DENPASAR, BALINEWS — The third pretrial hearing filed by former Bali Provincial National Land Agency (BPN) head I Made Daging against the Bali Regional Police resumed at the Denpasar District Court on Wednesday (October 28, 2026), with police defending their decision to discontinue the investigation while Daging’s lawyers accused law enforcement of criminalizing their client.
The hearing, presided over by single judge Yudi Eka Putra, was scheduled to hear the response from the respondent, the Bali Regional Police, to arguments submitted by Daging’s legal team, led by I Made Ariel Suardana.
The case concerns the legality of an investigation termination order, known as an SP3, and the revocation of Daging’s suspect status by the Bali Police Criminal Investigation Directorate on August 6, 2026.
Representing the police Legal Affairs Division, AKBP I Nyoman Gatra said the investigation was discontinued on legal grounds, including changes to criminal law provisions and the expiration of the statute of limitations.
Gatra explained that Daging was named a suspect on December 10, 2025, when Indonesia’s former Criminal Code was still in force. According to him, the decision was based on investigative findings, expert testimony, and a formal case review.
However, following the implementation of Law No. 1 of 2023 on the Criminal Code on January 2, 2026, investigators conducted another case review to reassess the legal basis for continuing the investigation.
Gatra said the provision previously used to investigate Daging was no longer regulated under the new Criminal Code. He added that the statute of limitations under the law governing archival records was also considered in the decision to terminate the investigation.
In addition to defending the SP3, the Bali Police Legal Affairs Division challenged Daging’s legal standing to file the pretrial petition.
Gatra argued that a petition seeking judicial review of an investigation termination must be filed by a party legally entitled to do so under applicable regulations.
He questioned Daging’s position in the case, noting that the former BPN official had previously been named a suspect in the investigation that was subsequently terminated.
The objection places Daging’s eligibility to challenge the termination at the center of the legal dispute, alongside the substantive grounds cited by investigators.
Daging’s lawyer, I Made Ariel Suardana, rejected the police objection to his client’s legal standing.
Ariel argued that Daging had suffered harm as a result of the legal proceedings and was therefore entitled to seek judicial review through the pretrial mechanism.
He maintained that Daging’s previous status as a suspect did not automatically deprive him of the right to challenge legal actions he considered detrimental to his interests.
Ariel also questioned the emergence of new police reports that he said involved similar subject matter and allegations to those in the earlier case.
He called for the related allegations to be examined comprehensively, arguing that handling potentially interconnected cases separately could create legal uncertainty.
Ariel went further, describing the case against his client as an alleged act of criminalization.
“I have repeatedly said that Mr. Made Daging’s case is purely criminalization, using the law as a disguise, with certain individuals allegedly operating within the institution,” Ariel said.
The allegation represents the position of Daging’s legal team. The Bali Police, meanwhile, maintain that the investigation was terminated on legal grounds, including changes in criminal law provisions and the statute of limitations.
Through the third pretrial petition, Daging’s lawyers are challenging the legality of the SP3 and the revocation of his suspect status.
The proceedings are expected to examine the competing arguments concerning the termination of the investigation, the statute of limitations, and Daging’s legal standing. The final assessment of those arguments rests with the court.
