<![CDATA[Abstract: The enforcement of Regional Regulations by the Civil Service Police Unit (Satpol PP) frequently involves the exercise of discretionary authority due to regulatory gaps, ambiguous norms, and complex field conditions. However, such discretion carries the risk of arbitrariness and abuse of authority if it is not guided by clear legal standards. This article examines how the principle of objectivity functions as a legal benchmark in the exercise of Satpol PP discretion under Indonesian administrative law. Using normative legal research with statute, conceptual, and limited case approaches, the study analyzes the framework of Law No. 30 of 2014 on Government Administration, Law No. 23 of 2014 on Regional Government, Government Regulation No. 16 of 2018 on Satpol PP, relevant administrative law doctrines, and judicial interpretations. The analysis demonstrates that discretionary authority is lawful only when it is grounded in verifiable facts, rational decision-making, impartial treatment of similar cases, careful consideration of risks and impacts, and transparent reason-giving supported by adequate documentation. The study concludes that objectivity operates as an operational legal standard that transforms the abstract principles of good governance (AUPB) into measurable criteria for evaluating Satpol PP enforcement actions. By formulating indicators such as factual basis, rationality, non-partisanship, due care, and transparency, this research provides a normative framework for assessing whether discretionary enforcement actions are consistent with legality, proportionality, and accountability within the rule-of-law and good governance framework]]>
