<![CDATA[This article examines the relationship between the Asas-Asas Umum Pemerintahan yang Baik (AUPB), or General Principles of Good Administration, and maqasid al-shariah in strengthening citizens’ rights under Indonesian administrative law. AUPB provides binding standards for governmental decisions and actions, but its open-textured principles raise questions about how to reconcile procedural legality, public benefit, and substantive rights protection. Using normative legal research, the study applies statutory, conceptual, case, comparative-functional, and philosophical approaches. Primary legal materials comprise constitutional provisions, administrative legislation, and selected judicial decisions, while administrative-law and maqasid scholarship provide conceptual materials. The analysis identifies a bounded form of normative convergence operating through axiological alignment, functional complementarity, and bounded interpretive application. Both frameworks are oriented towards justice, responsible authority, public benefit, human dignity, and the prevention of harm. Their legal functions nevertheless differ: AUPB supplies binding standards, whereas maqasid offers an ethical-interpretive framework for evaluating the purposes, consequences, and distributional effects of administrative action. It cannot serve as an independent ground for judicial annulment. The framework requires officials to provide legally grounded and evidence-informed reasons, consider affected interests and less harmful alternatives, and justify claimed public benefits. It may also deepen assessments by PTUN and the Ombudsman while keeping decisions and remedies anchored in positive law. The study thus offers a constitutionally bounded framework for rights-oriented administrative reasoning within Indonesia’s plural legal order.]]>
