An Analysis of Padang State Administrative Court Decision No. 17/G/2024/PTUN.PDG Concerning the Decree of the Regent of West Pasaman in Light of the General Principles of Good Governance

Government decisions must rest on statutory provisions and the General Principles of Good Governance (AUPB), yet disputes over them still reach the administrative courts. This article examines Decision No. 17/G/2024/PTUN.PDG of the Padang State Administrative Court concerning a decree of the Regent of Pasaman Barat on the obligation of an oil palm company to facilitate smallholder plantations. It asks what considerations led the judges to grant the whole claim and how the decision fares under the AUPB. The study is normative legal research with a descriptive qualitative design. It uses statutes and the decision as primary legal materials and books and journal articles as secondary materials, analyzed through qualitative juridical analysis. The findings show that the judges tested, in order, the court's jurisdiction, the plaintiff's legal standing, the defendant's objections, the evidence, and the substance of the disputed decree. The regent was found to have the authority to issue the decree, but the way that authority was used was faulty. The decree imposed a 1,400-hectare obligation without adequately counting a 2012 cooperation agreement covering 1,381 hectares, which left only 19 hectares outstanding, and it designated a recipient cooperative that had no agreement with the company. The judges therefore held the decree contrary to the principles of carefulness and impartiality, annulled it, and ordered its revocation. The decision shows that judicial review extends beyond the existence of authority to how authority is exercised. It recommends that officials base decisions on complete facts and weigh all affected parties' interests objectively