Bali — The pretrial hearing involving former Head of the Bali Regional Office of the National Land Agency (BPN), I Made Daging, continued at the Kartika Courtroom of the Denpasar District Court on Thursday, October 8, 2026.
The hearing focused on the rejoinder (replik) submitted by Daging’s legal team in response to the answer presented by the Bali Regional Police (Polda Bali) as the respondent.
Lawyers from Berdikari Law Office and LABHI Bali, represented by Gede Pasek Suardika and I Made Ariel Suardana, argued that Polda Bali’s response had not addressed the main substance of their pretrial petition.
According to the legal team, the police primarily explained the formal aspects of the investigation, including the number of witnesses, experts and documentary evidence. However, they argued that the police had not sufficiently explained the legal construction of the alleged criminal offense.
Dispute Over the Suspect Determination
The lawyers challenged the determination of I Made Daging as a suspect through a letter dated September 4, 2026, in a case involving alleged document forgery under Article 263 paragraphs (1) and (2) of the Indonesian Criminal Code (KUHP).
They argued that the same underlying matter had previously been terminated by investigators, followed by the revocation of Daging’s suspect status.
The document at the center of the dispute is Letter No. HP.01.03/3200/51.03/XI/2020, issued by the Head of the Badung Land Office on September 8, 2020, concerning the Final Report on Case Handling.
Daging’s lawyers questioned the investigation process, alleging that the examination largely copied the contents of previous case examination records, with a new police report number and different criminal provisions added.
Lawyers Reject “Intellectual Forgery” Argument
The legal team also disputed the term “intellectual forgery” used by Polda Bali to describe allegedly false information contained in an official BPN document.
They maintained that the document under investigation was an official government document issued by an authorized official.
Polda Bali has stated that investigators possess 30 witnesses, nine experts and 62 documentary pieces of evidence. However, Daging’s lawyers argued that the quantity of evidence does not establish its relevance if investigators cannot present the original document as a valid comparison.
They also objected to the term “fictional facts” used by the respondent, arguing that such terminology could amount to reaching conclusions before the alleged criminal offense is examined on its merits.
Detention Order Also Challenged
In addition to the suspect determination, the legality of Daging’s detention is also being examined in the pretrial proceedings.
His lawyers challenged Detention Order No. Han/31/IX/Res.1.24/2026/Ditreskrimsus, dated September 16, 2026. They argued that the order did not provide sufficient factual reasons as required under Article 100 paragraphs (3) and (5) of the Indonesian Criminal Procedure Code (KUHAP).
Based on these arguments, the legal team asked the single pretrial judge to comprehensively examine the procedure used to determine I Made Daging as a suspect, as well as the legality of his detention.
The next hearing is scheduled for Friday, October 9, 2026, with Polda Bali expected to present its duplik, or response to the legal team’s rejoinder.
