<![CDATA[The dualism of judicial authority in addressing abuse of power by government officials represents a critical issue within Indonesia's legal system. Abuse of power may be prosecuted in two distinct legal domains: administrative law, under the jurisdiction of the State Administrative Court (Pengadilan Tata Usaha Negara/PTUN), and criminal law, handled by the Corruption Court (Pengadilan Tindak Pidana Korupsi/Tipikor). The authority of the Administrative Court is grounded in the Administrative Governance Law, which allows government officials a degree of discretion in decision-making. Conversely, the Corruption Court prosecutes abuse of power as a form of corruption based on the Anti-Corruption Law. The overlapping jurisdictions of these two judicial bodies raise several legal challenges, including uncertainty in law enforcement mechanisms, the potential for conflicting rulings, and the risk of criminalizing officials who act within the bounds of administrative discretion. This study aims to analyze the concept of abuse of power from both administrative and criminal law perspectives, examine the respective jurisdictions of the Administrative Court and the Corruption Court in such cases, and identify the legal issues that arise from this dualism. A normative juridical method is employed, incorporating statutory (statute approach), conceptual, and comparative approaches. The statute approach examines the legal norms governing the jurisdictions of PTUN and Tipikor, while the conceptual approach explores legal theories related to abuse of power. The comparative approach analyzes how similar cases are handled in other jurisdictions. This research seeks to contribute to academic discourse by providing a deeper understanding of the legal dilemmas caused by dual judicial authority and proposing normative solutions to ensure legal certainty within Indonesia’s judicial system.]]>
