biological maturity for both sexes.

From an epistemological point of view, our civil law lacks uniformity in defining adulthood. The Civil Code, for one, mentions that the age of an adult is 21 years for males and 19 for females.

That age is believed to reflect the capability to enter into a contract.

However, the definition differs in the laws on marriage, child protection, the Notary Law and the Election Law '€” which states a woman may cast her vote in an election provided she is or was married, without even mentioning her age.

So if the government and the House see the need to revise the Marriage Law, both parties should first prepare proper codification of adulthood in the civil law definition.

Third: criminal punishment. At present the Marriage Law does not carry criminal penalties.

Someone marrying an underage female would not be convicted. A few years ago a leading cleric in Semarang, Central Java, married a 12-year-old.

When the cleric, known as Syekh Puji, was investigated and determined a suspect by the police, he was not charged under the Marriage Law, but for violating the 2002 child protection law.

The question is whether the government would dare to enter criminal penalties in the Marriage Law because marriage is considered a domestic issue also associated with religious beliefs.

The government should introduce penalties to the proposed amendment of Marriage Law, for two reasons.

Firstly, as John Austin, a British philosopher pointed out, a law is a command of a sovereign body followed by threat of penalty. A law without penalties is merely a checklist.

Currently, most parents believe that the Religious Affairs Ministry (KUA) is not authorized to determine whether a marriage is lawful.

It is believed to only be authorized to register Islamic marriages and if both parents marry off a minor they could not be detained by police.

Second, marriage is no longer merely a domestic issue for it could spark a criminal act by intention.

For instance, a father who willingly and intentionally offers his daughter to an elderly person in lieu of paying his debt should be considered a culprit.

He has neglected a legal and religious duty as well.

A close study of Islamic history reveals that the Prophet Muha-mmad had received a complaint from an adolescent girl who was going to be married off by her father to a man in whom she had no interest.

The prophet'€™s daughter, Fatima, advocated the case until the girl was free to make her own choice, as recited by Ali Shariati in Fatima is Fatima.

It is now, therefore, a duty of every stakeholder in this country to educate the public to understand that marriage is a step to foster a better life, not a terrible life, especially for girls.