T The practice of dual office-holding by vice ministers in the 2024–2029 red and white cabinet raises juridical issues, as it intersects with the principles of the rule of law, legal certainty, public office accountability, and good governance. in fact, constitutional court decision number 128/puu-xxiii/2025 has clarified that the prohibition against dual office-holding under law number 39 of 2008 applies not only to ministers, but also extends to vice ministers as subjects prohibited from holding concurrent positions. nevertheless, to this day, many vice ministers continue to hold concurrent positions. the research problems in this study examine the implications of constitutional court decision number 128/puu-xxiii/2025 for vice ministers holding concurrent positions in the red and white cabinet, as well as the follow-up to this decision in the practice of government administration. this study employs a descriptive normative legal research method by examining statutory regulations, constitutional court decisions, legal doctrines, and other secondary legal sources, which are subsequently analyzed qualitatively using deductive reasoning to draw conclusions. the findings indicate that constitutional court decision number 128/puu-xxiii/2025 carries the legal implication that vice ministers are legally bound by the same prohibition against dual office-holding applicable to ministers. consequently, vice ministers who currently hold concurrent positions must adjust accordingly by selecting a single office. follow-up actions to this ruling should be implemented through an administrative evaluation of vice ministers holding concurrent positions, along with an amendment to law number 39 of 2008 concerning state ministries, ensuring that the prohibition against dual office-holding for vice ministers is explicitly regulated and no longer generates divergent interpretations in constitutional practice.