Four Bali Media Companies Challenge Lawsuit, Cite Press Dispute Mechanism and Absolute Jurisdiction

BALI — A civil lawsuit filed by lawyer Togar Situmorang against four media companies in Bali is continuing at the Denpasar District Court, with the defendants challenging the legal basis and jurisdiction of the case.

The four defendants are PT Bali Intermedia Digital, which operates Radar Bali and Radar Buleleng; PT Artha Media Fajar Bali Utama Press, publisher of Fajar Bali; PT Bali Warta Kencana, publisher of Balipolitika; and PT Mangupura Inter Media, publisher of MangupuraNews.

In the initial evidentiary hearing on Monday, September 28, 2026, the legal team representing the four media companies submitted 20 documentary pieces of evidence while also presenting a rejoinder containing objections over absolute jurisdiction and the argument that the lawsuit was filed prematurely.

The civil lawsuit is registered under case number 958/Pdt.G/2026/PN Dps at the Denpasar District Court.

The defense team is asking the panel of judges to accept the objections and issue an interlocutory ruling declaring the lawsuit inadmissible (Niet Ontvankelijke Verklaard/NO).

20 Documents Submitted as Initial Evidence Among the 20 pieces of evidence submitted were the establishment deeds of the four companies, documents demonstrating their legal status as press companies, an official letter from the Press Council confirming that the dispute concerns journalistic activities, a Constitutional Court ruling concerning the resolution of press disputes, evidence relating to the Right of Reply, as well as previous court rulings in which civil lawsuits against press companies were declared inadmissible on jurisdictional grounds.

Another member of the legal team, Ignatius Radhite, said the subject of the lawsuit was journalistic content published by the media companies. According to Radhite, the defense is relying on Constitutional Court Decision No. 145 of 2025 and Press Council Regulation No. 3 of 2017, which the legal team argues establish a specific mechanism for resolving disputes involving journalistic products.

“The object being challenged by the plaintiff is a journalistic product. Referring to Constitutional Court Decision No. 145 of 2025 and Press Council Regulation No. 3 of 2017, it is clearly stated that the dispute must be resolved through the press dispute mechanism,” Radhite said.

He added that the defense intends to ask the court to address the issue at the preliminary stage rather than allowing the case to proceed further before the question of jurisdiction is resolved.

“We are asking the panel to examine the preliminary evidence so that the case does not have to proceed too far. After this, we intend to present an expert from the Press Council to explain that press disputes must be resolved through the press dispute mechanism under the Press Council. Therefore, the Denpasar District Court should not hear this case,” he said.

Defense Says Press Council Process Has Not Been Completed Radhite also argued that the dispute resolution process before the Press Council had not yet been completed.

He said the plaintiff had previously received a Statement of Assessment and Recommendation (Pernyataan Penilaian dan Rekomendasi/PPR) from the Press Council containing certain obligations. According to the defense, those recommendations had not been fully carried out.

The defense further argued that the Press Council had not issued an open statement determining whether the media companies had committed a violation.

“The dispute resolution process before the Press Council has not been completed. The plaintiff was asked to submit a report concerning the Press Council’s recommendations, but that has not been done to this day. The Press Council has also never issued an open statement assessing whether there was an error on the part of the party complained against,” Radhite said.

“Because the mechanism has not been completed, we consider the lawsuit filed before the court to be legally premature,” he added.

Legal Challenge Framed Around Press Freedom The defense team said its position in case No. 958/Pdt.G/2026/PN Dps was not only intended to defend the four media companies, but also to protect press freedom and the broader democratic environment in Bali.

The lawyers characterized the lawsuit as potentially creating a precedent in which parties dissatisfied with journalistic reporting could bypass the established press dispute resolution mechanism and immediately bring media organizations before the courts.

“If we do not challenge this today, it could create a bad precedent in the future. Anyone who disagrees with a journalistic product could immediately sue a media company in court while ignoring the Press Council mechanism that has been provided by law,” the legal team said.

“We must maintain a healthy democratic climate and ensure that press freedom remains protected from any threats that may arise,” they added.

Press Council Expert to Be Presented To strengthen their argument regarding the court's jurisdiction, the defense team plans to present an expert from the Press Council at the next hearing. The hearing is scheduled for Monday, October 5, 2026, at the Denpasar District Court.

The expert is expected to provide an explanation regarding the press dispute resolution mechanism and the role of the Press Council in disputes arising from journalistic products.

The outcome of the court's consideration of the preliminary objections will determine whether the civil lawsuit proceeds further or is declared inadmissible at the preliminary stage.