DENPASAR, BALINEWS — The legality of the suspect designation and detention of I Made Daging, former head of the Bali Regional Office of the National Land Agency (BPN), came under scrutiny during a pretrial hearing at the Denpasar District Court on Friday, October 9, 2026. The petitioner’s legal team questioned the procedures used in the case, while the Bali Regional Police (Polda Bali), as the respondent, maintained that the suspect designation was based on at least two pieces of evidence.
Gede Pasek Suardika, a lawyer representing Daging, raised concerns about the relevance of the evidence, the clarity of the grounds for detention, and the application of criminal procedural law and government administration regulations. Another member of the petitioner’s legal team, I Made Ariel Suardana, argued that the legal proceedings arising from the third police report against Daging contained potential legal defects that should be examined by the judge.
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.
Pasek argued that the designation of a suspect should not be based solely on meeting the minimum number of required pieces of evidence. He maintained that the evidence must also be relevant to the alleged criminal offense.
“Beyond the quantitative aspect, the two pieces of evidence must also be assessed qualitatively and in terms of their correlation,” Pasek said.
He also questioned the legal basis for Daging’s detention, arguing that the reasons must be clearly stated and supported by the applicable legal requirements. He urged the judge to examine whether the investigators’ actions complied with the relevant provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code.
Pasek further referred to Law No. 30 of 2014 on Government Administration, which provides mechanisms for resolving disputes concerning administrative decisions. These mechanisms include filing an administrative objection, pursuing an administrative appeal where applicable, and bringing a case before the State Administrative Court in accordance with the law.
He also linked the matter to the principle of ultimum remedium, under which criminal punishment is regarded as a last resort. According to Pasek, administrative procedures should be considered when an administrative decision is alleged to have criminal implications.
Meanwhile, Ariel Suardana argued that the handling of the third police report against Daging required comprehensive judicial scrutiny. He referred to testimony from government administration and criminal law experts presented by the petitioner during the hearing.
According to Ariel, the government administration expert emphasized the importance of examining administrative matters through the appropriate procedures before bringing certain disputes involving administrative decisions into the criminal justice system. Ariel also said that an administrative assessment of the disputed document had found no substantive or other defects.
Ariel highlighted what he described as three successive police reports filed in 2024, 2025, and 2026. He claimed that the first report did not proceed, while the second investigation was terminated through a formal order discontinuing the investigation after the relevant party won a previous pretrial challenge. The third report remains under legal review and forms part of the current proceedings.
He also questioned the alleged use of a forged document as the basis for the investigation arising from the third report. However, this allegation remains the petitioner’s claim and must be assessed against the available evidence and the ongoing legal process.
Ariel urged the judge to consider procedural requirements, the applicable legal framework, and relevant legal principles when reviewing the suspect designation. He also raised the principle of ne bis in idem in connection with what he described as repeated proceedings involving the same subject matter and evidence.
On the other side, I Nyoman Gatra, legal counsel for Polda Bali, maintained that the suspect designation was based on at least two pieces of evidence rather than on expert opinions.
Gatra said the petitioner had presented three experts: a criminal law expert, a government administration expert, and a language expert. The respondent, meanwhile, presented one expert specializing in criminal law and criminal procedural law.
He also explained that the earlier case had relied on Article 421 of the former Indonesian Criminal Code, concerning abuse of authority, while the current case involves Article 391 concerning alleged document forgery. According to Gatra, the two cases differ in both the legal provisions applied and the police reports on which they were based.
Expert testimony during the hearing also addressed the importance of interpreting statutory language, particularly the differences between the former and new Criminal Procedure Codes regarding detention. The petitioner’s legal team argued that the precise interpretation of statutory provisions could affect the application of the law and the rights of individuals facing criminal proceedings.
The differing arguments presented by the petitioner and the respondent remain central to the pretrial proceedings. The judge will assess the legality of the investigators’ actions based on the facts presented in court, the available evidence, and the applicable legal provisions.
