<![CDATA[General Background The execution of state power in law enforcement involves specialized divisions mandated to handle civil and state administrative matters. Specific Background This study examines the non-litigation practices carried out by the Civil and State Administrative Division (DATUN) and State Attorney General (JPN) of the Sidoarjo District Attorney's Office through mediation and negotiation. Knowledge Gap Despite statutory mandates, the operational effectiveness of alternative dispute resolution frameworks implemented by state attorneys for government entities requires continuous empirical evaluation. Aims This study examines dispute resolution practices, including receivables mediations and corporate arrears negotiations, to assess their legal basis and operational performance. Results The results indicate that DATUN's non-litigation mechanisms provide faster, more efficient, and effective dispute resolutions than litigation while safeguarding state legal interests. Novelty This study provides comprehensive empirical and juridical insights into how alternative dispute resolution handles specific state receivables and arrears within the Sidoarjo district context. Implications These findings establish that prosecutor-led mediation and negotiation reinforce state legal protection, bureaucratic efficiency, and institutional compliance without relying on lengthy court proceedings. Highlights: Non-litigation mechanisms executed by the Civil and State Administrative Division deliver faster and more efficient dispute resolution outcomes compared to traditional litigation paths. State Attorney General interventions successfully manage receivables disputes and corporate contribution arrears to protect state legal interests. Statutory frameworks under recent laws and regulations provide a valid legal basis for prosecutors to represent state and government interests outside the courtroom. Keywords: Sidoarjo District Prosecutor's Office, State Attorney, Mediation, Negotiation, DATUN]]>
