Discretion of State Administrative Officials as a Progressive Legal Instrument: A Critical Analysis of Legitimacy, Accountability, and Judicial Control

Abstract

The principle of legality in State Administrative Law (HAN) often conflicts with the need to create an effective and responsive public administration. Discretion exists as an alternative, providing officials with flexibility to address gaps or ambiguities in the law in the public interest. In this article, discretion is analyzed from a progressive legal perspective, focusing on how this discretionary action can be maximized without sacrificing legal certainty and the protection of citizens' rights. This analysis focuses on three main aspects: Formal-Material Legitimacy, Multilevel Accountability Mechanisms, and the Control Function of the State Administrative Court (PTUN). The conceptual analysis shows that the effectiveness of discretion depends heavily on full adherence to the General Principles of Good Governance (AUPB), which serve as a guideline for assessing administrative actions. Discretion that aligns with progressive principles is transparent, involves public participation, and focuses on public benefits, thus supporting the principles of Good Governance.