Generally no. Representation belongs to directors unless the AoA or a specific resolution says otherwise.
If you intend to establish, acquire, or invest in a company in Indonesia, you will encounter the country’s distinctive two-tier board system, which separates management under the Board of Directors (Direksi) from supervision under the Board of Commissioners (Dewan Komisaris). This separation is not merely formal, it defines who holds the authority to bind the company, who oversees risk and compliance, and who bears personal liability under the Indonesian Company Law. For business owners, executives, and foreign investors, understanding the difference between Board of Directors and Board of Commissioners in Indonesia is crucial to achieving sound governance, risk control, and regulatory compliance. Moreover, a well-structured governance framework not only enhances efficiency and reduces disputes but also strengthens investor and creditor confidence, thereby facilitating access to financing and supporting sustainable corporate growth.
Indonesia’s corporate governance model is deliberately engineered to keep execution and supervision in different hands. The Board of Directors leads daily operations, represents the company before third parties, and implements strategy. The Board of Commissioners supervises, advises, and ensures the directors do not overreach. This design thereby establishes structural checks and balances that not only ensure compliance with applicable laws and regulations but also enhance the overall quality and integrity of corporate decision-making. Furthermore, for cross-border corporate groups, such a model aligns closely with contemporary international governance standards—where management is responsible for executing business operations, while an informed and independent board exercises oversight to safeguard transparency and accountability.
The core rules live in Law No. 40 of 2007 on Limited Liability Companies (Company Law) and its subsequent amendments. The Company Law codifies that the Board of Directors manages the company (including representation inside and outside court) and that the Board of Commissioners performs supervision and advice. Public companies must also comply with OJK (Financial Services Authority) regulations, covering independent commissioners, committees, disclosure, related-party transactions, and governance reporting plus IDX listing rules where relevant. Your Articles of Association (AoA) operationalize these requirements with company-specific details such as quorum thresholds, director titles, reserved matters, and committee mandates.
Separation of roles shapes culture: the directors focus on execution and results; the commissioners focus on outcomes, risk, and integrity. When commissioners ask disciplined questions about cash flow, customer concentration, or cybersecurity directors learn to substantiate decisions with data and alternatives. Over time this produces a culture where metrics, documentation, and forward-looking risk analysis are routine. That culture protects the company in downcycles and unlocks value in expansions or exits.
The Board of Directors holds the authority to manage and represent the company. This includes signing binding contracts, hiring and firing, opening bank accounts, approving budgets, operating internal policies, and defending the company in court or arbitration. To outside parties, the director’s signature is the company’s voice unless the AoA specifically limits it or requires dual signatories. For leaders new to Indonesia, Understanding the Difference Between Board of Directors and Board of Commissioners in Indonesia begins with appreciating that directors carry the pen and therefore the first line of responsibility.
Directors represent the company before customers, suppliers, banks, regulators, and courts. In practice, that means negotiating major commercial contracts, responding to tax office letters, and appointing counsel in litigation or arbitration. Many AoA require joint signatures (e.g., President Director + one director) for large transactions, bank loans, or asset transfers; these internal signatory matrices protect the company against unilateral acts while preserving agility for routine operations.
Directors own the strategic plan and the annual budget. They allocate capital, set KPIs, and translate strategy into quarterly execution: sales targets, procurement, plant utilization, and digital initiatives. They must ensure that assumptions are evidence-based; they also need scenario plans for shocks (currency swings, raw material price spikes, or regulatory changes). A documented planning cadence board calendars, budget workshops, and rolling forecasts gives commissioners and shareholders confidence that management is purposeful, not reactive.
Sound governance requires thoughtful delegations of authority (DoA). Directors should define monetary thresholds for procurement, capex, pricing exceptions, HR decisions, and litigation settlements. DoA frameworks work with internal controls segregation of duties, maker-checker rules, reconciliations, and exception reporting to lower fraud risk and improve speed. In addition, this framework should be complemented by a comprehensive policy architecture encompassing the Code of Conduct, Anti-Bribery and Corruption Policy, Related-Party Transaction Policy, Information Security Policy, Data Privacy Policy, and Whistleblowing Mechanism so that all personnel clearly understand their ethical and compliance obligations, and auditors are able to effectively assess the adequacy and implementation of internal controls.
Directors must act prudently, in good faith, and in the best interest of the company. In plain English: inform yourself, weigh options, disclose conflicts, and document your rationale. The Business Judgment Rule (BJR) generally shields directors when decisions made on an informed basis and without conflicts turn out poorly due to business risk, not negligence or bad faith. Practically, that means maintain data packs for major decisions, record alternatives considered, get fairness or valuation opinions when prudent, and minute dissent where appropriate. Good process today is your best defense tomorrow.
Directors may face personal liability for losses arising from negligence, unlawful conduct, or breaches of AoA or law (e.g., misstatements, improper dividends, or failure to maintain proper bookkeeping). Safe harbors include documented reliance on expert opinions (law, tax, technical), compliance with AoA and policies, and timely escalation to commissioners and shareholders for approvals. For regulated sectors (finance, insurance), additional fit and proper tests and ongoing competency expectations apply underscoring why experienced counsel is indispensable.
READ MORE:
Commissioners are the sentinels of governance. They do not run the business; they oversee it. They challenge assumptions, verify compliance, and advise on strategy. In monthly or quarterly meetings, commissioners review management’s performance and risk posture, test scenario plans, and interrogate related-party dynamics. Done well, oversight is not antagonistic; it’s a high-trust, high-challenge relationship that improves decision quality and reduces surprises.
The law frames supervision broadly: commissioners ensure that directors execute their mandate consistent with law, AoA, and GMS decisions. Practically, that means reviewing the annual work plan and budget (RKAP), monitoring liquidity, analyzing capital expenditure cases, and overseeing internal audit findings, legal disputes, and regulatory interactions. Commissioners advise, but they do not direct operations. That line matters: cross it, and you risk blurring accountability and exposing commissioners to de facto management liability.
Public companies must establish committees Audit Committee at minimum; often Risk Committee and Nomination & Remuneration Committee as well. The Audit Committee engages internal and external auditors, monitors financial statements’ integrity, and tracks the remediation of control weaknesses. Risk Committees map enterprise risks (credit, market, operational, cybersecurity, legal, ESG) and test mitigation plans. Nomination & Remuneration ensures fit-and-proper processes, succession planning, and pay-for-performance alignment. For private companies, adopting committees voluntarily is increasingly standard, especially when courting institutional investors.
For listed companies, a portion of commissioners must be independent—free from ownership, employment, and familial ties that could compromise impartiality. Independence creates evidentiary strength: when independent commissioners approve a sensitive related-party transaction supported by an external fairness opinion, regulators and markets are reassured. Even in private companies, appointing a respected independent commissioner can sharpen management discipline and increase lender confidence.
Commissioners owe the same fiduciary bedrock care, loyalty, and good faith. Failures can create personal exposure, especially where red flags were ignored (e.g., significant control deficiencies, persistent covenant breaches, or unaddressed whistleblower allegations). Commissioners protect themselves and the company by ensuring information flows are rich and timely, insisting on management certifications, and documenting supervisory conclusions and requests in formal minutes and committee reports.
READ MORE:
The fundamental premise underlying Understanding the Difference Between Board of Directors and Board of Commissioners in Indonesia is a clean division of power. Directors decide and execute within an approved plan; commissioners question, approve where required, and supervise adherence to limits. Where many companies stumble is not law, but clarity: unclear reserved matters, fuzzy veto lists, and weak information rights. Clarity in the AoA and board charters prevents turf wars and accelerates approvals.
“Reserved matters” earmark decisions that require commissioner approval or GMS approval: large borrowings, asset disposals, related-party transactions, major capex, mergers and acquisitions, long-term contracts, and changes to core policies. A practical tip: pair the list with quantitative thresholds and qualitative triggers (e.g., reputational risk, sanctions exposure, or data-privacy impact) so approvals focus on material risk, not bureaucracy.
Commissioners must receive periodic packs: management accounts, forecasting updates, covenant dashboards, litigation status, compliance attestations, and internal audit reports. Directors prepare and present; commissioners probe and record conclusions. The GMS (RUPS) remains the sovereign forum: directors table annual reports; commissioners present supervisory statements; shareholders adopt accounts, decide dividends, and approve appointments or removals. Robust minutes, signed attendance lists, and timely filings close the loop.
Related-party transactions (RPTs) demand heightened scrutiny. Require disclosure of interests; obtain third-party benchmarks or fairness opinions; and ensure independent commissioner sign-off where material. Embed recusal mechanics interested directors abstain; independent commissioners lead the evaluation. A clear RPT policy protects against self-dealing and reassures auditors, lenders, and minority shareholders.
For PT PMA (foreign-owned companies), boards sit at the intersection of law, immigration, and banking. Directors and commissioners can be foreigners, but immigration status (e.g., KITAS/ITAS) and local address requirements must be planned. Banks will request wet-ink signatures, specimen cards, and board resolutions aligned to the AoA. To avoid deadlock and ensure investor protection, Understanding the Difference Between Board of Directors and Board of Commissioners in Indonesia must be reflected in the shareholders’ agreement and AoA: specify reserved matters, drag/tag rights, information rights, and dispute resolution (arbitration venue and rules). Build veto rights with precision broad enough to protect, narrow enough to let the business run.
If your key director is expatriate, plan the KITAS route early; align job titles and KBLI business lines; and coordinate with payroll and tax teams to avoid permanent establishment or withholding tax missteps. Where operations span multiple regions, consider appointing a local operational director to maintain agility for permits, inspections, and urgent signings.
Create a tiered veto list: commissioner-level approvals for material transactions; GMS approvals for existential changes (merger, dissolution, disposal of substantially all assets). Add deadlock breakers (escalation to an independent expert, chair’s casting vote in specific committees, or buy-sell mechanisms) so governance remains constructive even when partners disagree.
A resilient company integrates risk and compliance into the board cycle. The directors operationalize the three lines of defense; the commissioners oversee its integrity. Together they build a system that not only complies, but predicts.
Line 1 (management) owns risks and controls; Line 2 (risk & compliance) sets frameworks, monitors thresholds, and advises; Line 3 (internal audit) tests effectiveness and independence, reporting functionally to commissioners (via the Audit Committee). Directors must ensure Line 1 is strong, clear owners, KRIs, and remediation plans, so oversight is evidence-based.
Governance breathes through documents you actually use: Board Charters, Committee Charters, Code of Conduct, RPT Policy, Whistleblowing, Anti-Bribery & Corruption, Data Privacy, Information Security, Delegations of Authority, and Document Retention. Pair them with an annual board calendar that sequences strategy offsites, budget approvals, audit plan sign-offs, and policy reviews. When regulators or investors ask, you show the plan and the paper trail.
ESG is no longer optional. Commissioners increasingly request climate and safety dashboards, human-capital metrics, supply-chain screening, and data-protection attestations. Directors translate this into KPIs for procurement, logistics, IT, and HR. Embedding ESG in charters and committee scopes rather than treating it as a side project creates durable value and protects reputation.
The same governance mistakes recur across industries. By recognizing them early, boards save themselves litigation, regulator scrutiny, and reputation damage.
A shareholder or commissioner who micromanages operations via email risks being viewed as a de facto director, with potential liability exposure. Keep oversight formal: use meetings, minutes, and resolutions. If you must instruct management, do it through the proper organ (a board decision), not ad hoc messages that blur roles.
Commissioners should challenge; they should not execute. Approving a strategy is fine; negotiating supplier SLAs or directing plant schedules is not. When commissioners step into management, they inherit management risk without management visibility. The safeguard is role discipline: if the matter is operational, ask for data and timelines; don’t give the order.
Big moves acquisitions, asset transfers, loans often require layered approvals: AoA thresholds, commissioner sign-offs, GMS resolutions, and sometimes regulator or creditor consent. Skipping a layer can void transactions or trigger defaults. Maintain a transaction approvals checklist and seek counsel early; it’s cheaper than remedial work.
We assist founders, family enterprises, private equity–backed entities, and multinational corporations in establishing and implementing effective and compliant corporate governance frameworks. The following represents our proven and field-tested governance approach
A company thrives when it knows who decides, who supervises, and who is accountable. The Indonesian model achieves that through role separation and disciplined process. Directors lead with informed judgment; commissioners safeguard stakeholders with probing, independent oversight. When these roles are clear in the AoA, charters, and daily routines, you unlock better strategy execution, cleaner audits, and easier access to capital. For leaders serious about scale and resilience.
If your company requires a governance structure that earns investor confidence and meets regulatory expectations, Kusuma & Partners Law Firm stands ready to assist. Our team can design and implement a board governance framework meticulously tailored to your organization’s risk profile, industry characteristics, and strategic growth objectives. Contact us for a comprehensive and actionable governance plan.
Fill in the form below to get our expert guidance.
“DISCLAIMER: This content is intended for general informational purposes only and should not be treated as legal advice. For professional advice, please consult with us.”
A Share Pledge Agreement Indonesia is one of the most crucial security instruments used in business financing, foreign investment, joint ventures, and corporate debt transactions in Indonesia. Whether you are a lender, investor, venture capitalist, private equity firm, or business owner, understanding how share pledges work will determine how secure your investment truly is. With […]
Over the past decade, Indonesia has undergone a significant transformation in tax administration. The government’s commitment to strengthening fiscal transparency, driven by the Harmonized Tax Law (HPP Law) and the introduction of digital tax systems, has made corporate tax behaviour a central focus of regulatory oversight. Companies that once viewed taxation merely as a compliance […]
The Indonesian government has issued PMK 37/2025: E-Commerce Platforms as Income Tax Collectors in Indonesia, a landmark regulation that reshapes digital taxation. Under this rule, e-commerce platforms meeting certain thresholds are formally appointed as income tax collectors, shifting the responsibility from individual sellers to large digital marketplaces. This move ensures fair tax compliance, strengthens state […]
