DENPASAR - The Denpasar District Court rejected the pretrial application filed by the lawyer for the Head of the Bali Regional Office (BPN) I Made Daging.
Single Judge Ketut Somanasa in his ruling stated that the determination of Daging as a suspect by the Bali Police investigators as the Respondent had met the formal requirements.
Single Judge said, the determination of the suspect I Made Daging through the Decree Letter Number: S.Tap/60/XII/RES.1.24/2025/Ditreskrimsus/Polda Bali, dated December 10, 2025 was declared valid and not in violation of the law.
According to the judge's assessment, the defendant in this case, the Bali Police, was found to have followed the provisions, starting with the legal basis of the alleged violated article, the authority of the investigator, and the fulfillment of the minimum initial evidence.
"Therefore, the reasons for the pretrial application filed by the applicant must be declared unfounded according to the law and rejected in their entirety, on the contrary, the defendant has succeeded in proving the evidence of his indictment," said the judge, Monday, February 9.
During the trial, the Single Judge said he did not find the Respondent guilty of naming the suspect I Made Daging based on evidence from the Applicant.
The judge said the pretrial hearing did not have the authority to assess the article that was the argument of the applicant to apply for a pretrial. Because, he said, the pretrial hearing only has the authority to assess the procedure for determining suspects with a minimum of two valid evidence.
The pre-trial judge considered the debate on the application of Article 421 of the old Criminal Code in the aquo case must refer to the provisions of Article 3 Paragraph (2) of Law Number 1 of 2023 concerning the Criminal Code, whose provisions read "in the case of an act that has ceased to be a crime according to the new regulations, the legal process against the suspect or defendant must be stopped for the sake of the law (the basis of decriminalization).
According to the judge, this provision is restrictive, as emphasized by the opinion of Criminal Law Expert Prof. Dr. Prija Djatmika submitted by the Applicant and Criminal Law Expert Dr. Dewi Bunga submitted by the Respondent.
In the ruling, the judge considered that the authority to stop the legal process referred to in Article 3 paragraph 2 was not the jurisdiction of the pre-trial judge.
"If the pre-trial judge takes over this authority, it will have the effect of causing abuse of power because the scope of authority has been determined by law," he said.
Regarding the Applicant's objection regarding the application of the article which according to the Applicant has expired, the Pre-Trial Judge does not have the authority to assess the application of the alleged article, because the assessment regarding the application of the article is the main examination area of the case.
The limited preliminary judge is limited to assessing the formal requirements of whether the two valid evidence is fulfilled and does not enter the substance of the case.
Meanwhile, the legal team of I Made Daging admitted that they received the judge's verdict, but still gave a number of notes.
The applicant's legal team, commanded by Gede Pasek Suardika, said it would prove what the judge decided in the pretrial hearing.
"We just have to wait for when the determination of the suspect will be brought to court. If it is considered correct, then when Article 421 (Article 421 of the old Criminal Code, reference to the determination of the suspect) will be tested in the main case and when Article 83 (Article 83 of the Archives Act) will be tested into the main case," he said.
The English, Chinese, Japanese, Arabic, and French versions are automatically generated by the AI. So there may still be inaccuracies in translating, please always see Indonesian as our main language. (system supported by DigitalSiber.id)
