If Everyone Can Sue the Media for Rp25 Billion, Who Will Still Dare to Write?

BALINEWSID.COM — This week, Bali’s media landscape has been buzzing with a legal case that, to be honest, I initially thought would pass by like any other civil dispute. But the more I followed its developments, the more I came to feel that this is not simply an ordinary civil lawsuit between one lawyer and four local media outlets.

It raises a much bigger question about the future of press freedom in Indonesia. And anyone who still cares about the health of democracy in this country should be paying attention.

The Background

A Rp25 billion civil lawsuit has been filed by lawyer Togar Situmorang against four media companies in Bali: PT Bali Intermedia Digital (Radar Buleleng), PT Artha Media Fajar Bali Utama Press (Fajar Bali), PT Bali Warta Kencana (Balipolitika.com), and PT Mangupura Inter Media (MangupuraNews.com). The case is currently registered at the Denpasar District Court under Case No. 958/Pdt.G/2026/PN Dps.

As a journalist, I firmly believe that every citizen, regardless of who they are, has the right to seek justice if they believe they have been harmed by a news report. That is a constitutional right that cannot and should not be taken away.

The case is still ongoing. It is up to the judges to assess the facts and evidence presented by both sides, and public opinion—including this article—should not be allowed to prejudge the court’s eventual decision.

What prompted me to write is not the question of who is right or wrong regarding the disputed news reports. What made me stop and think more deeply is the amount of the lawsuit, and what could happen if claims of such magnitude become a new norm for resolving disputes over news coverage in Indonesia.

Hearing Directly from the Chairman of IWO Bali

To gain a fuller understanding of the issue, I spoke with Tri Widiyanti, Chairman of the Bali chapter of the Online Journalists Association (IWO).

In her view, lawsuits involving enormous sums of money over journalistic work could potentially have an intimidating effect on the press.

“The press is the fourth pillar of democracy,” she told me.

I should emphasize that this is the position of a professional organization, not a judicial verdict. But the concern is not without basis, and this is precisely where a broader discussion should begin.

I asked why a journalists’ organization felt the need to become involved in a matter that, technically, is a civil dispute between the parties involved.

The answer was simple: Indonesia’s Press Law already provides specific mechanisms for resolving disputes of this nature—the right of reply, the right of correction, and the Press Council. These mechanisms exist for a reason. They are designed to allow errors in journalism to be addressed and corrected without undermining the fundamental role of the press itself.

When those mechanisms are bypassed and a dispute immediately moves into the realm of a lawsuit worth tens of billions of rupiah, Tri argues, the question is no longer simply about who was right or wrong in the original reporting.

The question becomes: Will the space for journalists to report and write become increasingly narrow in the future, regardless of the final outcome of this particular case?

A Voice from the Indonesian Parliament

Interestingly, what initially appeared to be a local dispute has also reached Jakarta.

Parta, a member of the Indonesian House of Representatives (DPR RI) and Chairman of the PDI-P faction’s working group (Kapoksi) at the Legislative Body, has also made a public statement regarding the case.

“Let us respect press freedom. Let us respect journalistic products that are produced through journalistic work and based on facts and a sequence of legal events that actually occurred,” he said.

Parta said the Press Council has provided a proportional mechanism for resolving disputes without resorting to legal measures that could potentially threaten freedom of expression.

He also warned that lawsuits or pressure against media organizations must not become tools for silencing criticism or undermining the press’s social-control function, particularly when the right of reply and the right of correction have already been made available.

When a national legislator feels compelled to speak publicly about a civil case being heard at the Denpasar District Court, that in itself is a signal.

Not a signal that the case is necessarily legally flawed—that remains entirely within the authority of the judges to determine—but a signal that what is happening in Bali is being viewed as part of a much larger national issue.

The Question I Really Want to Ask

After following the developments of this case and listening directly to those who have spoken out, I have arrived at a question that, in my view, is more important than simply following the court proceedings.

What happens if, one day, every news report that makes someone uncomfortable can be met with a lawsuit worth tens of billions of rupiah? And if that becomes the norm, who will still dare to write?

In many democratic countries, there is a term for a phenomenon that can resemble this: Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation, or SLAPP.

I must emphasize once again that not every high-value lawsuit automatically qualifies as a SLAPP. That is a legal question that must be tested against the facts and ultimately decided by a court—not by me or anyone else outside the courtroom.

But the term emerged from a very real concern: that legal proceedings, when excessively used as instruments of pressure, can cause people to choose silence before they ever have the opportunity to speak.

And the most tangible danger of fear is not necessarily when a journalist is imprisoned for something they have written.

The most real—and hardest to detect—danger is when a journalist begins censoring themselves long before a story is ever published.

Imagine a young reporter who has been working for only two years. They uncover alleged irregularities in a government budget. The documents are complete. The sources are credible. The editor agrees that the story deserves to be published.

But before the article goes live, a simple question emerges in the newsroom:

“What if we get sued for Rp25 billion?”

A question that simple may be enough to kill a story before the public ever gets the chance to read it.

The Two Sides That Must Always Be Protected

I also do not want this essay to sound as though the media are always right and those who file lawsuits are always wrong.

That is not my intention, nor is it a healthy way to think about democracy.

Press freedom has never meant freedom without responsibility.

The media must be willing to examine themselves honestly. Fact-checking and verification must be the foundation of every news report, not an optional step. The right of reply must be fully respected, not treated as a mere formality. Corrections must be made openly when mistakes occur, without waiting for the threat of a lawsuit.

The greater the freedom enjoyed by the media, the greater the moral responsibility that comes with it.

What Is Really at Stake

The case at the Denpasar District Court is still ongoing. Ultimately, it is the judges who will assess the facts, evidence, and arguments presented by all parties.

No one—including me, as the author of this essay—should prejudge the outcome or issue a one-sided moral verdict against any party involved in the dispute.

But beyond the courtroom and the legal proceedings now underway, there is one question that remains worth—and perhaps even necessary—to consider as a nation that still wants to believe in a healthy democracy.

If, one day, every news report that makes someone uncomfortable is met with a lawsuit worth tens of billions of rupiah, what will disappear first from this country?

The courage of journalists to write the truth.

Or the public’s right to know it.

Viewed 8 times