Made Daging Named Suspect Again After Case Was Dropped, Lawyers Question Same Case, Same Facts

BALI — The pretrial hearing involving former Head of the Bali Regional Office of the National Land Agency (BPN), I Made Daging, resumed at the Denpasar District Court on Wednesday (Oct. 7, 2026).

The hearing entered the agenda of the Bali Police's response to Daging's pretrial petition challenging his latest suspect designation.

Daging's legal team argued that the Bali Police's response had not addressed what they consider the central issue: Daging was allegedly designated a suspect again after his previous suspect status was revoked and the earlier case was terminated through a SP3, despite the alleged case involving the same object, events, time frame, and location.

Lawyer Gede Pasek Suardika of Berdikari Law Office said the Bali Police's response focused largely on procedural and evidentiary matters, including the number of witnesses, experts and documentary evidence.

According to Pasek, the key question is why Daging was designated a suspect again after the previous investigation had been terminated.

Lawyers Say Police Response Is Too Technical Pasek argued that the pretrial proceedings should not focus solely on whether investigators had met the minimum requirement of two pieces of evidence.

He said the court should also examine the broader legal and substantive issues surrounding the repeated suspect designation.

The legal team also pointed to an earlier pretrial ruling that had declared Daging's previous suspect designation valid. However, Pasek questioned the consequences of that ruling because, according to the defense, the case did not proceed to a trial on the merits before being terminated.

Lawyers Ask Court to Bring Made Daging to Witness Hearings Daging's lawyers also asked that he be present during the upcoming witness examination.

According to Pasek, the single judge handling the case had indicated that Daging should be brought to court on Friday (Oct. 9, 2026), when witnesses are scheduled to be examined.

The defense said Daging's presence would allow the parties to clarify and deepen the testimony given by witnesses from both sides.

Lawyers Question “Intellectual Falsification” Argument Another issue raised by the defense concerned the term “intellectual falsification”, which they said appeared in the Bali Police's response.

Pasek questioned the legal and academic basis for the terminology, particularly because the case involves an alleged document falsification offense.

The defense also disputed the evidentiary basis of documents referred to in the case, including material related to what they said was drone imagery.

LABHI Bali Warns of Criminalizing “Thought” Meanwhile, Made Daging's other lawyer, I Made Ariel Suardana of LABHI Bali, said the defense had no difficulty preparing its reply to the Bali Police's response.

Ariel said a significant portion of the police response consisted of general legal provisions already regulated under Indonesia's Criminal Procedure Code (KUHAP), while the remainder largely described the chronology of Daging's suspect designation.

He argued that the police's explanation actually reinforced the defense's position that the object of the case remained the same a letter allegedly prepared by Daging in 2020 for his superior.

Ariel also strongly questioned the concept of “intellectual falsification.” He warned that using such a concept without a clear legal and academic basis could create serious consequences for law enforcement.

“If this is used as a basis, it could be dangerous. Even our thoughts could potentially be criminalized,” Ariel said.

He urged the court to hear testimony from experts with appropriate academic and legal competence to explain the concept.

Defense Says Police Did Not Substantively Address Detention Apart from the suspect designation, Ariel said the pretrial petition also challenges Daging's detention.

He said there are two coercive measures being challenged: the suspect designation and the detention.

According to Ariel, however, the Bali Police's response primarily addressed the suspect designation and did not substantively respond to the defense's arguments concerning detention.

The defense therefore argued that its claims regarding the detention had not been rebutted by the respondent.

Next Hearing Scheduled for October 9 The next pretrial hearing is scheduled for Friday, Oct. 9, 2026, with the examination of witnesses.

Daging's legal team hopes he will be present at the hearing as indicated by the presiding judge.

All allegations and legal assessments made by Daging's lawyers remain part of the defense's arguments in the pretrial proceedings and do not constitute final legal findings.