parental system of inheritance is favored (Hadi-
kusuma 1991, 109). In contrast to the patrilineal
and matrilineal systems, which are dominated by
the collectivist approach to estate allotment, the
parental system is, in practice, more individualist in
nature since the division takes into account each of
the heirs, irrespective of gender. As each individual
heir has the right to an allotment from the estate, it
is usually divided as soon as all the heirs come to an
agreement as to its division. In the parental system,
therefore, there is no concept of authorizing a par-
ticular successor or group of successors in a single
family line to administer the estate as found in the
matrilineal and patrilineal systems.
Gender equality in the rights
of property
Regardless of the differences in the division of the
estate inherent in the various clan systems de-
scribed here, all adatlaw circles in the archipelago
have this much in common: the assets owned by the
father’s or the mother’s side before marriage are
distinguished from those obtained subsequent to
their marriage (Soepomo 2000, 85–90). The mar-
riage thus becomes the dividing line: property
accruing to the couple as a result of their engage-
ment is treated in a distinct fashion from property
acquired through earnings or other sources, an
important consideration when calculating the
estate on the death of one of the spouses. As a con-
sequence, property of the first category obtained by
each party before their marriage is counted as prop-
erty that should be returned to or retained by the
late spouse’s original family line, while the second
category, namely property obtained after the mar-
riage, will automatically go to the heirs: the surviv-
ing spouse and their children. On a practical level,
this legal norm varies greatly, depending upon
how people value gender status in the society. In
patriarchal societies, the authority over the couple’s
property is so decidedly in the hands of the father
or his family line as to give him considerable power
over the distribution of the family’s wealth. This
logic is largely repeated in matrilineal societies,
where the mother and her family line dominate the
wealth and keep much of her own family’s wealth
separate from the couple’s.
The concept of common property, owned jointly
by a couple, is more characteristic of the parental
society, which sees the husband and wife as equal
partners in the marriage bond. In this way claims to
the property are based on the view of the wife and
husband as having equal rights before the law
(Prins 1950, 290–1). Since property acquired dur-
indonesia 421ing the marriage is held jointly by both partners,
they retain equal rights to it. Such property is
viewed as indivisible, unless the marriage is dis-
solved, or until one of the couple dies. Even here the
common feature prevails that they do not divide the
estate directly but use it for preserving the lifestyle
of the family. It is usually the surviving parent
(widow or widower) who takes on the role of
directing the estate, and if there is a decision to
divide it, that parent will automatically receive a
half share of the common property, while the other
half will be distributed evenly to all the children of
the marriage. Such a method is believed essential to
maintaining peace within the family and, by exten-
sion, the equilibrium of the community at large.
This now appears to be the trend in modern
Indonesia and it seems to reflect the Western con-
cern for gender equality, which has in fact gained
considerable ground in the country since its inde-
pendence in 1945. Thus any legal values, whether
from adator Islamic law, that are viewed as raw
material for the construction of a national law, are
made to conform to this concept of gender equity
(Bowen 2003). That the parental system of inheri-
tance in adatis now meant to be the current model
of inheritance law in the country is furthermore
completely in line with the movement to interpret
Islamic law in accordance with gender equality
(Hazairin 1964).Bibliography
J. R. Bowen, Islam, law and equality in Indonesia. An
anthropology of public reasoning, Cambridge 2003.
B. ter Haar, Beginselen en stelsel van het adatrecht,
Groningen 1939, 1950^4.
H. Hadikusuma, Adat inheritance law [in Indonesian],
Bandung 1980.
——,Indonesian inheritance law [in Indonesian], Ban-
dung 1991.
Hazairin, National family law[in Indonesian], Jakarta
1962.
——,Bilateral inheritance law according to the Qur±àn
[in Indonesian], Jakarta 1964.
J. F. Holleman, Van Vollenhoven on Indonesian adat law,
The Hague 1981.
M. B. Hooker, Adat law in modern Indonesia, Kuala
Lumpur 1978.
D. S. Lev, The supreme court and adat inheritance law in
Indonesia, in American Journal of Comparative Law
11 (1972), 205–24.
I. H. Dt. Rajo Penghulu, Basic knowledge of the adat of
Minangkabau [in Indonesian], 6th ed., Bandung 1994.
J. Prins, Adat en Islametische Plichtenleer in Indonesië,
The Hague 1948, 1950^2.
——, Adat law and Muslim religious law in modern
Indonesia, in Die Welt des Islams, 1 (1951), 283–300.
R. Soepomo, Chapters on adat law [in Indonesian],
Jakarta 1967, 2000^15.Ranto Lukito