BALINEWSID.COM, DENPASAR — The pretrial hearing involving former Bali Regional Office of the National Land Agency (BPN) chief I Made Daging continued at the Kartika Courtroom of the Denpasar District Court on Wednesday (Oct. 7, 2026).

The hearing was held to hear the response from the Bali Police as the respondent to the pretrial petition filed by Daging’s legal team.

Daging’s lawyers from Berdikari Law Office, led by Gede Pasek Suardika, Kadek Cita Ardana Yudi and their team, along with the Bali Legal Aid Institute (LABHI), represented by I Made Ariel Suardana and his team, said they had reviewed the police’s response.

The legal team argued that the response focused largely on the formal aspects of the investigation, including the number of witnesses, experts and documentary evidence, while failing to adequately address what they consider the central issue in the pretrial case.

Gede Pasek Suardika said the police response did not address the fact that Daging had previously been named a suspect in what the defense considers the same object, incident, time frame and location.

“The response does not mention that this case had previously been brought before the court or that a suspect determination had previously been made. It only focuses on the current case, even though that previous matter is what we raised,” Pasek said after the hearing.

According to Pasek, Daging had previously been named a suspect in a case involving what the defense claims were the same object, incident, tempus delicti and locus delicti. The earlier case reportedly proceeded through the legal process before the suspect designation was later revoked.

He argued that the subsequent designation of Daging as a suspect under different articles raised a fundamental legal issue that should be examined in the pretrial proceedings.

“A person who has previously been named a suspect involving the same object, the same incident, the same tempus delicti and the same locus delicti, and whose case was not brought to trial, then has his suspect status revoked and is later named a suspect again under different provisions. That is the essence of this pretrial case,” Pasek said.

He criticized what he described as the respondent’s emphasis on the formal fulfillment of evidentiary requirements.

“If this is the way the issue is viewed, it is highly technical and does not address the substance of justice,” he said.

Bali Police: Investigation Was Lawful

Meanwhile, Bali Police legal representative I Nyoman Gatra said the respondent had prepared a response to all the arguments presented by Daging’s legal team.

Gatra said the response contained seven main points.

“In essence, we responded to their arguments. There are seven points. The key point is that what the investigators did was lawful,” Gatra said.

Asked about the documentary evidence that had been questioned by Daging’s lawyers, Gatra said the issue concerned the substance of the main criminal case and should not be examined in the current pretrial proceedings.

“That concerns the substance of the main case. It cannot be examined here. It will be addressed during the examination of the main case. This is a pretrial hearing, so it is only about the formal aspects,” he said.

Lawyers Ask for Daging to Attend Hearing

Daging’s legal team also asked that their client be brought to court to attend the upcoming witness examination.

Pasek said the single judge handling the case had indicated that Daging should be present when witnesses are examined on Friday.

He said Daging’s presence would be important to clarify statements made by witnesses presented by both the respondent and the petitioner.

“The purpose is to further clarify the explanations and statements presented by both the respondent and our side,” Pasek said.

Pasek also referred to the earlier case in which Daging’s suspect designation had reportedly been declared valid.

He argued that if the suspect designation had been considered lawful, the case should have proceeded to the examination of the merits.

“If the suspect designation was valid, the consequence should have been that the case proceeded to trial on its merits. But in reality, it did not continue,” he said.

Lawyers Question ‘Intellectual Forgery’

Another issue raised by Daging’s legal team was the term “intellectual forgery,” which they said appeared in the respondent’s response.

Pasek questioned the legal and academic basis for the term, particularly in relation to the alleged document forgery case involving his client.

“They said that this type of forgery does not necessarily require a comparison document because it is supposedly a form of intellectual forgery. This is a new term for me. I am curious to hear what the expert has to say,” Pasek said.

He said the defense would challenge the concept through the experts who are expected to testify during the proceedings.

Pasek also referred to evidence and documentation held by the defense concerning several matters raised in the case, including references to a drone in the respondent’s explanation.

He said the defense had a different interpretation of the alleged “intellectual forgery.”

“For the time being, I see the intellectual forgery as occurring in the investigation itself, because it is based on allegedly false documentary evidence,” he said.

LABHI Bali Warns Against Criminalizing Thoughts

I Made Ariel Suardana, one of Daging’s lawyers from LABHI Bali, said his team had no difficulty preparing its reply to the respondent’s arguments.

According to Ariel, around half of the police response consisted of explanations of legal norms that are already regulated under Indonesia’s Criminal Procedure Code.

“About 50 percent consists of legal norms being applied. In fact, they did not need to be written because they are already contained in the Criminal Procedure Code,” he said.

The remainder, Ariel said, largely consisted of a chronology concerning Daging’s designation as a suspect.

He said one part of the respondent’s explanation actually supported the defense’s argument, particularly regarding a letter prepared by Daging in 2020 and addressed to his superior.

According to Ariel, the letter contained a chronology, suggestions and recommendations prepared by Daging in his official capacity at the time.

“He prepared the chronology and made suggestions and recommendations. This is what is being criminalized,” Ariel said.

Ariel also questioned the use of the term “intellectual forgery.”

He warned that using the term without a clear legal and academic basis could have broad implications for law enforcement.

“If this is used as a basis, it could be dangerous. Even our thoughts could potentially be criminalized. Before anything happens, we could be prosecuted. Anxiety and concerns could potentially be criminalized,” Ariel said.

He therefore urged the court to ensure that any experts presented during the proceedings have the appropriate qualifications and are able to explain the concept from both academic and legal perspectives.

“I emphasize that experts who truly have the intellectual capacity should be presented. Do not present experts who end up misleading the court. This is dangerous,” he said.

Defense Urges Court to Examine Substance of Case

Ariel further argued that the pretrial proceedings should not be limited to technical aspects of the investigation.

In his view, the judge should also consider the substance of the case in determining whether the legal process against Daging should proceed to the next stage.

“The points raised in this pretrial case concern procedure rather than substance,” he said.

He argued that pretrial proceedings should not merely examine technical matters such as how investigators summoned a person or conducted an investigation.

“The purpose of a pretrial proceeding is not merely technical. It is not simply about how someone was investigated or when they were summoned. It is about examining the essence of the case and whether a case like this should proceed to the next stage,” Ariel said.

He added that the defense had also raised arguments concerning broader alleged legal issues in its pretrial petition.

“We have stated that there are alleged offenses that need to be uncovered through these proceedings and that must be examined as openly as possible,” Ariel said.

The pretrial hearing is scheduled to proceed to the witness examination stage. Daging’s legal team expects him to attend the hearing in accordance with the direction of the presiding judge.