<![CDATA[Supreme Court Regulation (PERMA) Number 1 of 2019 regulates the mechanism of electronic administration and trials, including provisions regarding electronic summons as stated in Article 18. However, the phrases “valid” and “appropriate,” which are requirements for the validity of electronic summonses, do not yet have clear conceptual boundaries, giving rise to potential differences in interpretation and legal uncertainty in judicial practice. This study aims to analyze the meaning and normative limitations of the terms “valid” and “appropriate” in the context of electronic summons by reviewing the construction of regulations, doctrines, judicial principles, and their application in court. Using a normative juridical method through a regulatory, conceptual, and case-based approach, this study finds that the validity of electronic summons must be understood as the fulfillment of formal procedures and authentication of the identity of the summoned party, while appropriateness relates to the accuracy of the electronic address, the deadline for delivery, and the accessibility of information by the party concerned. From the perspective of the principle of legal certainty, a clear interpretation of these two terms is an important prerequisite for ensuring the protection of the rights of the parties and preventing procedural disputes in the electronic trial process. Therefore, it is necessary to formulate more detailed guidelines so that the implementation of electronic summons meets the standards of legal certainty, effectiveness, and fairness.]]>
