BALINEWSID.COM, DENPASAR — Four media companies in Bali have submitted 20 documentary exhibits in a civil lawsuit registered under Case No. 958/Pdt.G/2026/PN Dps at the Denpasar District Court.

The four companies are PT Bali Intermedia Digital, which operates Radar Bali and Radar Buleleng; PT Artha Media Fajar Bali Utama Press, also known as Fajar Bali; PT Bali Warta Kencana, also known as Balipolitika; and PT Mangupura Inter Media, also known as MangupuraNews.

At an initial evidentiary hearing held on Monday, September 28, 2026, the legal teams representing the four media companies also submitted a written reply containing objections concerning absolute jurisdiction and the argument that the lawsuit was premature.

Indra Marini, counsel for the defendants, said the evidence and legal objections were submitted to strengthen the defendants’ position in the case.

“On September 28, we appeared as counsel for the defendants, the four media companies, at the initial evidentiary hearing. In addition to submitting documentary evidence, we also filed a reply containing objections concerning the court’s jurisdiction, specifically absolute jurisdiction, as well as an objection that the lawsuit was premature,” Indra said after the hearing.

Through the objections, the defendants’ legal team asked the panel of judges to consider issuing an interlocutory ruling declaring the lawsuit inadmissible (Niet Ontvankelijke Verklaard/NO).

The 20 documentary exhibits include the incorporation deeds of the four companies, documents relating to their status as press companies, an official letter from the Press Council concerning the nature of the dispute as a press dispute, a Constitutional Court decision concerning the mechanism for resolving press disputes, evidence relating to the right of reply, and previous court decisions cited by the defendants as legal precedents.

Ignatius Radhite, another member of the defendants’ legal team, said the subject matter of the lawsuit concerns published journalistic content.

According to Radhite, Constitutional Court Decision No. 145 of 2025 and Press Council Regulation No. 3 of 2017 provide a framework under which disputes involving journalistic content should first be addressed through the press dispute resolution mechanism.

“The subject matter being challenged by the plaintiff concerns journalistic content. Therefore, we have asked the panel to consider the preliminary evidence so that the case does not proceed unnecessarily far,” Radhite said.

He added that the legal team plans to call an expert from the Press Council at the next hearing to explain the applicable mechanism for resolving press disputes.

Radhite said the dispute-resolution process previously undertaken through the Press Council had not yet been completed.

He said the plaintiff had previously received a Statement of Assessment and Recommendation (Pernyataan Penilaian dan Rekomendasi/PPR) from the Press Council containing a number of obligations, including a requirement to report on the implementation of the recommendations.

“The dispute-resolution process before the Press Council has not yet been completed. The plaintiff was asked to submit a report concerning the recommendations, but that has not been done to date. The Press Council has also not issued a public statement determining whether the respondent committed any violation. Since the process has not been completed, we consider the lawsuit before the court to be premature,” Radhite said.

The defendants’ legal team also said the case could have broader implications for the way disputes concerning journalistic content are resolved. They said their legal challenge was not only aimed at protecting the interests of the four media companies, but also concerned the existing mechanism for resolving press disputes.

“If this is not challenged today, it could create a bad precedent in the future. Anyone who disagrees with journalistic content could immediately sue a media organization in court while disregarding the Press Council mechanism provided under the law,” Radhite said.

To strengthen their argument concerning the court’s jurisdiction, the defendants’ legal team plans to call an expert from the Press Council at the next hearing in Case No. 958/Pdt.G/2026/PN Dps.

The next hearing is scheduled for Monday, October 5, 2026, at the Denpasar District Court.

The case remains ongoing. The arguments and objections presented by the legal team representing the four media companies constitute the defendants’ legal position and remain subject to consideration by the panel of judges together with the evidence and arguments presented by all parties.