HR Internal Investigations 2026 Comparisons

Human resources internal investigations are a crucial mechanism for tackling workplace problems and managing concerns, organisational policies and legal obligations within an organisation. These investigations are often undertaken when allegations or incidents threaten the safety, integrity or fairness of an institution. Such investigations aim to examine the facts, investigate malpractice, find out what happened and avoid a toxic culture in an organisation.

HR internal investigations will inevitably start in particular situations: for example, in response to employee complaints, regulatory inquiries, audits, audit findings, workplace conflicts and cybersecurity matters. Among the most common triggers are complaints from employees, which may relate to acts of harassment, discrimination or workplace bullying and require immediate attention, full adherence to anti-discrimination laws and protection of the rights of employees.

Likewise, whistle-blower and anonymous complaints, often involving ethical violations or violations of policy that are sensitive in nature and/or code violations, must be dealt with both impartially and equitably. Subsequent investigations may also be sparked by regulatory and legal compliance issues – eg, in relation to financial disparities, wage disputes and workplace safety violations – in an effort to reduce the threat of non-compliance and potential fines. Furthermore, financial irregularities revealed by auditing and data breaches demonstrate the need for HR to work in co-operation with other departments to correct wrongdoing and maintain the integrity of organisations.

There are no specific laws that oblige a company to conduct an HR internal investigation; however, in practice, HR internal investigations are carried out in cases of serious violations occurring within the work environment.

Typically, significant misconduct like sexual harassment, governed by Law No 12 of 2022 regarding the Criminal Act of Sexual Violence (“Law 12/2022”), as well as discrimination, fraud or any other unlawful activities that violate the employment contract, company rules, collective labour agreements or organisational policies necessitate that an employer conduct an internal HR investigation.

Although there are no specific provisions in the manpower laws that explicitly permit companies to conduct HR internal investigations, it is generally accepted that such investigations can proceed if there is a violation of company policies, company regulations or collective labour agreements that necessitates an internal inquiry, provided those violations do not fall under the jurisdiction of law enforcement authorities. A further acceptable rationale for initiating an HR internal investigation is in response to performance-related issues; in these cases, the investigation will evaluate an employee’s performance during assigned projects or tasks over a specified timeframe.

There is no specific requirement for employers to provide a certain type of channel for employees to report violations. In the absence of such a regulatory obligation, employers are not mandated to establish either anonymous or non-anonymous reporting systems.

Nevertheless, in practice, many companies adopt whistle-blowing systems, which essentially serve as anonymous reporting mechanisms. These systems take various forms in Indonesia, such as those available on a company’s website, where the types of reports accepted depend on the nature of the business activities. For example, Bank Indonesia operates a whistle-blowing system for reports of corruption, abuse of authority and ethical violations, which does not require disclosure of the reporter’s identity and thereby ensures anonymity. In addition, some companies employ both internal and external portals integrated with mobile applications. Unilever, for instance, provides a whistle-blowing system through its mobile application known as the “Speak Up Channel”, which functions as a dedicated reporting platform.

In practice, the reporting channel does not necessarily have to be anonymous. Whether or not the channel is anonymous depends on the company regulations or collective labour agreement.

There are no specific rules regarding who should be responsible for carrying out an HR internal investigation. In practice, HR internal investigations are usually carried out by the HR team or the internal audit team (the “internal investigators”). The internal investigators act as the main executors of the investigation, and as the follow-up body for reports received from employees. They will usually report to a general counsel or board of directors; this will depend on the organisational structure of the company.

The internal HR investigation should be done in an independent and impartial manner, where external legal advisers may be invited to participate therein. External counsel is usually brought in if the situation is deemed high risk because it is complicated and third parties, including government officials, might influence the company’s reputation. This means reviewing the matter or possible violation by gathering evidence, conducting interviews, working with the internal investigative group, and drafting and then presenting a legal opinion with recommended actions.

There are no specific regulations in the Indonesian Manpower Law or any other prevailing regulations that explicitly set out the circumstances under which an HR internal investigation must be carried out. However, based on practice, several situations may require such investigations, as previously explained in 1.1 Circumstances and 1.2 Bases.

The company’s policies, regulations or collective labour agreements must outline the requirements and procedures for conducting an internal HR investigation.

There are no specific regulations in Indonesian Manpower Law or any other prevailing regulations that explicitly set out the circumstances in which an HR internal investigation may not be carried out (temporarily or at all). However, it is believed that there are certain measures that may not be carried out during an HR internal investigation. As previously explained, an HR internal investigation is not clearly provided in the prevailing regulations. Generally speaking, criminal proceedings in Indonesia refers to the Indonesian Criminal Procedure Code (Kitab Undang-Undang Hukum Acara Pidana; KUHAP). Under KUHAP, “investigation” (penyidikan) is characterised as a sequence of actions performed by an investigator in accordance with the provisions outlined in this Law. The purpose of these actions is to seek and gather evidence that clarifies the criminal act that has taken place and to identify the suspect involved.

This definition is explicitly detailed in Article 1 Number 5 of KUHAP. It specifies that an investigation comprises a series of actions undertaken by an investigator following the procedures established by this Law, aimed at discovering and assembling evidence to elucidate the criminal act and locate the suspect. KUHAP outlines the powers granted to investigators, including police officers, for carrying out investigations. These powers encompass various actions such as seizure, search, arrest, detention and other activities deemed as coercive measures.

Since the HR internal investigation is not explicitly mandated in the prevailing laws, the internal investigator is not legally permitted to perform the coercive measures during any such investigation.

When not explicitly required or prohibited, employers typically decide on whether to conduct an internal HR investigation by considering the credibility and seriousness of the claims, potential repercussions for the workplace, legal risks involved and adherence to company policy, as well as by weighing the advantages of upholding trust against the costs associated with investigating. It is also considered best practice to document the reasoning behind either proceeding with or foregoing an investigation.

Under Indonesian regulations, there is no statutory right for either the reporter or the respondent to be formally informed that an HR internal investigation will be opened. However, employers are expected to follow principles of fairness and due process, which in practice means that the respondent should be given an opportunity to provide clarification before disciplinary action is taken. Employers may inform both parties, but this is not legally mandated.

Subject to the employer’s internal policy, the internal investigator may be required to document each stage of the investigation in a formal report and provide the reporter with periodic updates on the progress of the inquiry, or simply a summary of the progress.

Theoretically, based on the newly regulated Indonesian Criminal Code (Kitab Undang-Undang Hukum Pidana; KUHP) and KUHAP, there is an obligation (in this case, it could lie with the HR internal investigator) to make a report to the appropriate authority of an incident that is allegedly classified as a criminal act under certain circumstances, as further explained in the following. Practically speaking, it is the firm’s view that this provision is not effective, as the opening of an HR internal investigation is yet to conclude with the reported act nor collected relevant evidence(s). This provision, however, is not applicable if the internal investigation has been concluded as explained in 6.6 Communication to Authorities.

If a reported act is alleged to be an extraordinary offence, such as conspiracy to threaten state security, terrorism, illegal drug use or any offence against public order, the firm considers it necessary for the HR internal investigator to report such acts to the appropriate authority. This is essential for the company to avoid legal liability, specifically negligence, should the reported act impact public security.

The legal basis of the foregoing is Article 23(1) of KUHAP, which states that any person who is aware of a criminal conspiracy to commit a criminal offence shall be obliged to immediately report such matter to the competent investigator or investigating authority.

In general, a criminal report must be made to the Indonesian National Police with jurisdiction over the location of the offence. Where the alleged conduct constitutes a special criminal offence outside KUHP, such as corruption, the competent authority is the Corruption Eradication Commission (Komisi Pemberantasan Korupsi; KPK).

HR personnel involved in internal investigations may need to sign confidentiality or non-disclosure agreements (NDAs). This practice is primarily aimed at safeguarding sensitive information, including the personal details of all parties involved, from being disclosed, thereby mitigating reputational risks associated with premature or misleading information releases. In Indonesia, NDAs are recognised as enforceable contracts if they meet the validity criteria specified in Article 1320 of the Indonesian Civil Code (ICC).

Article 1320 of the ICC sets out the four essential requirements for a valid contract in Indonesia:

• agreement (consent) of the parties;
• capacity of the parties to enter into a contract;
• certain subject matter (a specific object); and
• lawful cause (a legal purpose).

If no NDA or similar confidentiality agreement is signed during an internal investigation, the parties are still required to maintain confidentiality as provided in company rules/regulations, collective labour agreements or employment contracts. This obligation also applies under the Personal Data Protection Law when personal data is involved.

The employer or employee has recourse if the parties do not keep the HR internal investigation confidential. If an employee breaches confidentiality during an HR internal investigation, they may face a lawsuit under the Data Protection Law or disciplinary measures under company rules/regulations, collective labour agreements or employment contracts. On the other hand, employees may claim damages against the employer if confidentiality is violated, relying on company policies/regulations, collective agreements, employment contracts or applicable laws such as the Personal Data Protection Law.

It is possible to conduct a preliminary investigation to determine whether a full HR internal investigation is warranted. Indeed, this provision is typically exercised. 

A preliminary investigation is conducted primarily to generate an initial report. HR usually conducts a brief interview with the complainant or main witnesses, reviews materials such as emails and reports, and evaluates risks (reputational, legal or workplace safety issues). The goal is to obtain some initial evidence to justify a full investigation – or to determine that no further action is required.

An interviewee in an HR internal investigation is an individual who holds relevant information regarding the matter, and whose testimony is critical to determining the outcome of the investigation. Typically, those requested to participate in interviews include:

• the reporter;
• the respondent; and/or
• witnesses such as colleagues, supervisors or other parties with direct or indirect knowledge of the alleged violation.

The number of witnesses interviewed will depend on the evidentiary threshold and the availability of credible and relevant testimony.

Employers must address the reasons why an interviewee refuses to participate or elects to participate only in certain investigations or interviews. The strategies can be repressive or participative. Under the repressive method, disciplinary action may be taken in accordance with company policies/regulations or collective labour agreements (if participation is held to be a workplace duty), with refusal treated as misconduct. Sanctions could include warnings or termination, depending on the applicable provisions. Employers under the participative approach must protect rights to representation and confidentiality, and protections afforded to reporters while attempting alternative methods for collecting evidence, such as seeking information from other witnesses or reviewing written and digital records such as emails, access logs and digital footprints. Employers should observe the applicable related regulations, including the Personal Data Protection Law, when collecting the personal data of individuals.

Indonesian law does not prescribe a specific format for investigations. The interview may be carried out via Teams, Zoom or any other remote platform, provided that the parties mutually agree to such an arrangement.

There is no legislation governing the number of investigators who may conduct interviews. The number of interviewers is determined by the complexity of the alleged violation and the breadth of information available. Likewise, there are no protocols around the qualifications of interviewers. Some practical considerations used to determine the interviewer follow:

• objectivity – interviewers must be free from conflicts of interest to ensure impartiality;
• gender – particularly in cases such as sexual harassment, gender alignment between the interviewer and complainant may be necessary to provide comfort and avoid traumatisation;
• expertise – interviewers should have relevant knowledge or experience related to the matter being investigated, so they can properly understand the context and assess the information provided; and
• seniority – interviewers should be sufficiently senior to understand context and procedures, but not so senior as to create undue psychological pressure.

Indonesian law does not specifically mandate a neutral third party in HR investigation interviews. However, companies often include neutral witnesses or external parties in sensitive cases, especially when bias, conflicts of interest or issues such as harassment or discrimination are involved. This approach helps ensure fairness, protect credibility and provide stronger support if the case escalates legally.

In Indonesia, interviewees may be accompanied by a lawyer in certain legal or investigative contexts, but the right is not absolute across all types of interviews. In addition, the presence of a support person (non-lawyer) is generally not a guaranteed right under Indonesian law, though some institutions allow it as part of ethical or humanitarian practice.

Indonesia’s Advocate Law makes it clear that lawyers can help their clients not only in court but also outside the court (during interviews such as in HR internal investigations). In that case, the interviewees, which include the reporter, respondent and/or the witnesses being questioned, have the right to be accompanied by a lawyer without needing permission from the internal investigators.

HR internal investigations in Indonesia do not have a single codified statute like criminal investigations under KUHAP, but best practice and manpower law principles (especially those tied to fairness, transparency and due process under Indonesian manpower laws and general industrial relations norms) guide what interviewers should communicate.

HR internal investigators should provide purpose, role, rights, confidentiality and process details at the start, and summary, clarifications, next steps, documentation and confidentiality reminders at the end. This ensures compliance with fairness principles under Indonesian manpower laws and reduces the risk of disputes.

HR interviews are not criminal interrogations as they are part of company procedures. An employee can request that the interview be stopped at any time. If the interviewee requests that the interview be stopped, the interviewer should immediately cease obtaining information and suspend the process until the interviewee agrees to continue the interview.

Minutes are typically taken in Indonesia. In HR internal investigations, documentation is critical for transparency and fairness, and to protect the company against disputes. Minutes (or interview notes) serve as evidence of what was discussed. Companies usually require investigators to record the date, participants, questions and answers.

Summarised minutes are common. HR teams often prepare summaries focusing on key points, responses and findings. Summaries should be accurate, neutral and free of interpretation to avoid claims of bias. Interviewees should be given the chance to review the minutes, especially if the interview is part of a disciplinary process. This promotes equity and provides the interviewee with an opportunity to rectify any errors. Although it is not required by Indonesian labour legislation, many companies implement this practice to comply with the due process standards set forth in the Indonesian Manpower Law.

In HR internal investigations, signatures are not legally required but are often requested to confirm acknowledgment. If the interviewee refuses to sign, the investigator should note the refusal and have witnesses present, if possible.

In Indonesia, HR internal investigation interviews may be recorded if the employee agrees, though this is uncommon. Companies generally depend on written notes or minutes as the official record. When recordings are made, transcripts can be produced and are usually shared only with HR, legal teams or senior management. If recording is not allowed, accuracy and compliance are maintained through signed minutes, confidentiality undertakings and the use of secure platforms for remote sessions.

The sharing of transcripts must comply with the Indonesian Data Protection Law, as they contain private and personal data. Accordingly, transcripts may only be provided to parties directly relevant to the matter (on an informed consent basis). In practice, this means that transcripts are typically shared with the internal investigators, internal or external legal counsel (if engaged), the decision-maker (such as a senior manager or the board of directors) and, where, appropriate, the interviewee.

Indonesian HR investigations rely on interviews, documents, digital evidence and witness statements, all handled with consent, confidentiality and compliance. Practices like secret recording or unlawful surveillance are not allowed. Employers/companies should specifically observe Indonesian manpower and personal data protection laws.

Other types of fact finding that must, or may, be used, and steps to be taken to gather or preserve the necessary evidence, include:

• document review;
• employment contracts, company policies, codes of conduct and internal regulations;
• emails, memos and correspondence relevant to the case;
• financial records or expense claims if misconduct involves fraud or misuse of funds;
• digital evidence collection;
• review of company IT systems (eg, access logs, system usage, CCTV footage);
• examination of work devices (laptops, phones) subject to company policy and employee consent; and
• preservation of electronic communications (chat logs, messaging apps) if company-owned.

Certain types of fact finding may not be used:

• secret recording – covert audio or video recording without consent is considered a privacy violation;
• surveillance outside the workplace – monitoring employees in private settings is not permitted;
• illegally obtained evidence – accessing personal accounts, hacking devices or coercing employees to provide information is unlawful and inadmissible; and
• discriminatory practices – investigations cannot target employees based on protected characteristics such as gender, religion, ethnicity or union membership.

The employer must take necessary steps to protect the reporter from any harm or threat during the investigation process, as it is the employer’s obligation to safeguard the rights of their employees as stipulated in the Indonesian Manpower Law.

Although Indonesian law does not provide specific regulations on the approaches or measures to protect a reporter, in practice, employers generally adopt several protective actions. These may include implementing remote work arrangements (such as a work-from-home mechanism), garden leave (suspension), temporarily reassigning the reporter to another unit of work during the course of the investigation, and/or providing psychological assistance or counselling to ensure the reporter’s well-being.

The Indonesian Manpower Law requires employers to create a supportive work environment that guarantees the safety of the individual during their duties, to protect his/her moral and personal rights and to protect against discrimination. This requirement extends to the protection of reporters (whistle-blowers) who are also employees. Moreover, the Human Rights Law affirms the right of each citizen to safeguard himself or herself from threats and intimidation.

Potential Adverse Consequences

Failure to protect whistle-blowers would be classified as an employer infringing on employees’ rights. Consequently, the employer could be held responsible if it does not protect these rights. Legal consequences could include a suit with the Industrial Relations Court if there are infringements of labour rights and possible administrative fines from authorities including, but not limited to, the Ministry of Manpower or the Financial Services Authority (Otoritas Jasa Keuangan; OJK), which oversees institutions in the banking, capital markets and insurance sectors, and requires internal investigations in cases of suspected fraud as part of its mandatory anti-fraud compliance framework.

In addition to legal risk, employers will face other potential risks if they fail to protect whistle-blowers. These include damage to the employer’s reputation and loss of trust between co-workers due to insufficient measures of confidentiality. Such non-legal risks can significantly affect workplace dynamics and overall trust in the organisation.

Protecting the reporter is good business practice, allowing the reporter to work to the best of their ability and make impartial decisions. However, there could potentially be adverse consequences for an employer that takes measures to protect the reporter.

• Perceived bias or unfairness: another employee or person involved in the investigation could see the employer as being biased in favour of the reporter, leading to claims of unfair treatment or retaliation against other employees.
• Impact on workplace dynamics: protection strategies (re-designating a reporter, decreasing communication between the parties) may have some effect on normal working relationships, create resentment among colleagues and, therefore, harm the productivity and morale of working groups in general.
• Confidentiality risks: Trying to protect, say, the identity or role of the reporter could lead to leaks or rumours, which can breach confidentiality or complicate the investigation.
• Resource and administrative burden: Taking protective steps, such as a short period of leave, transfer of supervision or adjusted working duties consumes administrative resources.
• Risk of overprotection: A possible risk of overprotecting the reporter is legal liability for the employer and potential claims of retaliation, discrimination or a lack of due process.

Employers usually avoid such risks by enshrining its rules in writing, being honest and impartial about what is going on, communicating honestly (within the bounds of confidentiality) and acting reasonably and proportionately in any protection efforts it undertakes. When well-managed, protecting reporters’ rights usually allows for a fair investigation process and is consistent with legal and ethical norms.

In line with 4.1 Protection of the Reporter, the respondent holds the same status as the reporter, namely as an employee. As such, the respondent bears the same rights as the reporter by virtue of being an employee. Therefore, the company must take measures to protect the respondent’s reputation, personality rights and other entitlements guaranteed under the Indonesian Manpower Law pending the outcome of any investigation.

The Indonesian Manpower Law does not expressly regulate measures to safeguard the rights of respondents in HR internal investigations. In practice, such protections are determined by company rules/regulations or collective labour agreements. Typically, employers extend certain rights to respondents, including the opportunity to present a defence and access assistance or counselling, and the option to keep their identity confidential from external parties throughout the investigation process.

Potential Adverse Consequences

The legal bases for providing protection to the respondent are essentially aligned with the legal bases for protecting the reporter, as both hold the same status as employees. This implies that the respondent enjoys the same rights as the reporter until proven otherwise. The employers may face certain risks if they fail to protect the respondent’s confidentiality, including the potential for a defamation lawsuit. It is important to understand that an HR investigation is not a legal process recognised under Indonesian law; therefore, any findings or conclusions do not constitute binding legal decisions. Consequently, even if the respondent is deemed guilty based on the HR internal investigation, from a procedural law perspective they cannot yet be considered to have violated statutory provisions. On this basis, the respondent may file a defamation claim arising from the investigation results or from the employer’s failure to maintain the confidentiality of the respondent’s personal information.

Similar to what was outlined in 4.1 Protection of the Reporter, a negative impact on the employer is possible if the respondent is safeguarded while an internal HR probe is being conducted. Such measures help to guarantee fairness and confidentiality, and are expected. However, without due care, problems may arise. For example, other staff may perceive the employer as being biased towards or favouring the respondent, leading to a loss of confidence in the process of inquiry. Protective measures such as temporary reassignment, limited access or modified reporting structures can also affect workflow and team effectiveness.

Moreover, if the complainant/reporter or witnesses are harmed as a direct result of those actions, the employer might be criticised for retaliation, unfairness or constructive dismissal. Legally speaking, excessively harsh or punitive measures against the respondent, especially before any results are discovered, can present the employer with a risk of a civil suit/contest of breach of contract, violation of privacy or defamatory allegations. To conclude, protective measures are suitable and occasionally required. However, the applied measures must be proportionate, neutral, consistent with policy, and applied such that no perceived or actual unfairness is involved.

An employer in Indonesia generally cannot impose disciplinary action on a respondent before the HR internal investigation is completed. The reason for this is that disciplinary measures must be based on proven misconduct, not allegations. However, the employer may apply temporary and non-punitive measures, such as paid leave or limited access to systems, if necessary to protect the workplace or ensure a fair process. These interim steps must be proportional and temporary, and must not harm the respondent’s employment rights. It is recommended that these interim steps be clearly provided in company rules/regulations, collective labour agreements or employment contracts.

Employers may face challenges whether or not they choose to apply interim measures during an investigation. Taking such steps can create a perception of unfairness, punishment or haste, which may lead to complaints of defamation or mistreatment. At the same time, avoiding interim measures can leave complainants, witnesses or the workplace environment vulnerable, increasing the risk of retaliation, loss of evidence or criticism for failing to act. For this reason, decisions should be balanced, carefully considered and consistent with company policies to reduce unnecessary risks to both the organisation and its people.

The employer must take actions to protect other employees who may be involved directly or indirectly in the HR-investigated matter. For the same reasons outlined in 4.1 Protection of the Reporter and 4.2 Protection of the Respondent, other employees also hold the same rights as the reporter and the respondent under the prevailing laws, namely the Indonesian Manpower Law and Human Rights Law.

Protective measures are not specifically regulated under the Indonesian Manpower Law or other relevant regulations. Therefore, in practice, steps commonly taken to safeguard other employees may include remote work arrangements, enhancing supervision or providing mentoring, and temporarily reassigning them to another unit or location. These measures should be explicitly regulated in company rules/regulations, collective labour agreement or employment contracts.

The employer may provide protective measures for other employees who serve as witnesses during the HR internal investigation, particularly if there are potential threats to their physical safety, psychological well-being or personal rights. This obligation is in line with the employer’s duty to safeguard safety and ensure treatment consistent with human dignity, as stipulated in Article 86 of the Indonesian Manpower Law, as well as Article 30 of the Human Rights Law, which guarantees that every individual has the right to be free from any form of intimidation.

Consequently, the employer could be held responsible if it does not protect these rights. Legal consequences for this could include a suit with the Industrial Relations Court if there are infringements of labour rights and possible administrative fines from authorities including, but not limited to, the Ministry of Manpower or the OJK, which oversees institutions in the banking, capital markets and insurance sectors, and requires the conduct of internal investigations in cases of suspected fraud as part of its mandatory anti-fraud compliance framework.

In addition to legal risk, employers will face other potential risks if they fail to protect witnesses. These include damage to the employer’s reputation and loss of trust between co-workers due to insufficient measures of confidentiality. Such non-legal risks can significantly affect workplace dynamics and overall trust in the organisation.

Protective measures for witnesses are meant to keep them safe from retaliation, intimidation or unfair treatment during an internal HR probe. Examples of the protective measures are temporary reassignment, limiting contact with the respondent or adjusting reporting lines. However, excessive or poorly applied measures could expose the employer to disputes over unfair treatment, breach of contract or defamation.

There are no procedural guarantees that must be put in place under the prevailing laws. Article 6 of the Indonesian Manpower Law states that every worker/labourer has the right to receive equal treatment without discrimination from the employer. Employers are required to ensure that HR internal investigations are carried out fairly and that the respondent receives equal rights and treatment throughout the process. This means that the investigation should follow clear and proper procedures, so that each step is conducted transparently and in accordance with the applicable rules. By doing so, employers can prevent procedural violations that may undermine the integrity of the investigation or affect its outcome.

Employers should delineate clear procedural steps for HR internal investigations in company rules/regulations or collective labour agreements. These steps must be transparent and communicated to all parties involved. Ignoring procedural guarantees in HR internal investigations is not a minor oversight; it is a legal, regulatory and reputational risk. Employers in Indonesia must ensure that investigations are transparent, consistent and well‑communicated, not only to comply with the law but also to preserve workplace trust and organisational integrity.

Employers in Indonesia may set internal policies through workplace guidelines, company regulations or collective labour agreements that govern HR investigations. Once established, these rules bind both employers and employees, and any deviation can trigger serious consequences. Ignoring procedural protections may lead to industrial relations disputes, violations of Article 6 of the Manpower Law on equal treatment and civil liability for breach of contract, defamation or privacy violations. In regulated sectors, employers could also be subject to administrative sanctions from authorities such as the OJK. Beyond legal exposure, mishandled investigations erode employee trust, weaken morale and damage reputation. To safeguard both the organisation and its people, investigations must be conducted transparently, fairly and in full compliance with the law.

In HR internal investigations, whether triggered by whistle-blower reports or internal findings, the burden of proof rests with the investigation team. At this stage, both the investigation team and the respondent may present evidence. To establish the validity of alleged violations, the investigation team must demonstrate stronger and more convincing proof.

Employers must ensure that investigation teams collect and present evidence that convincingly tips the scale, while giving respondents equal opportunity to defend themselves. This approach strengthens fairness, legal compliance and organisational trust.

Indonesian laws do not specifically regulate the termination of HR internal investigations. In practice, the conclusion depends on company procedural standards and may also occur when company management, such as the board of directors, issues a decision on follow‑up. The investigation does not automatically end based on whether the alleged violation is proven.

At the conclusion of an HR internal investigation, employers must follow a closing procedure. The investigation team prepares a report for the company management, usually the board of directors, and, where appropriate, for witnesses, victims or whistle-blowers. This report sets out the chronology, witness statements, evidence and recommendations for disciplinary action.

In Indonesia, there is no regulation that specifically governs the form of an HR internal investigation’s conclusion. Each company determines how the results will be summarised. In practice, once the investigation ends, the conclusion is documented in a written report prepared and signed by the HR investigation team or the HR internal investigator.

In Indonesia, there are no statutory requirements regarding the content of an HR internal investigation report. However, in practice, certain key elements are typically included to ensure clarity and completeness:

• name of the respondent;
• chronology of events;
• evidence obtained;
• list of witnesses, along with their statements;
• conclusion regarding the allegation; and/or
• advice on possible disciplinary measures.

In addition to these elements, the report often provides recommendations for next steps that employers may consider, such as specific disciplinary actions or preventive measures to strengthen workplace compliance.

As explained in 6.4 Reports, information regarding the outcome of an HR internal investigation will be compiled in a written report. At the company’s sole discretion, the written report may be disclosed to the interested parties, namely the management board of the company (the board of directors), the witnesses, the victim, the reporter and/or the whistle-blower. It is possible for the written report to not be disclosed to parties other than the management board of the company.

When granting access to HR internal investigation reports, employers must safeguard the personal data of all parties involved, including witnesses, victims, whistle-blowers and respondents.

As outlined in 2.2 Communication to Authorities, should the findings reveal or strongly indicate that the respondent’s violation constitutes a criminal offence during an HR internal investigation, the HR internal investigator is required to report it to the relevant authority, where the conduct is based on the same legal grounds as set forth in 2.2 Communication to Authorities. Furthermore, it should be noted that failure to report certain criminal offences is punishable by criminal sanctions.

This provision generally applies if the respondent’s actions are classified as extraordinary crimes, such as conspiracy to threaten national security, terrorism, illegal use of narcotics or violations of public order. If evidence of such actions with a potentially significant impact is discovered during the HR internal investigation process, practically and theoretically, the HR internal investigator must report it immediately to the relevant authority. Prompt reporting is essential for the company to mitigate legal liability, particularly negligence, in the event that the reported conduct affects public security, as stated 2.2 Communication to Authorities. Depending on the alleged criminal offence committed by the respondent, there are several relevant authorities that may receive reports from the internal HR investigator:

• general criminal acts under KUHP, such as robbery, fraud, embezzlement or sexual harassment, must be reported to the Indonesian National Police with jurisdiction over the location of the offence; and
• special criminal acts such as corruption or money laundering are reported to the KPK and/or the Indonesian Financial Transaction Reports and Analysis Center (Pusat Pelaporan dan Analisis Transaksi Keuangan; PPATK).

Generally, the information that will be communicated to the authorities includes the findings of the investigation and the company’s decision on the concluded matter.

Concerning other parties to whom information about the conclusion of an HR internal investigation typically is communicated, please see 6.4 Reports and 6.5 Information.

If the result of the HR internal investigation substantiates the allegation, the respondent shall be subject to disciplinary action and/or sanctions imposed by the employer. Possible sanctions include:

• a written warning;
• demotion;
• reduction of wages or benefits (where legally permitted);
• suspension;
• obligation to pay compensation (if applicable under law); and
• termination of employment.

The type of sanction will be determined based on the findings of the investigation report, particularly the severity of the violation and its impact on the company, and must comply with applicable labour laws and company regulations or collective labour agreements.       

Once the HR internal investigation is completed, the team prepares a written report that not only summarises the findings but also reflects on lessons for the organisation. Even if the allegations are not substantiated, the report often highlights areas where the company can strengthen its processes to prevent similar issues in the future. These recommendations usually take the form of corrective and preventive actions (CAPAs) such as integrity training, employee development programmes or team-building initiatives. The goal is not only to address the specific case but also to foster a stronger culture of accountability and collaboration across the company.

When collecting personal data during an HR internal investigation, employers must comply with the Personal Data Protection Law. Data may only be collected with the employee’s clear and explicit consent, and such collection is considered part of “processing” under the law, which requires a valid legal basis. Article 16(2) of the Personal Data Protection Law further requires that data collection be limited to what is necessary. In short, employers may collect personal data for investigation purposes only if they have obtained valid consent from the employee and ensure the process is proportionate and compliant with the law.

In Indonesia, there is no regulation that specifically governs personal data collection for HR internal investigations. However, any collection or processing of employee data must comply with the Personal Data Protection Law. There are three essential principles of personal data protection under this law, namely:

• lawful and limited purpose, which means that the collection of personal data must be limited and specific, legally lawful and transparent;
• need-to-know basis, which means that the processing of personal data is carried out in accordance with its purpose; and
• confidentiality and security, which means that the processing of personal data is carried out by protecting it from unauthorised access, unauthorised disclosure, unauthorised alteration, misuse, destruction and/or loss.

These essential principles are further regulated in the obligations of controllers and/or processors of personal data in the Data Protection Law. Violations of these obligations may result in legal implications in the form of administrative sanctions, criminal sanctions and even potential civil lawsuits from the data subject. In short, employers may collect personal data for HR internal investigations only with explicit consent, for a clearly defined purpose and on a limited basis in line with the law.

Basically, the relevant employees can access their personal data in HR internal investigations, but employers may limit access to protect the investigation, others’ rights or legal compliance. The parties may only access their personal data collected during the investigation and the minutes of their own investigation proceedings. Access does not extend to other employees’ data or confidential information, and employers may restrict disclosure to protect the integrity of the investigation and the rights of others, or to ensure compliance with legal obligations. The investigation team may access data and documents relevant to the HR internal investigation, provided that the parties involved are informed and have given their express consent.

AI is not yet widely used in HR internal investigations in Indonesia. In practice, however, it can support the process by providing risk matrix overviews and analytical insights that guide investigators. It may also aid the organisation and simplification of evidence, making it easier for the team to assess facts and substantiate alleged violations.

Indonesia’s Law No 13 of 2006 on the Protection of Witnesses and Victims provides safeguards for whistle-blowers, but only in the context of criminal acts. It does not extend to whistle-blowing in employment matters.

For workplace-specific cases, protection is addressed under Minister of Manpower Decree No 88 of 2023 on Guidelines for Preventing and Handling Sexual Harassment in The Workplace (“Guidelines 88/2023”), which sets out guidelines for preventing and handling sexual violence in the workplace. This Decree includes provisions to protect whistle-blowers who report such allegations.

Indonesia has specific protections related to allegations or suspicions of sexual harassment and/or violence, namely:

• Law 12/2022;
• Guidelines 88/2023; and
• Government Regulation No 30 of 2025 concerning Prevention of Sexual Violence Crimes and The Handling, Protection, and Recovery of Victims of Sexual Violence Crimes (“GR 30/2025”).

Guidelines 88/2023 distinguishes between “sexual violence” and “sexual harassment” in the workplace, as follows:

• sexual violence is any act of degrading, insulting, harassing and/or attacking a person’s body and/or reproductive functions due to unequal power relations and/or gender, which results or may result in psychological and/or physical suffering, including interference with a person’s reproductive health and loss of opportunity to work safely and optimally; and
• sexual harassment is any unwanted sexual act, request to perform a sexual act, verbal or physical act or gesture of a sexual nature, or any other behaviour of a sexual nature that makes a person feel offended, humiliated and/or intimidated, thereby disrupting the working conditions and environment.

In general, victims of criminal acts (including victims of sexual violence) are protected by the Witness and Victim Protection Agency (Lembaga Perlindungan Saksi dan Korban; LPSK). Specifically, in the workplace, companies are also required to establish a task force for the prevention and handling of sexual violence in the workplace. Protection is provided to employees who suffer physical, mental, economic and/or social losses as a result of sexual violence.

In the workplace, there are two types of procedures for resolving sexual violence: formal and informal.

Informal Procedure

Complaints can be filed and handled informally to seek resolution without the need to prove the allegations. This procedure emphasises confidentiality and reconciliation while avoiding issues of liability and compensation. Informal complaints must be resolved within 30 days. In addition to a special committee, complaints can be submitted to trusted individuals, such as supervisors, trusted coworkers or officials trained to handle sexual harassment cases.

Formal Procedure

This involves a series of steps and procedures focused on proving the allegations. The formal procedure must include at least:

• step-by-step guidelines and a timeline for reporting and handling complaints (including interviewing the victim, gathering evidence and submitting an investigation report containing findings, evidence and recommendations to senior management or the employer);
• an investigation conducted by a special committee consisting of senior managers and staff members trained in handling sexual harassment; and
• an appeal process available for company decisions, if they are deemed unfair to the victim or perpetrator.

The forms of victim protection usually provided include:

• victim assistance;
• protection through complaint services if industrial relations disputes arise within the company as a result of sexual violence in the workplace; and
• victim recovery (including measures to ensure that victims do not face retaliation, and to support recovery from all impacts resulting from acts of sexual violence).

There were no changes regarding these protections in 2024–25.

Under Indonesian law, protections against discrimination and harassment are primarily found in the Constitution of 1945, the Manpower Law, the Human Rights Law and KUHP, with specific safeguards for sexual violence under Law 12/2022 and Guidelines 88/2023. While bullying and mobbing are not explicitly defined in legislation, related acts such as defamation, threats or intimidation may be prosecuted under general KUHP provisions. When such violations occur in digital form, they fall under Law No 1 of 2024, the Second Amendment to Law No 11 of 2008 on Electronic Information and Transactions (the “Second Amendment of Electronic Information and Transactions Law”).

The Manpower Law prohibits discrimination based on religion, gender, race, ethnicity, disability and other characteristics, and employers are barred from dismissing workers on these grounds. Additional protections include whistle-blower safeguards in sexual violence cases, complaint services and victim recovery measures.

The criminal provisions stipulated in KUHP and the Second Amendment of Electronic Information and Transactions Law are as follows:

• Article 433(1) of KUHP – any person who verbally attacks the honour or reputation of another person by accusing them of something, with the intention of making it known to the public, shall be punished for defamation with a maximum imprisonment of nine months or a maximum category II fine; and

• Article 27(1) of the Second Amendment of Electronic Information and Transactions Law – any person who intentionally and without authorisation broadcasts, displays, distributes, transmits and/or makes accessible electronic information and/or electronic documents containing content that violates decency for public knowledge shall be subject to sanctions.

Through Circular Letter No M/6/HK.04/V/2025, the Ministry of Manpower has reaffirmed that recruitment must be free from discrimination. Employers are prohibited from applying discriminatory practices of any kind during hiring. Age requirements may only be imposed in specific cases where the nature of the job objectively affects performance, and provided they do not reduce employment opportunities for applicants. This reinforces the principle of fairness and inclusivity in Indonesia’s recruitment process.

If an allegation in the workplace amounts to a criminal act, employers are expected to report it to the police and co-operate with the authorities. In cases of sexual violence, companies must also activate their internal task force, as required by Guidelines 88/2023, while ensuring confidentiality and protection for victims and whistle-blowers. Once criminal charges are filed, the matter is handled under criminal procedure, but employers should still safeguard employees, avoid obstructing justice and document their actions carefully. Beyond compliance, employers need to consider industrial relations, reputational risks and the well‑being of victims when dealing with criminal allegations.

Special Procedures

When employers carry out internal investigations, they must ensure compliance with Indonesian manpower laws, data protection rules and criminal procedure, especially if the allegations involve criminal conduct. Employee rights under Indonesian manpower laws should be respected, and investigations should avoid any form of discrimination. If the case concerns sexual violence or harassment, companies are required to activate the Task Force for Prevention and Handling of Sexual Violence under Guidelines 88/2023.

Other Considerations

Data privacy is a key issue. The Electronic Information and Transactions Law prohibits unauthorised access, transfer or disclosure of personal data, meaning employers must obtain consent before transferring employee information across borders. Where criminal allegations are involved, employers must co-operate with the police or the LPSK. At the same time, employers need to handle investigations with care so they do not unintentionally create workplace conflicts or give rise to claims of unfair treatment.

Restrictions on Foreign Employers

Foreign employers conducting HR investigations in Indonesia must follow local labour and data protection rules. Legally speaking, foreign nationals are prohibited from handling HR-related issues, including HR internal investigations. Conversely, Indonesian employers conducting investigations abroad must comply with the host country’s laws while ensuring that their actions do not breach Indonesian protections, such as safeguards against discrimination or retaliation. Cross-border investigations often require legal clearance for data transfer and may be subject to restrictions under the Indonesian Personal Data Protection Law.