DENPASAR, BALINEWS – Lawyers representing former Bali Regional Office of the National Land Agency (BPN) chief I Made Daging have called on the newly appointed Bali Police chief to review the procedures and handling of the case involving their client.
The request came after Daging's reported attempt to file a criminal complaint over alleged document forgery was allegedly hindered by what his lawyers described as conflicting procedures between the Bali Police's Special Crimes Directorate (Ditreskrimsus) and General Crimes Directorate (Ditreskrimum).
Daging's lawyer, I Gede Pasek Suardika, said citizens should not face difficulties when attempting to file a police report.
According to Pasek, whether an alleged criminal offense is ultimately proven is a matter for investigators to determine after a report has been formally received and processed according to the applicable procedures.
“What is so difficult about providing services to citizens who want to file a report? Whether it is proven or not is not actually the investigator's concern at that stage,” Pasek said.
He expressed hope that the new Bali Police chief would address the issue, including reviewing what he described as possible unprofessional conduct in the handling of the case.
“We are waiting for the new police chief. We believe the new chief will clean up these kinds of practices,” he said.
Pasek said his legal team had also asked Ditreskrimsus investigators to facilitate Daging's appearance so he could personally file the report.
However, he said the request had not produced a resolution.
“The 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 described the situation as ironic because the issue involved two directorates within the same police institution.
“This is all 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 claimed investigators from Ditreskrimsus 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.
On the other hand, Pasek said Ditreskrimum required the complainant or alleged victim to appear in person to file the report.
The difference, he said, had left the legal team questioning which procedure they were expected to 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 urged 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 Enters Extension Period
Amid the dispute over the filing of the report, Daging's legal team said the criminal proceedings against him had entered an extension period of detention.
Pasek said Daging had been questioned three times as a suspect.
During the first and second rounds of questioning, the legal team said Daging cooperated and provided additional information requested by investigators.
However, during the third interrogation, the lawyers submitted a statement saying that Daging would not provide further testimony unless he was allowed 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 unless he was given his right to file a report. That right has still not been granted,” Pasek said.
Pasek confirmed that Daging's detention had entered an extension period. He also said he had advised his client to consider not signing certain documents related to the investigation.
Propam Complaint Considered
Daging's legal team is also considering bringing the matter to the Bali Police Professional and Security Division, known as Propam.
Pasek said filing a complaint with Propam was one of the options being considered if the concerns over the investigators' alleged lack of professionalism could not be resolved.
“That is one option, going to Propam Bali. But we will try that,” he said.
The legal team is also considering taking the matter to a higher level if internal channels fail to provide a resolution, Pasek added.
Lawyers Question Case Previously Terminated
Beyond the issue of Daging's ability to file a report, Pasek also questioned the substance of the criminal case against his client.
He pointed to an earlier case which, according to him, had been terminated before a new case emerged involving a different legal provision but allegedly the same underlying conduct and subject matter.
“What we are questioning is the connection between the designation 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,” Pasek said.
He argued that if the underlying conduct and subject matter were the same, but a different legal provision was subsequently used after the earlier case had been terminated, the situation could raise concerns about legal certainty.
“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 said legal certainty was an important part of protecting citizens' rights.
He further argued that repeatedly pursuing the same subject matter under different criminal provisions could create legal 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.
According to Pasek, once a case has been terminated, there should be clarity regarding its legal status and the legal basis for reopening or pursuing a subsequent case.
“If it was terminated before, then it should be over,” he said.
The legal team said it would continue pursuing a way for Daging to file his report concerning the alleged document forgery.
They also said they would consider all available legal and institutional channels, including Propam, if the dispute over the reporting procedure and allegations of unprofessional conduct remained unresolved.
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 case.
