DENPASAR, BALINEWS – Lawyers representing former Bali Regional Office of the National Land Agency (BPN) chief I Made Daging have questioned the reporting mechanism at the Bali Police after their efforts to bring Daging, who is currently in detention, to file a criminal report allegedly failed to materialize.
Daging, through his legal team, plans to file a counter-report against I Made Tarip and other parties over alleged document forgery in connection with a land certificate dispute in the Balangan Beach area of Jimbaran, Badung.
Daging's lawyers, I Gede Pasek Suardika and I Made Ariel Suardana, said they had submitted a request on September 21, 2026, for Daging to be allowed to file the report. However, as of Monday, October 5, 2026, the report had yet to be filed directly by Daging.
The issue came to a head when the legal team arrived at the Bali Police headquarters on Monday. They said they remained at the premises from around 5 p.m. until 11 p.m. Central Indonesia Time and engaged in nearly two hours of discussions with investigators over the mechanism for filing the report.
Pasek said the legal team questioned why Daging could not be brought directly to the General Crimes Directorate (Ditreskrimum) to make the report.
According to Pasek, the General Crimes Directorate required the complainant or victim to be present in person. At the same time, however, he claimed that investigators from the Special Crimes Directorate (Ditreskrimsus) had not allowed Daging to leave the detention facility to make the report.
“What is so difficult about providing services to citizens who want to file a report? Whether the allegations are proven or not is not actually the investigator's concern at this stage,” Pasek said.
He expressed hope that the issue could be addressed by the new Bali Police chief, Brigjen. Pol. Pasma Royce.
“Hopefully, this can be fixed under the new police chief. How can it be so difficult for someone simply to file a report?” he said.
Pasek said the legal team had also asked investigators to come to the Bali Police detention facility (Dit Tahti) to receive Daging's report directly.
However, he said the request was not carried out.
“The letter from the Special Crimes Directorate stated that investigators could facilitate the process and make it easier for us to file the report. We said, ‘Please come here.’ But they would not come. They remained at the detention facility,” Pasek said.
He questioned the situation, arguing that the dispute involved two directorates within the same police institution.
“This is all happening within the same police headquarters. And this is an international-level police headquarters. Yet it is extremely difficult for a citizen simply to file a report,” he said.
Lawyers Claim Conflicting Instructions
Pasek further claimed that investigators from the Special Crimes Directorate told them that the decision not to allow Daging to appear in person was based on an instruction from the directorate's leadership.
“The investigator from Special Crimes said, ‘This is an instruction from the Special Crimes Directorate.’ They said the instruction was that Mr. Daging could not come here to file the report directly and that only his lawyers could do so,” Pasek said.
Meanwhile, according to Pasek, the General Crimes Directorate required the complainant to be present personally.
The alleged difference in instructions has left the legal team questioning which procedure they should follow.
“The General Crimes Directorate says that if you want to file a report, the person himself must be present. Within the same Bali Police headquarters, there are two directorates with different positions. Which one is the public supposed to follow?” Pasek said.
He called on the new Bali Police chief to resolve what he described as an internal procedural dispute.
“It seems the new police chief needs to straighten all of this out,” he said.
Daging's Detention Entering Extension Period
Amid the dispute over the report, Daging's legal team said his detention as a suspect was entering an extension period.
Pasek said Daging had undergone three rounds of questioning as a suspect.
During the first and second interrogations, the legal team said Daging cooperated and provided additional information requested by investigators.
However, during the third questioning session, the legal team submitted a statement that Daging would not provide further testimony unless he was given the opportunity to exercise what they described as his right to file a report.
“During the third interrogation, we stated that he would not provide further testimony as long as he was not given his right to file a report. And since then, that right has still not been granted,” Pasek said.
Pasek said the detention process was now entering an extension period.
He also called for the new Bali Police chief to review the handling of the case.
“We are waiting for the new police chief. There should perhaps be a special team to examine whether this case is being handled properly or improperly. If irregularities are found, then clean them up,” he said.
Legal Team Considers Internal Affairs Complaint
The lawyers are also considering bringing the matter to the Bali Police's Professional and Security Division (Propam), which oversees police discipline and professional conduct.
Pasek said filing a complaint with Propam was one of the options being considered.
“That is one option, going to Propam Bali. But we will try that,” he said.
If the internal mechanism fails to resolve the issue, the legal team may consider taking the matter to a higher level, he added.
Lawyers Question Previous Case Termination
Apart from the difficulty in filing the report, Daging's lawyers also questioned the substance of the criminal case against their client.
Pasek pointed to what he described as similarities between the subject matter of the current case and an earlier case that he said had previously been terminated.
“What we are questioning is the connection between the determination of our client as a suspect for alleged document forgery and the fact that the same subject matter had already been terminated in an earlier case,” he said.
According to Pasek, the issue concerns legal certainty because the alleged act and subject matter remain the same while a different legal provision is now being used.
“The subject matter is the same, but the previous case was terminated. Now a new article is being used. The conduct remains the same. Is that permissible? There is no legal certainty,” he said.
Pasek argued that repeatedly pursuing the same subject matter under different legal provisions could create uncertainty.
“If forgery does not work, then tomorrow it could be defamation involving the same document, or another offense, or alleged slander, using the same subject matter again. That should not happen,” he said.
The legal team said it would continue seeking a way for Daging to file his report directly.
Pasek stressed that their immediate concern was not whether the allegations would ultimately be accepted or proven, but whether Daging would be given an opportunity to submit the report through the applicable procedure.
“What we are fighting for is simply for our client to be able to file the report,” he said.
As of publication, no statement from the Bali Police's Special Crimes Directorate or General Crimes Directorate was available regarding the alleged conflicting instructions, the reasons Daging was not allowed to appear personally to file the report, or the lawyers' allegations concerning the handling of the criminal case.
