By Endang Hastuty Bunga, S.H.
Advocate

BALINEWSID.COM – A Rp25 billion civil lawsuit filed against four media companies in Bali has attracted public attention. The case, brought by an advocate identified by the initials T.S., is interesting not merely because of who is suing and who is being sued, but because it raises a much more fundamental question: where is the boundary between an individual’s right to seek justice and the state’s obligation to safeguard press freedom?

As an advocate, I understand that everyone has the right to pursue legal remedies when they believe their reputation, dignity, or interests have been harmed. The right to file a lawsuit is part of every citizen’s constitutional rights.

However, the right to sue does not mean being free from public scrutiny. Nor does a substantial claim automatically demonstrate the extent of the alleged loss. Everything must ultimately be tested against the law, facts, evidence, and the principle of proportionality.

This is where the issue becomes particularly important.

The press is not above the law. Journalists are not infallible. Media companies must also be accountable for the journalistic products they publish.

At the same time, however, the press should not be placed in a position where it is intimidated simply for carrying out its journalistic duties.

In a democratic society, the media plays an important role as a social watchdog. Reporting on legal issues, alleged violations of the law, and cases that attract public attention is part of that function, provided the reporting is conducted in accordance with journalistic principles, including verification, balance, and adherence to the journalistic code of ethics.

Therefore, when a dispute arises over a news report, the first question should not simply be, “How much is being claimed?”

The more important questions are:

What exactly was reported? Was the report a journalistic product? Was it properly verified? Was the person concerned given an opportunity to provide clarification? Were the rights of reply and correction exercised? And were the appropriate mechanisms for resolving press disputes followed?

These questions are essential to ensure that legal proceedings do not become merely a contest between those with greater financial resources or those more willing to file lawsuits.

I make these observations not to defend the four media companies.

Nor do I intend to attack or discredit T.S. as an advocate. I respect his right to pursue whatever legal remedies he believes are justified.

However, as a fellow advocate, I believe this matter should be viewed calmly and from a broader perspective.

If every news report perceived as damaging ultimately leads to claims involving enormous sums of money, we should ask ourselves: will the press still have sufficient space to perform its social-control function without being haunted by the threat of litigation?

Conversely, press freedom must never be used as a shield to justify reporting that is inaccurate, unbalanced, or contrary to journalistic ethics.

The principle is simple:

The media must be willing to take responsibility.
Those who believe they have been harmed must be willing to exercise their legal rights.
And law enforcement must ensure that both interests are handled proportionately.

In my view, a press dispute should be an opportunity to examine the quality and accountability of journalism, rather than merely becoming a battleground over the size of a financial claim.

Rp25 billion is a substantial amount of money. But regardless of how large the figure may be, the alleged losses must still be proven and legally justified.

Likewise, a news report that makes someone uncomfortable does not automatically constitute an unlawful act.

This is where the law is truly tested.

Not by how much a person claims, but by how convincingly that person can prove the claim.

And not by how financially powerful a media company is in defending itself, but by how responsibly it performs its journalistic function.

I believe press freedom and the right to seek justice are not two interests that must destroy one another.

They must coexist.

When the law is used to seek justice, we must ensure that justice does not become a form of pressure.

And when press freedom is exercised to provide information to the public, we must also ensure that freedom does not become an excuse for arbitrariness.

Ultimately, it is the court that will examine this case based on the applicable law and the available evidence.

But as an advocate, I believe in one fundamental principle:

The law must never become a tool to silence.
The press must never become a tool to attack.
And justice must never be determined by whoever puts the biggest number on a lawsuit.