Renewal of Judges' Authority in Handling New Disputes by Filling Legal Vacancies through Analogical Interpretation and Application of the Principle of Justice

This study examines the authority of judges in handling new cases and filling legal gaps through analogical interpretation and the application of the principle of justice. A legal vacuum (vacatio legis) arises when the law fails to explicitly regulate new legal phenomena, thereby posing challenges for judges in upholding legal certainty and substantive justice. The study uses a normative juridical approach in analyzing statutory regulations, the Civil Code, the Criminal Procedure Code, jurisprudence, and related legal literature. The results indicate that judges have limited authority to interpret the law analogically and consider the principle of justice, as long as they do not exceed the principle of legality and the limits of authority granted by law. The analogical interpretation allows judges to refer to similar norms to resolve new cases, while the justice principle as a guideline for maintaining fair and proportional treatment for the parties. The application of these two instruments fills legal gaps, maintains consistency in decisions, and balances legal certainty with substantive justice. However, the use of analogy and the principle of justice also carries risks, such as the potential for differences in interpretation between judges that can lead to inconsistencies. Therefore, judges are advised to apply this method proportionally, with clear and documented legal considerations, and to strengthen internal guidelines so that decisions remain valid, fair, and credible.