BALINEWSID.COM, DENPASAR — The pretrial hearing involving former Bali Regional Head of the National Land Agency (BPN), I Made Daging, resumed at the Kartika Courtroom of the Denpasar District Court on Thursday (October 8, 2026).

The hearing entered the reply (replik) stage, with Daging’s legal team responding to the arguments submitted by the Bali Police as the respondent. The police are scheduled to deliver their rejoinder (duplik) on Friday (October 9).

Daging’s legal team, comprising Berdikari Law Office and LABHI Bali, argued that the Bali Police’s response had failed to address the substance of their pretrial petition.

Lawyers Gede Pasek Suardika and I Made Ariel Suardana challenged both Daging’s designation as a suspect and his detention. They argued that the respondent had focused primarily on the formal aspects of the investigation, including the number of witnesses, experts, and documentary evidence.

According to the defense, however, the issue was not simply whether investigators had met the minimum requirement of two pieces of evidence to designate someone as a suspect.

The lawyers questioned the legal basis, alleged criminal construction, and connection between the evidence and the alleged criminal acts attributed to their client.

Lawyers Allege the Case Repeats an Earlier Investigation

One of the key issues raised by the defense was Daging’s designation as a suspect based on what they claimed was the same subject matter as an earlier case.

The designation was set out in a September 4, 2026 letter, alleging violations of Article 263 paragraphs (1) and (2) of the Indonesian Criminal Code (KUHP), concerning document forgery.

The defense argued that the same subject matter had previously been investigated, discontinued, and followed by the revocation of Daging’s suspect status.

The document at issue is the Head of the Badung Land Office Letter No. HP.01.03/3200/51.03/XI/2020, dated September 8, 2020, concerning a Final Report on Case Handling.

The lawyers argued that the latest case bears similarities to the previous investigation in terms of the object, time, location, and substance of the examination.

“The questions are also the same, copied and pasted from the previous investigation report. The respondent only changed the heading with a new police report and a new article, while everything else remains the same and intact,” the legal team argued during the hearing.

The defense questioned the legal certainty of using the same subject matter to designate someone as a suspect again under a different legal construction.

Defense Challenges “Intellectual Forgery” Argument

The legal team also challenged the term “intellectual forgery” referred to in the Bali Police’s response.

According to the defense, the police had characterized the case as involving intellectual forgery, allegedly involving the insertion of false information into an official document or deed.

The lawyers rejected that construction, arguing that the document at the center of the case was an official BPN document issued and signed by an authorized official.

They therefore questioned the legal basis for characterizing the contents of the document as forged.

“From this provision, which part is being interpreted by the respondent as intellectual forgery?” the lawyers asked during the hearing.

The defense also questioned the Bali Police’s claim that investigators had gathered 30 witnesses, nine experts, and 62 documents and other pieces of evidence.

According to the lawyers, the sheer volume of evidence does not automatically establish forgery if investigators cannot present an authentic document or other reliable comparison against which the disputed document can be assessed.

“If there is no genuine document that investigators can establish as the authentic comparison, then even 100 witnesses, 100 experts, or thousands of documents would have no meaning,” the lawyers argued.

They also challenged the respondent’s reference to “fictional facts” allegedly contained in the disputed document.

The defense maintained that determining whether the contents of the document were true or false should be addressed through the evidentiary process in the main criminal case and should not be treated as already proven at the pretrial stage.

Defense Also Challenges Daging’s Detention

In addition to the suspect designation, Daging’s lawyers challenged the legality of his detention.

They specifically referred to Detention Order No. Han/31/IX/Res.1.24/2026/Ditreskrimsus, dated September 16, 2026.

The lawyers argued that the order merely cited the legal provisions concerning detention without adequately explaining the factual circumstances that formed the basis for the investigators’ decision to detain Daging.

They referred to Article 100 paragraphs (3) and (5) of the Indonesian Criminal Procedure Code (KUHAP), which they said regulate the contents of a detention order, including the reasons for detention.

“The reasons for detention must be included together with the factual conditions as stipulated under Article 100 paragraph (5) of the Criminal Procedure Code,” the lawyers argued.

Based on these grounds, the defense asked the pretrial judge to examine not only the procedure used to designate Daging as a suspect but also the legal basis and procedure underlying his detention.

Bali Police: Arguments Will Be Answered on Friday

Meanwhile, Bali Police legal representative I Nyoman Gatra offered little response to the arguments presented by Daging’s lawyers.

Gatra said the police would address the defense’s arguments in their rejoinder at the next hearing.

“That can be their argument. We will respond tomorrow in the rejoinder. It’s normal. Everyone has their own arguments,” Gatra said after the hearing.

Regarding the defense’s request for Daging to be released from detention so he could attend the hearing, Gatra said the matter remained within the authority of the investigators.

“No, that cannot be done. As the judge said earlier, it is still within the investigators’ authority,” he said.

Gatra added that his team continued coordinating with the investigators as representatives of the respondent.

When asked about the result of the coordination, he asked the media to wait for the next hearing.

“That’s why I said earlier, wait until tomorrow,” he said.

The pretrial proceedings will continue on Friday, October 9, with the Bali Police scheduled to submit their rejoinder.

The arguments concerning the alleged repetition of the case, the legal basis for Daging’s suspect designation, the alleged intellectual forgery, and the legality of his detention remain the respective positions of the parties in the pretrial proceedings. The final determination of whether the investigators’ actions were lawful rests with the judge hearing the case.