BALI — Former Head of the Bali Regional Office of the National Land Agency (BPN), I Made Daging, is facing another legal challenge at the Denpasar District Court (PN Denpasar).
This time, his designation as a suspect in an alleged case involving the creation and/or use of forged documents is being challenged through a pretrial proceeding.
The first hearing of the second pretrial case was held at the Denpasar District Court on Tuesday, October 6, 2026.
The case is separate from an earlier legal proceeding involving I Made Daging, which had also resulted in his designation as a suspect before the investigation was eventually terminated by the Bali Regional Police (Polda Bali).
I Made Daging's First Suspect Designation Was Previously Challenged In the first case, I Made Daging was named a suspect by the Bali Police's Directorate of Special Criminal Investigation (Ditreskrimsus) on December 10, 2025.
At that time, investigators accused him of violating Article 421 of the Indonesian Criminal Code (KUHP) and/or Article 83 of Law No. 43 of 2009 on Archives.
I Made Daging subsequently challenged the suspect designation through pretrial case No. 1/Pid.Pra/2026/PN Dps.
On February 9, 2026, a single judge at the Denpasar District Court, I Ketut Somanasa, rejected the application.
The court ruled that the suspect designation in the first case had been carried out procedurally and was supported by at least two pieces of evidence.
As a result, the suspect designation in the first case was declared legally valid. However, the case did not proceed to a trial on the merits.
On August 6, 2026, the Bali Police issued an investigation termination order and revoked I Made Daging's suspect status.
The investigation was terminated on the grounds of legal considerations and/or the expiration of the applicable limitation period.
Second Case Originated From Report by I Made Tarip The current pretrial proceeding concerns a different case.
The second case originated from a report filed by I Made Tarip on January 5, 2026, concerning alleged document forgery.
The report was registered under No. LP/B/14/I/2026/SPKT/POLDA BALI. Following the report, investigators designated I Made Daging as a suspect again on September 4, 2026.
However, the legal basis for the second suspect designation differs from the first case.
In the second case, I Made Daging is accused of committing the offense of making and/or using forged documents, as stipulated under Articles 391 and/or 392 of Law No. 1 of 2023 on the Criminal Code.
This second suspect designation is now being challenged before the Denpasar District Court.
I Made Daging's Lawyers Question Polda Bali's Position Following the first hearing, I Made Daging's lawyer, Gede Pasek Suardika, questioned whether the latest case could eventually end in a similar manner to the previous case.
He referred to the first case, in which the Denpasar District Court had previously ruled that I Made Daging's suspect designation was valid, but the Bali Police later terminated the investigation.
Another member of I Made Daging's legal team, I Made ‘Ariel’ Suardana, also questioned why the previous case was not taken to trial after the suspect designation had been upheld through the pretrial process.
“Designating Mr. Daging as a suspect repeatedly is not very creative. Yesterday we challenged it through pretrial and he won [the case]. They should have been confident enough to take it to trial, but apparently they weren't,” Ariel said.
I Made Tarip's Legal Team Claims Strong Evidence Meanwhile, the legal team representing I Made Tarip Widharta, led by lawyer H. Harmaini Idris Hasibuan, said they were confident in facing the pretrial challenge. I Made Tarip's side rejected allegations that the document at the center of the dispute was forged.
According to the team, the document had been examined by several institutions and was declared authentic.
“The first issue is the statute of limitations. The second is that the complainant has no legal interest and suffered no loss. Where is his legal standing?” the lawyer said.
The team also claimed that the document had been examined by courts, the National Land Agency (BPN), and village government authorities.
“The document that he claims is fake has been examined by the courts and declared authentic. It was examined by BPN and declared authentic. It was also examined by the village government and declared authentic,” he said.
The team also questioned the basis of the complaint if the original document allegedly at issue could not be produced.
“Where is the original? It doesn't exist. How can he file a report if the original does not exist?” he said.
I Made Tarip's side further claimed that there were 12 letters from the Ministry of Agrarian Affairs which, according to them, confirmed the authenticity of the document. When asked about I Made Daging's legal team's claim that it possessed recommendation letters from various government institutions, the I Made Tarip team rejected the claim.
“It's a lie, a lie! There are none!” he said.
Second Pretrial Case Has Not Yet Been Decided Regarding the ongoing pretrial process, I Made Tarip's side said they were not directly involved in the proceedings because the legal handling was being conducted by the Bali Police Legal Division (Bidkum).
Nevertheless, when asked about the possible outcome, the team expressed strong confidence that the pretrial application would be rejected.
“Oh, it will definitely be rejected. One thousand percent rejected. There is no point in the pretrial. The evidence is already strong,” he said.
Despite the confidence expressed by I Made Tarip's legal team, no decision had been issued as of Tuesday, October 6, 2026.
The Denpasar District Court is still examining the application challenging the legality of I Made Daging's designation as a suspect in the second alleged forged-document case.
Why the Two Pretrial Cases Must Be Distinguished The outcome of the first pretrial proceeding cannot automatically be applied to the second case.
Although both proceedings involve I Made Daging, the legal basis, alleged offenses, reporting party, and sequence of events are different.
In the first case, the Denpasar District Court ruled that I Made Daging's suspect designation was valid. The investigation was subsequently terminated by the Bali Police in August 2026 on legal grounds and/or because the case had become time-barred.
In the second case, the suspect designation was made following I Made Tarip's January 2026 report concerning alleged document forgery, with investigators relying on Articles 391 and/or 392 of Law No. 1 of 2023 on the Criminal Code.
Therefore, the key issue before the Denpasar District Court is whether the September 4, 2026 suspect designation of I Made Daging in the second case was conducted in accordance with applicable legal procedures and supported by sufficient evidence.
The court's eventual ruling will determine whether the second suspect designation is declared lawful or invalid.
