<![CDATA[The handling of abuse of authority in Indonesian local government involves three mechanisms with distinct legal functions: internal government supervision conducted by the regional Inspectorate as part of the Government Internal Supervisory Apparatus, maladministration oversight conducted by the Ombudsman of the Republic of Indonesia, and judicial assessment conducted by the State Administrative Court. The legal problem lies not in the number of institutions but in the absence of a sufficiently defined procedural interface between their findings, remedies, and jurisdictional boundaries. This article examines the legal position of each mechanism and develops a bounded model for connecting them without treating the court as an administrative coordination partner. It employs normative legal research using statutory, conceptual, and case approaches. The analysis shows that internal audit findings, Ombudsman examinations, and judicial decisions cannot be arranged as a mandatory linear sequence. Article 20 of the Government Administration Law requires accurate classification of internal supervisory findings, while Article 21 and Supreme Court Regulation Number 4 of 2015 establish a separate judicial route whose use depends on standing, a qualifying internal supervisory result, and procedural timing. Constitutional Court Decision Number 66/PUU-XXIV/2026 further requires administrative accountability to be addressed before criminal liability and clarifies the allocation of state financial loss. The article proposes differentiated interfaces: conditional administrative referral between the Inspectorate and Ombudsman, lawful transfer of relevant information, an evidentiary rather than coordinative relationship with the Administrative Court, and traceable follow-up within each institution]]>
Copyrights © 2026
