<![CDATA[Background: Procurement corruption in Indonesian state-owned enterprises (SOEs) persists through contract manipulation practices, including mark-ups, directed tendering, fictitious entities, and engineered contract addenda. Although Article 33 of the 1945 Constitution and existing laws uphold the principles of transparency and accountability, no operational regulation currently requires SOEs to proactively disclose procurement contracts, addenda, and implementation reports. Objective: This study develops a normative model for SOE procurement contract disclosure as a pre-emptive and systemic strategy for corruption prevention. Methods: This dogmatic normative legal research applies statutory, conceptual, case-based, and comparative approaches. It examines the 1945 Constitution, the SOE Law, the Anti-Corruption Law, the Public Information Disclosure Law, SOE procurement regulations, Information Commission decisions, selected corruption cases involving PLN, Merpati, Pelindo II, and Amarta Karya, as well as international open-contracting standards. The analysis maps legal norms, identifies regulatory gaps, examines fraud patterns, and constructs a model based on Fraud Diamond Theory. Results: The study identifies a gap between transparency principles and enforceable disclosure obligations, enabling contractual secrecy that increases opportunities for fraud and strengthens perpetrators’ capabilities. The proposed model requires the disclosure of principal contracts and addenda, proactive publication through standardized electronic platforms, proportionate protection of legitimate trade secrets through consequence tests, independent verification mechanisms, and graduated administrative sanctions linked to the performance of SOE organs. Conclusion: Procurement contract disclosure should be institutionalized as a binding preventive instrument to strengthen public oversight, mitigate procurement fraud risks, and realize economic democracy as mandated by Article 33 of the 1945 Constitution.]]>
Copyrights © 2026
