Assessing the Limits of Ministerial Discretion and Its Legal Accountability from the Perspective of Administrative Law

Abstract

The dynamics of modern governance require discretionary authority for public officials, including ministers, to respond to concrete administrative problems that cannot be comprehensively regulated by statutory provisions. However, the exercise of discretion may also create a risk of abuse of authority in the absence of clear legal limitations and accountability mechanisms. This study aims to analyze the concept of discretion in administrative law, the legal boundaries of ministerial discretion, and the forms of accountability that may arise from its exercise. This research applies a normative legal research method using statutory and conceptual approaches. Legal materials are analyzed qualitatively to understand the relationship between authority, the limits of discretion, and ministerial accountability. The findings indicate that ministerial discretion constitutes a legitimate administrative authority derived from ministerial office and exercised within the scope of governmental authority delegated in the framework of presidential executive power. However, such discretion is not absolute. Its exercise must be limited by the principle of legality, the purpose of the granted authority, objective reasons, the general principles of good governance, good faith, the absence of conflict of interest, and the prohibition of abuse of authority. Accountability for the exercise of discretion may take the form of official responsibility or personal responsibility. It may further develop into administrative, political, civil, or criminal liability when the relevant legal elements are fulfilled. Ministerial discretion in public policy practice must first be assessed through the framework of administrative law, so that lawful discretion is not easily criminalized, while unlawful discretion remains subject to legal accountability.