BALINEWSID.COM, DENPASAR — A Rp25 billion civil lawsuit filed by lawyer Togar Situmorang against four media companies in Bali entered its first hearing at the Denpasar District Court on Wednesday, July 22, 2026, amid questions over legal procedures and the handling of press disputes.

The lawsuit, registered under case number 958/Pdt.G/2026/PN Dps, names four media outlets as defendants: Radar Buleleng and Radar Bali, Fajar Bali, Balipolitika.com, and MangupuraNews.com.

The hearing drew significant attention from journalists across Bali, with dozens of reporters attending as members of the Solidaritas Jurnalis Bali (SJB), or Bali Journalists Solidarity group. The defendants were represented by a legal team of around 34 lawyers coordinated by Made “Ariel” Suardana. The plaintiff was represented by two lawyers, Jody Kunto, S.H., and Andi, S.H.

The hearing was presided over by Chief Judge I Wayan Suarta, who opened the proceedings by reminding all parties to maintain the integrity of the judicial process.

However, after reviewing the case documents and the legal authority of the parties’ attorneys, Suarta announced that he would step down from the case after the first hearing to avoid a potential conflict of interest.

“To avoid a conflict of interest because I have a family relationship with one of the lawyers representing the defendants, I am withdrawing from the case after this first hearing,” Suarta said.

The court subsequently asked both parties to agree on a mediator from among the judges at the Denpasar District Court. The next hearing has been scheduled for August 4, 2026, with mediation as the main agenda.

The defendants’ legal team, however, raised questions regarding the formal validity of the plaintiff’s legal representation documents.

SJB coordinator I Made “Ariel” Suardana said the lawsuit listed eight lawyers representing the plaintiff, while only two appeared in court during the first hearing.

“There are eight lawyers listed in the plaintiff’s legal documents, but only two appeared in court. There is something that needs to be clarified regarding their power of attorney, and this has become a formal issue for us,” Ariel said.

Another lawyer representing the SJB, Wayan Sudana, also questioned the validity of the power of attorney documents. He said the defense team had prepared legal objections, or an exception, should the case proceed to the next stage.

The SJB legal team argues that disputes involving journalistic products should first be resolved through the mechanisms provided under Law No. 40 of 1999 on the Press, including the right of reply, the right of correction and the dispute-resolution mechanism facilitated by the Press Council.

The team maintains that the principle of lex specialis derogat legi generali should apply, meaning that specific press regulations take precedence over general legal provisions when dealing with disputes arising from journalistic work.

Ariel said the legal team’s involvement went beyond defending the four media companies and was intended to protect press freedom.

“This civil lawsuit involving journalistic products is highly unusual. We are here not only to defend these four media companies, but also to ensure that press freedom, as the fourth pillar of democracy, is not undermined,” Ariel said.

Former Bali General Elections Commission member and press figure I Gusti Putu Artha, who attended the hearing, also questioned whether the civil court should handle the dispute if the media outlets had already provided a right of reply.

Putu Artha urged the court to consider issuing an interlocutory ruling if it found that the lawsuit had failed to follow the appropriate press-dispute mechanism, rather than resolving the matter through mediation.

“If this case is settled through mediation, the legal status of the journalistic products will remain unclear. Compromise in cases like this could be dangerous because it may open the door for others to continue filing lawsuits against the press in the future,” Putu Artha said.

The plaintiff’s legal team, however, rejected allegations that the lawsuit was intended to intimidate the media or undermine press freedom.

Jody Kunto said the lawsuit was filed after his client had pursued the formal dispute-resolution process through the Press Council.

According to Jody, a complaint had been submitted to the Press Council in 2025, with the process continuing until the council issued a decision in June 2026.

“This lawsuit was not filed without grounds. We have pursued administrative proceedings through the Press Council since 2025, and in June 2026, a decision was issued stating that the defendant media outlets had committed ethical violations. That Press Council decision is the main basis for our lawsuit,” Jody said after the hearing.

The plaintiff’s legal team also said that summons letters and evidence concerning the alleged failure to properly accommodate the right of reply were among the documents submitted during the Press Council process.

Despite the ongoing lawsuit, the plaintiff’s side said it remained open to an amicable settlement during the upcoming mediation.

“Our client strongly supports efforts toward reconciliation. The possibility of a settlement remains wide open. We hope the mediation can produce the best solution for both parties,” Jody said.

The case now moves to mediation, with both sides maintaining fundamentally different positions. The defendants argue that disputes involving journalistic products must be handled primarily through the special mechanisms established under the Press Law, while the plaintiff maintains that the Press Council process has already been pursued and that its decision provides a legal basis for the civil lawsuit.

The August 4 mediation will determine whether the dispute can be settled amicably or proceeds to examination of the substance of the Rp25 billion lawsuit.