<![CDATA[This study examines the ambiguity of the phrase “APIP Supervision Results” in Article 2(2) of Supreme Court Regulation No. 4 of 2015, which has led to inconsistent judicial interpretations and legal uncertainty regarding the jurisdiction of the Administrative Court in reviewing alleged abuse of authority. While existing studies primarily address the general relationship between administrative courts and supervisory mechanisms, they have not sufficiently analyzed the plurality of APIP supervisory regimes and their implications for jurisdictional limits. Employing normative legal research with statutory, case, conceptual, and philosophical approaches, this study analyzes regulatory frameworks and divergent court decisions to identify interpretative inconsistencies. The findings reveal that APIP supervision operates within a pluralistic and fragmented regulatory structure, encompassing multiple forms beyond regular and specific-purpose supervision, thereby rendering a purely formal interpretation inadequate. This study argues that limiting the meaning of “APIP Supervision Results” to specific supervisory typologies undermines legal certainty and restricts access to judicial protection. Accordingly, it proposes a shift toward a substantive interpretative approach based on normative criteria capable of accommodating diverse supervisory practices. The novelty of this research lies in its systematic reconstruction of the concept of APIP supervision results through a substantive-normative framework that integrates the plurality of supervisory regimes with theories of authority and legal certainty. Its contribution is to provide a doctrinal basis for clarifying the limits of administrative judicial authority and to offer practical guidance for achieving consistency in judicial interpretation, thereby strengthening legal certainty and administrative justice in Indonesia.]]>
Copyrights © 2026
