<![CDATA[Purpose of the Study: This study aims to analyze the judicial reasoning (ratio decidendi) of District Court Decision No. 92/Pid.Sus/2021/PN Bna and District Court Decision No. 16/Pid.Sus/2023/PN Sgi in ordering rehabilitation for offenders of drug abuse within the Indonesian criminal justice system, with a particular focus on how judges reconstruct legal facts and interpret rehabilitative norms under the double track sentencing framework. Methodology: This research employs a normative juridical method with statutory, conceptual, and case approaches. The statutory approach examines relevant provisions, the conceptual approach analyzes the double track sentencing system, and the case approach focuses on District Court Decision No. 92/Pid.Sus/2021/PN Bna and District Court Decision No. 16/Pid.Sus/2023/PN Sgi. Legal materials were collected through library research and analyzed qualitatively using prescriptive and jurisprudential analyses. Results: The study finds that divergent sentencing outcomes in drug abuse cases are not caused by normative deficiencies, but by differences in judicial reasoning. Judges adopting a formalistic and retributive interpretation tend to marginalize assessment results and prioritize imprisonment, whereas judges employing a purposive and teleological approach integrate assessment findings as substantive legal facts and prioritize rehabilitation. This inconsistency demonstrates that the application of rehabilitation depends heavily on judicial interpretation rather than statutory mandate. Applications of this study: This research provides a jurisprudential foundation for judges, legal practitioners, and policymakers in strengthening consistency in sentencing practices for drug abuse cases, particularly in evaluating assessment results and applying rehabilitation within the double track system. Novelty/ Orginalty of this study: This study contributes originality by offering a jurisprudential analysis of ratio decidendi in rehabilitation-related verdicts, namely District Court Decision No. 92/Pid.Sus/2021/PN Bna and District Court Decision No. 16/Pid.Sus/2023/PN Sgi, demonstrating that inconsistencies in rehabilitation orders arise from judicial interpretative paradigms rather than legal norm ambiguity. It also proposes the need for coherent judicial reasoning standards in drug abuse sentencing. Keywords: Judicial Reasoning; Ratio Decidendi; Rehabilitation Orders; Drug Abuse; Indonesian Courts.]]>
