Normative Inconsistency in Prosecutors' Functional Position and Personnel Management Regulation in Indonesia
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.59261/jlsp.v4i4.155Keywords:
Functional Position, Prosecutorial Independence, Government Regulation, Normative Inconsistency, Rule of LawAbstract
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.
References
Andyaksa, U., Panggabean, M. L., Subhan, H., & Nainggolan, B. (2026). Double dipping prohibition in the modern bankruptcy era: A comparative review of Indonesia with bankruptcy laws in Southeast Asia and Europe. Veredas do Direito, 23(3), e234266. https://doi.org/10.18623/rvd.v23.n3.4266
Artyo, Y. A., Aristyana, N., & Sinaga, A. P. A. (2024). Implikasi putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 6/PUU-XXII/2024 mengenai syarat jabatan Jaksa Agung terhadap independensi Kejaksaan dalam sistem peradilan pidana. Jatiswara, 39(2), 185–200. https://doi.org/10.29303/jtsw.v39i2.667
Asshiddiqie, J. (2010). Konstitusi dan konstitusionalisme Indonesia. Sinar Grafika.
Atmasasmita, R. (2011). Sistem peradilan pidana kontemporer.
Brouwer, J. G., & Schilder, A. E. (1998). A survey of Dutch administrative law. Ars Aequi Libri.
Constitutional Court of the Republic of Indonesia. (2018). Decision No. 68/PUU-XV/2017 (pronounced 23 May 2018).
Constitutional Court of the Republic of Indonesia. (2024). Decision No. 6/PUU-XXII/2024 (pronounced 29 February 2024).
Constitutional Court of the Republic of Indonesia. (2025). Decision No. 15/PUU-XXIII/2025.
Dimyati, K., Nashir, H., Elviandri, E., Absori, A., Wardiono, K., & Budiono, A. (2021). Indonesia as a legal welfare state: A prophetic-transcendental basis. Heliyon, 7(8), e07865. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2021.e07865
Friedman, L. M. (1975). The legal system: A social science perspective. Russell Sage Foundation.
Ghonu, I. (2015). Independensi Kejaksaan dalam sistem peradilan pidana di Indonesia. Justitia et Pax, 31(2), 12–25. https://doi.org/10.24002/jep.v31i2.1342
Gorbanov, I., Dudko, Y., Humenyuk, M., Berendieieva, A., Trosteniuk, T., & Morgun, S. (2025). Theoretical and applied principles of the activities of the prosecutor’s office and the bar in combating crime. Veredas do Direito, 22(4), e223702. https://doi.org/10.18623/rvd.v22.n4.3702
Hadjon, P. M. (1987). Perlindungan hukum bagi rakyat di Indonesia. Bina Ilmu.
Hartini, S., Kadarsih, S., & Sudrajat, T. (2008). Hukum kepegawaian di Indonesia. Sinar Grafika.
Hutagalung, J. R. E. R. (2023). Personnel regulation at the secretariat of the Attorney Commission of the Republic of Indonesia. SIGn Jurnal Hukum, 5(1), 221–234. https://doi.org/10.37276/sjh.v5i1.286
Hutagalung, J. R. E. R., & Hermanu, D. H. (2025). The effect of dialogical communication and responsiveness of complaint services on public trust in the Prosecutor’s Commission of the Republic of Indonesia. Jurnal Spektrum Komunikasi, 13(4), 527–543. https://doi.org/10.37826/spektrum.v13i4.1094
Logemann, J. H. A. (1948). Over de theorie van een stelling staatsrecht. W. E. J. Tjeenk Willink.
Mahendra, Y. I. (2012). Kedudukan Kejaksaan Agung dan posisi Jaksa Agung dalam sistem presidensial di bawah UUD 1945. Kencana Prenada Media Group.
Manan, H. B. (1998). Beberapa masalah hukum tata negara.
Marbun, S. F. (2011). Peradilan administrasi negara dan upaya administratif di Indonesia. FH UII Press.
Maringka, J. S. (2022). Reformasi kejaksaan dalam sistem hukum nasional. Sinar Grafika.
Marzuki, P. M. (2011). Penelitian hukum (Rev. ed., cetakan ke-3). Kencana.
Michel, V. (2021). Institutional design, prosecutorial independence, and accountability: Lessons from the International Commission against Impunity in Guatemala (CICIG). Laws, 10(3), 58. https://doi.org/10.3390/laws10030058
Mufrohim, O., & Herawati, R. (2020). Independensi lembaga kejaksaan sebagai legal structure didalam sistem peradilan pidana (criminal justice system) di Indonesia. Jurnal Pembangunan Hukum Indonesia, 2(3), 373–386. https://doi.org/10.14710/jphi.v2i3.373-386
Pieris, J., & Widiarty, W. S. (2007). Negara hukum dan perlindungan konsumen terhadap produk pangan kadaluarsa. Pelangi Cendekia.
Rahardjo, S. (2000). Ilmu hukum. PT Citra Aditya Bakti.
Sahal, I. (2021). Menggugat jaksa sebagai jabatan fungsional. Jurnal Hukum Progresif, 9(1), 37–49. https://doi.org/10.14710/jhp.9.1.37-49
Siagian, S. P. (2008). Manajemen sumber daya manusia. Bumi Aksara.
Šramel, B. (2022). Possibilities of strengthening the independence of the public prosecutor’s office of the Slovak Republic: A system of appointment of the prosecutor general to the office as a key element? Social Sciences, 11(8), 364. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci11080364
Soekanto, S., & Mamudji, S. (2003). Penelitian hukum normatif: Suatu tinjauan singkat. PT Raja Grafindo Persada.
Sudirdja, R. P. (2019). Penguatan kewenangan penuntut umum melalui pengesampingan perkara pidana dengan alasan tertentu. Litigasi, 20(2), 291–313. https://doi.org/10.23969/litigasi.v20i2.2032
Sudrajat, T. (2018). Harmonization of regulation based on Pancasila values through the Constitutional Court of Indonesia. Constitutional Review, 4(2), 301–325. https://doi.org/10.31078/consrev426
Tas, F., Moenta, A. P., Halim, H., Rahmatullah, I., Mutaallif, S., & Fikri, M. (2026). Exploring prosecutorial mediation authority in government disputes: A comparative study of legal frameworks and practices. Veredas do Direito, 23, e235912. https://doi.org/10.18623/rvd.v23.5912
Triyono, S., Rahman, S., Rahman, S., & Razak, A. (2026). The essence of prosecutor’s authority in the execution of criminal judgments within the jurisdiction of the South Sulawesi High Prosecutor’s Office. Veredas do Direito, 23(3), e233503. https://doi.org/10.18623/rvd.v23.n3.3503
Voigt, S., & Wulf, A. J. (2019). What makes prosecutors independent? Analysing the institutional determinants of prosecutorial independence. Journal of Institutional Economics, 15(1), 99–120. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1744137417000212
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Johannes Ronald Elyeser Roparulian Hutagalung, Hulman Panjaitan, Tomson Situmeang, Inri Januar
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
