<![CDATA[Government procurement remains one of the sectors most exposed to corruption. This article examines a normative gap in Presidential Regulation Number 16 of 2018, as last amended by Presidential Regulation Number 46 of 2025: its seven procurement principles and ethical rules do not oblige officials to assess the integrity, affiliations, capacity, and performance risk of a provider before a contract is awarded. The study is normative legal research using statutory, conceptual, comparative, and case approaches, and it analyses the decisions in the e-KTP and Jambi University medical equipment cases. The findings show that the prudential principle has a legal content distinct from the duty of carefulness, due diligence, and risk management. The 6C, 7P, and 3R frameworks of banking law can be adapted to procurement because both regimes govern entrusted funds and decisions about counterparties under information asymmetry, yielding eight verifiable prudential dimensions linked to each procurement stage. The case analysis indicates that the framework could potentially provide an additional preventive layer where existing controls failed. The article recommends adding prudence to Article 6 and specifying its indicators in an LKPP regulation.]]>
Copyrights © 2026
