<![CDATA[This study was motivated by differences in judges’ reasoning when determining the representative authority of Sharia Savings, Loan, and Financing Cooperatives (KSPPS) in cases involving Islamic economics, where the manager acts on behalf of the cooperative. These differences raise questions regarding the boundary between business management authority and litigation representation authority, as well as their implications for legal standing and legal certainty. This study aims to analyze the judicial reasoning (ratio decidendi) used by judges in determining the KSPPS’s authority to represent the cooperative and to formulate an ideal framework for such authority from the perspective of Sharia economic law. The study employs a normative legal methodology using a case-based approach and a statutory approach, focusing on six decisions from the Bantul Religious Court and the Yogyakarta High Religious Court. The results of the study reveal two judicial constructions. First, a functional construction that links the position and management functions of the Manager to the KSPPS’s capacity for representation. Second, a normative-formal construction that requires a clear source of authority or mandate from the Board of Management to conduct litigation representation. This study proposes an ideal framework involving the differentiation of the Board’s attributive authority, delegated authority to the Manager, operational authority, and litigation authority. This interpretation affirms that a Manager’s administrative functions do not automatically include the authority to represent the cooperative in litigation and must be based on a clear and accountable mandate in accordance with the principles of amanah, justice, and legal certainty]]>
