BALI — Lawyers representing I Made Daging, the former head of the Bali Regional Office of the National Land Agency (BPN), have challenged the courage of the single judge at the Denpasar District Court as the court prepares to rule on their client's pretrial motion challenging his suspect designation and detention.
The legal team believes its arguments are strongly supported by legal reasoning and evidence. They are urging the judge to examine the substance and legality of the investigators' actions in the case.
The statement was made by lawyer Gede Pasek Suardika following a pretrial hearing on the parties' closing submissions at the Cakra courtroom of the Denpasar District Court on Monday, October 12, 2026.
The case is registered under Number 16/Pid.Pra/2026/PN Denpasar, with the Bali Police's Directorate of Special Criminal Investigation (Ditreskrimsus) named as the respondent.
According to Pasek, the judge must determine whether the investigators' actions against his client comply with applicable legal provisions. He urged the court to consider the substance of the motion and the evidence presented by the defense.
Pasek also referred to an earlier pretrial proceeding that he said had resulted in a favorable decision for Made Daging's side. However, he argued that the ruling did not resolve the concerns surrounding the subsequent handling of the case.
“The motion was granted, and we won, but then the case could not proceed. The reason was that, following the pretrial proceedings, the Bali Police took steps to stop the case. That means our argument was correct, doesn't it?” he said.
He expressed hope that the same situation would not recur and called on the judge to deliver an independent decision based on legal considerations.
Lawyers Call for Progressive Legal Interpretation
Another member of the defense team, I Made Ariel Suardana, said the closing submissions emphasized the importance of progressive legal interpretation in pretrial proceedings.
According to Ariel, pretrial review serves as a legal mechanism for examining law enforcement actions and protecting citizens' rights against potential arbitrary conduct by investigators.
“The spirit of the Criminal Procedure Code is rooted in the philosophy of human rights. When there is arbitrary conduct by investigators, for example, judges must have the courage to take corrective action and issue a progressive ruling,” Ariel said.
The defense team also questioned what it described as repeated investigations that allegedly indicated possible criminalization. In addition, the lawyers challenged the validity of the detention warrant and questioned whether the grounds for detention complied with applicable legal requirements.
Ariel stressed that judges must maintain their independence and remain free from pressure by any party. He said pretrial proceedings should serve as a judicial mechanism to examine the legality of state authorities' actions when citizens' rights are allegedly violated.
“Law exists as a means of correcting violations committed by the state,” he said.
Bali Police Rejects the Defense's Arguments
Meanwhile, I Nyoman Gatra, the lawyer representing the Bali Police as the respondent, said his side rejected the arguments presented by the applicant.
He urged the public to await the court's decision, scheduled to be delivered on Tuesday, October 13, 2026.
“Essentially, we have rejected all the arguments presented. Everything is set out in our response,” Gatra said after the hearing.
Gatra declined to speculate about the possible outcome, saying his side would determine its next steps after the court announced its ruling.
Nevertheless, he expressed confidence in the respondent's position.
“As soldiers, we must always remain optimistic. One hundred percent,” he said.
With the closing submissions completed, Made Daging's pretrial case at the Denpasar District Court is now awaiting a ruling.
The single judge will determine the outcome based on the proceedings, the evidence presented, and the applicable legal provisions. The decision is expected to clarify the court's assessment of the challenges raised against the suspect designation and detention.
