<![CDATA[State-owned enterprises in Indonesia extensively utilize Engineering, Procurement, and Construction turnkey contracts for strategic infrastructure development, inherently requiring contractual flexibility through change order mechanisms to accommodate project complexity and uncertainty. However, stringent oversight of state finances creates significant legal ambiguity regarding whether cost increases resulting from legitimate project variations automatically constitute state financial loss under Indonesian anti-corruption legislation. This study employs normative legal research with doctrinal analysis to examine the juridical construction of state financial loss within the context of contract variations, analyzing constitutional court jurisprudence, audit board methodologies, and corporate governance principles. The research develops a tripartite classification framework distinguishing change orders as ordinary business risks requiring documentation, valid technical justifications necessitating cost-benefit analysis, or potential state financial losses involving unlawful acts. Findings indicate that the Constitutional Court's interpretation requiring actual and definite losses as material elements of corruption offenses creates substantial evidentiary burdens for auditors and law enforcement, while the Business Judgment Rule offers limited protection for directors due to inconsistent application. The study concludes that regulatory harmonization between project management paradigms and criminal law frameworks is essential to provide legal certainty for decision-makers while safeguarding public funds against fraudulent contract modifications.]]>
Copyrights © 2026
