DENPASAR, BALINEWS – Two pretrial court rulings that both upheld the designation of I Made Daging as a criminal suspect, despite relying on different legal provisions, have become the central issue in the third round of pretrial proceedings at the Denpasar District Court on Friday (October 30, 2026).
Daging’s legal team argues that the two rulings raise serious concerns about legal certainty, particularly because the cases allegedly involve the same subject, object, location, time of the alleged offense, and evidence.
The legal team comprises Gede Pasek Suardika (GPS) of Berdikari Law Office, together with Kadek Cita Ardana Yudi and his team, as well as the Indonesian Legal Advocacy and Assistance Institute (LABHI) Bali, led by I Made Ariel Suardana (IMAS).
GPS said the two previous pretrial rulings at the Denpasar District Court both declared Daging’s suspect designation lawful, although they relied on different statutory provisions.
The first ruling referred to Articles 421 and 83 of the Criminal Procedure Code (KUHAP), while the second relied on Articles 391 and 392.
According to GPS, both proceedings concerned the same alleged act: the issuance of a document dated September 8, 2020.
“This has never happened before. It has happened at the Denpasar District Court. That is why we hope this case can be examined further. Regardless of the investigator’s decision to initiate another pretrial proceeding, we are now faced with two rulings from the Denpasar District Court,” GPS said.
He argued that the issue goes beyond differences in the application of legal provisions. Allowing investigators to repeatedly designate someone as a suspect simply by changing the charges, while maintaining the same alleged act and subject matter, could undermine legal certainty.
“Tomorrow, they could change the charge to defamation. The next day, it could be slander, or another criminal provision, while the underlying subject remains the same. We must prevent that from happening,” he said.
GPS called on the judges to carefully examine the legal implications of the case and demonstrate the courage to establish a legal precedent that could help address potential gaps in existing regulations.
He also questioned how the legal system should resolve a situation in which two pretrial rulings have both become legally binding and must be complied with.
“What is the solution? Both rulings, according to the expert's explanation during the hearing, must be obeyed. Both are final and legally binding. So, when there are two rulings like this, how should the situation be resolved?” he asked.
GPS argued that the earlier suspect designation should be examined through the principal criminal proceedings, while the subsequent designation should be considered in light of the legal principle of ne bis in idem, which prohibits a person from being tried twice for the same offense under applicable legal conditions.
However, he stressed that Daging’s case differs from situations involving two separate criminal acts committed at the same location and time.
In this case, he said, the alleged conduct remains the same, namely the issuance of a document on September 8, 2020, despite the use of different legal provisions in the subsequent suspect designations.
GPS warned that repeated suspect designations based on the same alleged conduct could create a dangerous precedent for law enforcement and undermine the principles of legal certainty, justice, and the benefits of law.
“Otherwise, investigators could simply decide to terminate an investigation, designate someone as a suspect again, terminate it once more, and repeat the process indefinitely. That would be dangerous for legal certainty, justice, and the overall purpose of the law,” he said.
IMAS Questions Legality of Investigation Termination
Meanwhile, fellow defense lawyer IMAS said the applicant had presented one witness and one criminal law expert during Friday’s hearing.
According to IMAS, the witness testified that Daging had undergone repeated examinations concerning the same subject matter, namely a document that had previously formed part of a case that had already been adjudicated by the court.
The defense team also presented criminal law expert Remaer from Pancasakti University.
Based on the expert's testimony, IMAS questioned the legal validity of the termination of the investigation by the Bali Police Criminal Investigation Directorate (Ditreskrimum Polda Bali).
One of the main issues raised was the use of Articles 83 and 84 concerning Restorative Justice (RJ), despite the alleged absence of any reconciliation process between Daging and the complainant.
“How could those provisions be used when no settlement or reconciliation ever took place? The termination document also failed to refer to the court ruling as its legal basis, an issue that was also acknowledged by the respondent's expert, Ms. Dewi Bunga,” IMAS said.
IMAS said the applicant's expert had identified what he considered a substantive legal defect in the termination process. Meanwhile, the respondent's expert, Dewi Bunga, had also acknowledged deficiencies, although her assessment focused more on administrative aspects.
He urged the judges to examine not only the substance of the case but also the formal validity of the investigation termination document.
According to IMAS, an investigation should be terminated on legally recognized grounds, such as circumstances that legally preclude further proceedings or the expiration of the statute of limitations, rather than through Restorative Justice when no reconciliation has taken place.
Bali Police Focuses on Final Written Arguments
On the other side, AKBP I Nyoman Gatra, representing the Bali Police Legal Division as the respondent, said his team had decided not to submit a rejoinder (duplik) during Friday's hearing.
He outlined three reasons behind the decision.
First, the respondent agreed with the judge's earlier guidance that pretrial proceedings are designed to be expedited, meaning that a reply and rejoinder are not mandatory. The judge had also encouraged both parties to strengthen their legal arguments in their final written submissions.
Second, the respondent considered that the applicant's reply contained no substantial new arguments requiring a formal rejoinder.
Third, the respondent chose to follow the court's direction by focusing on strengthening its legal arguments ahead of the final submissions scheduled for the following Monday.
Regarding the criminal law experts' testimonies, Gatra highlighted differing interpretations of Article 161, particularly concerning who is legally entitled to challenge the validity of an investigation termination.
According to Gatra, the applicant's expert argued that such a challenge could be brought not only by the complainant, victim, or their legal representatives, but also by parties outside those three categories.
In contrast, the respondent's expert maintained that the provision must be interpreted strictly in accordance with the principle of lex stricta.
“Stricta means the provision cannot be interpreted beyond what is expressly stated in the wording of Article 161,” Gatra said.
The third round of Daging's pretrial proceedings is now approaching its final stage, with both parties preparing to submit their concluding legal arguments before the judges deliver their decision.
The case has brought several significant legal questions to the forefront, particularly concerning repeated suspect designations involving the same alleged conduct, the application of different criminal provisions, and the legal validity of investigation termination.
The court's decision is expected to address the legal arguments raised by both parties and clarify the implications of the dispute for legal certainty in Indonesia.
