Former Bali BPN Chief I Made Daging Files Third Pretrial Challenge Against Bali Police

BALI – Former Head of the Bali Regional Office of the National Land Agency (BPN), I Made Daging, has returned to the Denpasar District Court for a third pretrial challenge, seeking to contest the termination of an investigation and the revocation of his suspect status by the Bali Regional Police (Polda Bali).

The hearing took place on Tuesday, October 27, 2026, with Daging’s legal team questioning the handling of the case and arguing that the sequence of investigative decisions has created legal uncertainty.

The legal challenge focuses on the termination of an earlier investigation and the subsequent issuance of a new police report allegedly based on the same underlying material but involving different criminal provisions.

For readers following Bali’s legal developments, the case raises questions about how investigators handle successive reports, change the legal basis of an investigation, and ensure legal certainty for individuals involved in criminal proceedings.

I Made Daging’s Lawyers Question the Investigation Process

Led by lawyer Made Ariel Suardana, Daging’s legal team presented several arguments before the single judge hearing the pretrial application at the Denpasar District Court.

Ariel explained that the dispute relates to an investigation previously involving Article 421 concerning abuse of authority and Article 83 of Indonesia’s Archives Law.

According to Ariel, the legal team had previously filed a pretrial application challenging Daging’s designation as a suspect. At that time, the lawyers questioned the use of criminal provisions they considered no longer applicable under the updated criminal law framework.

After the Bali Police prevailed in the earlier pretrial proceedings, the legal team expected investigators to proceed with the case so that their legal arguments could be tested in court.

Instead, Ariel said, investigators terminated the case on August 6, 2026.

His statement reflects the position of the applicant’s legal team. The court has yet to determine the merits of the arguments presented in the current pretrial proceedings.

Lawyers Challenge a New Police Report Based on Similar Material

A central issue in the latest application is the issuance of a new police report after the earlier investigation was terminated.

Ariel questioned why alleged document forgery was not included in the earlier investigation if the relevant material had already formed part of the original complaint.

He argued that using similar underlying material while changing the criminal provisions could raise legal concerns about how the case was processed.

“This is what I mean when I say there was a lack of care in processing the first police report, which ultimately harmed us,” Ariel said.

The legal team also referred to the principle of ne bis in idem, which generally prevents a person from being tried again for the same matter after a legally conclusive judgment, subject to the applicable legal requirements.

The precise applicability of this principle to the circumstances of Daging’s case remains a matter for legal assessment. The issuance of a new police report or a change in criminal provisions does not, by itself, establish that a violation of the principle has occurred.

Through the third pretrial application, Daging’s lawyers are asking the judge to examine the legality of the termination of the investigation and the revocation of his suspect status.

Ariel maintained that the three pretrial proceedings are connected because, in his team’s view, they involve the same object, applicant, complainant and reported party.

Legal Team Claims the Case Has Created Uncertainty

Ariel argued that the sequence of legal proceedings has left his client facing uncertainty over the status and direction of the case.

He also characterized the proceedings as alleged criminalization by certain individuals, a claim that has not been established as a judicial finding.

The legal team said it would continue pursuing available legal remedies to seek clarity and justice for Daging, including efforts to report parties whom they believe have caused harm to their client.

Asked about the chances of winning the third pretrial challenge, Ariel emphasized the importance of remaining optimistic throughout the legal process.

“Every struggle we undertake must be accompanied by optimism. In my view, every step we take is an effort to find and deliver justice,” he said.

The court’s decision will be important in determining the outcome of the specific procedural issues raised in the application. The filing itself does not establish that the police acted unlawfully.

Bali Police Prepare Response to Six Legal Arguments

Meanwhile, the Bali Police Legal Division said it was preparing to respond to the arguments submitted by Daging’s legal team.

AKBP I Nyoman Gatra, coordinator of the Bali Police Legal Division team and head of its legal assistance sub-unit, explained that Tuesday’s hearing began with the reading of the pretrial application and administrative checks of the powers of attorney and official orders submitted by the parties.

According to Gatra, Daging’s legal team presented six principal arguments in its application.

One issue raised during the hearing concerned the termination of the investigation, which the applicant’s lawyers questioned on the grounds that it allegedly had not been preceded by a case review meeting, known as a gelar perkara in Indonesia.

Gatra said the police legal team had prepared its response but would deliver it according to the schedule set by the judge.

“We were actually ready to present our response today, but since the judge has scheduled it for tomorrow, we will deliver it tomorrow,” Gatra said on Tuesday.

The Bali Police have not yet presented their full response to the applicant’s arguments in the proceedings described.

Next Hearing Scheduled for October 28

The third pretrial challenge marks another stage in the legal dispute between I Made Daging and investigators from the Bali Regional Police.

The next hearing is scheduled for Wednesday, October 28, 2026, when the court is expected to hear the respondent’s response to the application.

The proceedings will provide an opportunity for both sides to present their respective legal positions before the judge considers the issues raised.

For the public, the key question is whether the court finds that the challenged investigative decisions complied with applicable legal procedures. The outcome may clarify the procedural dispute between Daging and the Bali Police, although the pretrial proceedings should be distinguished from a trial examining the merits of any underlying criminal allegations.