Pledoi Session, Legal Counsel Says BPOM Expert Witness Confirms That a Number of HS Products with Problems Have a Permit to Distribute

Sidang Pledoi perkara dugaan pencemaran nama baik dan penyebaran konten/ Foto: IST

JAKARTA - The continuation of the case of defamation and dissemination of content referred to as a black campaign entered the agenda of reading the defense note (pledoi) from the defendants at the Bandung District Court, West Java on Thursday, July 23, 2026.

In the trial, the legal advisor of the defendants, Fidelis Giawa, outlined a number of arguments that became the basis for the defense against the demands of the Public Prosecutor (JPU).

Fidelis emphasized that there was not a single piece of evidence that showed the defendants had edited or manipulated electronic information as alleged in the indictment.

According to Fidelis, the actions of the defendants were not intended to tarnish the reputation of the reporter, but as a form of protection for the public through the delivery of information that is considered to have public interest.

In his plea, Fidelis also reminded the panel of judges of a number of facts that he said had been revealed during the trial process. One of them is the testimony of an expert witness from the Food and Drug Supervisory Agency (BPOM).

According to Fidelis, the BPOM expert witness previously confirmed that there were several products belonging to HS that had expired BPOM administration or had problems in the administration of its BPOM distribution permit.

"The testimony was submitted by the BPOM expert witness during the trial and became part of the trial facts that we poured back into the defense note," Fidelis said in a statement received, Friday, July 24, 2026.

In addition, Fidelis also quoted back the testimony of other witnesses which he considered strengthened the defense's argument, including regarding the history of BPOM supervision of HS's factory and information regarding the status of the distribution license of a number of products.

After reading the plea, the Public Prosecutor told the panel of judges that his party needed time to study the contents of the defense note before drafting a response or reply.

The panel of judges granted the request and set the next hearing to be held within the next week with the agenda of reading the replications from the Public Prosecutor.