<![CDATA[Background: Indonesian legislation creates a regulatory conflict between Law No. 11 of 2021 on the Attorney General’s Office, which requires a specific Government Regulation governing prosecutor personnel management, and Law No. 20 of 2023 on the State Civil Apparatus, which applies the general functional-position framework to prosecutors as civil servants. The absence of the mandated regulation for more than four years has created a normative vacuum (rechtsleemte) that may undermine prosecutorial independence. Objective: This study examines the normative inconsistency between the two statutes, analyzes its consequences for prosecutorial independence, and proposes a normative model for the overdue Government Regulation mandated by Article 36 of the Prosecution Law. Methods: The study employs normative legal research using statutory, conceptual, and comparative approaches and analyzes the problem through three theoretical frameworks: Rule of Law (Rechtsstaat) theory grounded in Pancasila, Friedman’s Legal System theory, and the Office Theory (Ambtenleer) of Logemann and Marbun. Results: The analysis shows that the general civil service framework applied to prosecutors through the ASN Law is structurally incompatible with the quasi-judicial character of the prosecutorial function. The rechtsleemte leaves prosecutors exposed to career-based pressure that the Prosecution Law formally prohibits but that the personnel system does not structurally prevent at the normative level. Conclusion: A Government Regulation is constitutionally necessary and feasible and should incorporate five elements: recognition of the quasi-judicial nature of the prosecutorial function, protection of career independence, an independent oversight body, an appropriate salary structure, and coordination with the State Civil Apparatus Commission.]]>
