DENPASAR, BALINEWS — The Bali Regional Police (Polda Bali) legal team has maintained that the designation of I Made Daging, former head of the Bali Regional Office of the National Land Agency (BPN), as a suspect was based on at least two pieces of evidence. The position was reiterated by I Nyoman Gatra, legal counsel for Polda Bali as the respondent, following a pretrial hearing at the Denpasar District Court on Friday, October 9, 2026.
The public hearing, held in the Candra courtroom, included the submission of a rejoinder, the examination of documentary evidence, and testimony from experts representing both parties. The document at the center of the dispute is Letter No. HP.01.03/3200/51.03/XI/2020, dated September 8, 2020, issued by the Head of the Badung Land Office concerning the Final Report on Case Handling.
Gatra said the petitioner had presented three experts: a criminal law expert, a government administration expert, and a language expert. Meanwhile, the respondent presented one expert specializing in criminal law and criminal procedural law.
Responding to an expert’s opinion that the suspect designation involved procedural defects, Gatra said the statement was an expert assessment that should be considered as part of the court proceedings. He emphasized that investigators had relied on evidence rather than expert opinions when designating Daging as a suspect.
“That is simply the expert’s opinion. We did not base the suspect designation on an expert’s opinion, but on at least two pieces of evidence,” Gatra said.
He also explained the differences between the earlier case involving Daging and the current case under review. According to Gatra, the previous suspect designation, made on December 10, 2025, was based on Article 421 of the former Indonesian Criminal Code, concerning abuse of authority. The current case, however, involves Article 391, which concerns alleged document forgery.
Gatra stated that the previous case had been discontinued because the provision used at the time was no longer included in the new Criminal Code. He also stressed that the current case stemmed from a different police report.
Regarding the disputed document, Gatra explained that forgery may involve falsifying the document itself or falsifying its contents, a concept known as intellectual forgery. However, he declined to draw a conclusion about which category might apply to the allegations in the current case.
The expert testimony formed a significant part of the hearing, with both parties presenting differing views on the procedures used to designate Daging as a suspect, the legal provisions applied, and the interpretation of relevant statutory language.
Gatra thanked journalists and other participants for attending the proceedings until late afternoon. He said the arguments raised during the hearing would be addressed through the ongoing legal process.
The pretrial proceedings are intended to examine the legality of the investigators’ actions. The final determination of whether the suspect designation and related actions were lawful rests with the judge, based on the facts presented in court and the applicable legal provisions.
