<![CDATA[This study examines the limits of police discretion in managing demonstrations from a comparative administrative law perspective, focusing on Indonesia and South Korea. It analyzes the constitutional limits of discretionary authority and the legal safeguards necessary to prevent abuses of power that may threaten freedom of assembly. Using a normative legal research method with statutory, conceptual, and comparative approaches, the study finds that Indonesia’s open-ended legal norms may enable de facto licensing practices and repressive measures. By contrast, South Korea provides a more structured model in which the principle of proportionality is reinforced through active judicial oversight by the Constitutional Court. The analysis demonstrates that police discretion should be constrained by the principles of legality, necessity, proportionality, and accountability. Restrictions on demonstrations must pursue a legitimate aim, respond to concrete risks, and employ the least restrictive effective measures. Dispersal and the use of force require separate justification, while peaceful participants must be distinguished from individuals engaging in violence. The study concludes that Indonesia should reform its police legislation to incorporate proportionality as an operational standard and strengthen judicial oversight, thereby shifting crowd management from a coercive toward a facilitative paradigm and ensuring more effective protection of constitutional rights.]]>
