| Doctrinal uncertainty persists regarding the extent to which judges in Indonesia may adjudicate on the basis of equity and fairness, particularly in relation to requests for decisions grounded in ex aequo et bono. This issue is especially evident in civil proceedings, where such requests are frequently articulated in pleadings and closing statements. Drawing on an analysis of regulatory frameworks and judicial practice, and employing normative as well as comparative legal approaches, this study argues that adjudication grounded in equity—conceptually linked to fairness, propriety, and broader considerations of justice—constitutes an inherent component of judicial obligation in Indonesia. At the same time, requests for decisions based on ex aequo et bono commonly arise from concerns regarding the adequacy of justice embodied in the statutory provisions underlying claims or charges. Such requests are often rooted in the mistaken assumption that the pursuit of legal certainty necessarily compromises justice and, conversely, that prioritising justice requires disregarding positive law. Accordingly, it is contended that a request to decide ex aequo et bono should not be interpreted as conferring unfettered discretion upon judges to set aside the law. |