Background: In a state governed by the rule of law (Rechtsstaat), judicial review serves as a cornerstone of administrative justice, ensuring government actions are legal, reasonable, and fair. In Indonesia, the State Administrative Court (PTUN) is the primary institution for this oversight. However, the recent Constitutional Court Decision No. 24/PUU-XXII/2024 has introduced significant changes to this dynamic, becoming a focal point of legal debate.

Purpose: This article provides a critical analysis of Constitutional Court Decision No. 24/PUU-XXII/2024, examining its legal reasoning and its profound implications for the Indonesian administrative justice system. The study aims to deconstruct the decision's impact on the judicial review rights of state administrative officials and evaluate its compatibility with fundamental principles of law and justice.

Methods: This study utilizes a normative legal research methodology. It employs a statute approach to dissect the court's decision and relevant legislation, a case approach to analyze the court's reasoning, and a conceptual approach to evaluate the findings against established legal theories, including the rule of law, equality before the law, and the principle of proportionality. The analysis is supported by a comprehensive review of existing academic literature.

Findings: The research finds that Decision No. 24/PUU-XXII/2024 substantially curtails the right of state administrative officials to seek judicial review against administrative decisions. This creates a procedural imbalance that privileges the state as an institution over its officials as legal subjects, fundamentally altering the landscape of administrative dispute resolution and potentially complicating the execution of final and binding court judgments.

Conclusion: The decision represents a regression for administrative justice in Indonesia. It conflicts with the principles of the rule of law, equality, and proportionality, and risks weakening the mechanisms of checks and balances essential for good governance. This article calls for a critical reconsideration of the decision's legal premises to uphold accountability and ensure fair access to justice for all parties within the administrative system.

This article presents an analysis of the importance of the administrative justice system in the current state administration system and its features. In addition, the views of legal scholars on the administrative justice system and methods for protecting citizens' rights and restoring their violated rights are also covered.

The paper discusses how mandatory disclosure of assets and income reduces corruption risk by increasing transparency, enabling scrutiny, and deterring corrupt enrichment. Based on global standards and comparative practice, it determines the best practices such as formats, public availability, verification procedures, connection to asset recovery, and sanctions for non-disclosure. The study then examines national practice, assessing legal design, institutional capacity, and enforcement shortfall. Key findings show that statements succeed when they are followed by independent checks, web-based submission, risk-based screening, and public disclosure, while concealment, weak checks, and politization of outcomes erode results. The article concludes on some practical recommendations for improving declaration systems so that they can better avoid corruption and foster citizen trust.