Once the judge has investigated and investigated an event or event, it means that he or she must “solve legal problems” and is obliged to find solutions or answers. This is because in life in society, there are problems of the same life. But the judge, as the person competent to give his answer/judgment, must be able to find the right. Therefore, the previous judge must be able to choose the problem and then formulate the law. Once a judge has determined the law of the event or incident, he or she must resolve the legal issues. Judges are the personification of the judicial institution in making decisions in a case, must not only have intellectual abilities, but also have high morality and integrity, so that they can reflect a sense of justice, ensure legal certainty and bring benefits to society. Judges must base their decision on a case on a variety of considerations that are acceptable to all parties and that do not deviate from existing legislation called legal reasoning. Legal reasoning is defined as a search for “reason” about the law or basic research about how a judge decides a legal case. Legal reasoning is part of the court`s decision when deciding a case. A judge`s legal reasoning may be based on philosophical, legal, sociological or theological aspects that reflect the principles of legal certainty, justice and expediency for the parties, and may apply various methods of legal interpretation. Judges should be careful, systematic and with a correct and good Indonesian in formulating and deciding a case with legal considerations or legal reasons.

The considerations are carefully compiled, which means that the legal considerations must be comprehensive, including the facts of events, the legal facts, the formulation of the legal facts, the application of legal norms both in positive law, customary law, jurisprudence and legal theories, as well as others, on the basis of the aspects and methods of interpretation of the law that are used in the compilation of arguments (reasons) or Legal bases in the judge`s decision is appropriate. If the case is not heard or if the legal basis is not clear, the judge is still obliged to hear the case. In principle, therefore, the principle of legality should be used as a first guideline for judges to hear the cases they handle. The same thing was explained by R.G. Soekadijo about logic. The word “logic” as a term means a method or technique created to study the accuracy of thought. To understand logic, one must have a clear understanding of reasoning. Reasoning is a form of thinking.

As with other forms of thought, the simplest is understanding or concept (conceptus, concept), sentence or utterance (proposition, statement) and thought (ratio cinium, reasoning). There is no sentence without understanding (concept) and no reasoning without sentence. To understand thought, the three forms of thought must be understood together. Legal reasoning is divided into two meanings, namely a broad sense and a narrow sense. In the broadest sense, legal reasoning has to do with the psychological process that the judge follows to arrive at the decision or case he or she is facing. The study of legal reasoning in the broad sense concerns aspects of psychology and aspects of biography. In the meantime, it refers in a narrower sense to the arguments on which a decision is based. This study deals with examining the logic of a decision. It therefore refers to the types of arguments, the relationship between reason (reasoning, alas) and the decision, and the precision of the reasons or considerations that support the decision.

There are many social problems in society. Among the many social problems, we must be able to find or select the legal problem that must then be formulated and solved. It is not easy to choose legal issues from social issues that often overlap with legal issues and are difficult to delineate, such as political issues, moral issues, religious issues, etc. Here, the ability to select legal problems and then formulate them (identification of legal problems) is important. But in its application, Indonesian jurisprudence differs from the jurisprudence of the Anglo-Saxon legal system (common law) in general, because Indonesia adheres to the tradition of rechtsvending, in addition to being bound by the law, a judge also has the freedom to find his own law (rechtsvinding). That Indonesian judges base their decisions on laws and regulations and be free to interpret and interpret the law. Not only are judges institutionally independent, but they are also personally independent, as stipulated in Article 24 of the Fourth Amendment to the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia, which provides that judicial power in administering a fair trial shall be exercised independently. As also mentioned in Article 48, paragraph 1, of Law No. 48 of 2009 on the Judiciary, which states: “The State shall guarantee the safety and well-being of judges and constitutional judges in the exercise of the tasks and responsibilities of the administration of the judiciary”.