Former Bali BPN Head Files Second Pre-trial Motion in Denpasar
The former Head of the Bali National Land Agency (BPN), I Made Daging, has once again challenged his designation as a suspect. The second pre-trial hearing was held at the Denpasar District Court today, presided over by a single judge, Kadek Dedy Arcana.
This pre-trial motion represents Daging’s second legal attempt to contest his suspect status. Although the specific charges being challenged this time differ from the previous case, his legal counsel argues that the matter remains linked to the same subject matter and underlying issues.
Made Daging’s legal counsel, Gede Pasek Suardika (also known as GPS), is contesting the latest suspect designation, which involves allegations of document forgery under Articles 391 and/or 392 of the Criminal Code. The case against Daging pertains to alleged forgery occurring during his tenure as the Head of the Badung Land Office.
“The object is the same, the subject is the same, the evidence is the same, and even the questions in the interrogation reports are the same. The only difference is the specific article applied. This is the first time a criminal case has been handled in such a manner, as once a decision is final, the principle of nebis in idem applies,” said GPS on Tuesday (6/10/2026).
“However, in this pre-trial decision, it is being repeated with only the article and the superior being changed. This is what we are testing in this pre-trial motion,” he added.
GPS noted that the document in question is the Badung Regency Land Office Letter Number MP.01.03/3200-51.03/IX/2020, dated 8 September 2020, regarding the Final Report on Case Handling. According to him, the letter was merely an administrative report from a subordinate to a superior.
The letter, he stated, was created to fulfil an order from the Head of the Bali Provincial ATR/BPN Office and contained a chronology of case handling based on historical documents. GPS argued that the letter did not create, eliminate, reduce, or add any rights to any party.
GPS emphasised that this second pre-trial motion questions the basis upon which investigators claim the letter is related to criminal forgery. “The most important thing is, if a crime of document forgery has occurred, has the respondent found any comparative evidence of a letter declared as authentic?” he added.
In the previous case, Made Daging was charged under the old Article 421 of the Criminal Code and/or Law Number 43 of 2009 concerning Archives. At that time, the judge ruled the suspect designation valid, noting that investigators possessed at least two pieces of evidence.
However, the investigation into that case was subsequently halted by the Bali Regional Police on 6 August 2026, and Made Daging’s suspect status was revoked.
Following this, a new police report was filed, and Made Daging was re-designated as a suspect. This time, the allegation has shifted to suspected document forgery.
Consequently, GPS stated that legally, the object of the suspect designation in the two pre-trial motions differs. However, according to the legal counsel, the subject of the letter and the root of the dispute remain linked to the same case.
The Head of the Legal Assistance Sub-division of the Bali Regional Police, I Nyoman Greet, attended the pre-trial today. He stated that his office would prepare a response to Made Daging’s suspect status during the next hearing.
“We are preparing a response. Tomorrow, we will provide our answer to what has been alleged and what is being requested,” Gatra said briefly.
The case involving Made Daging originated from a land dispute regarding the Pura Dalem Balangan temple in Jimbaran, Kuta Selatan, Badung, specifically concerning the temple’s surrounding land (telajakan).
The temple community had previously reported the issue to the Ombudsman in 2018. The matter subsequently escalated, involving handling processes within the Badung Regency Land Office.
Made Daging came under scrutiny because he was serving as the Head of the Badung Land Office when the issue was being processed. Daging’s legal counsel stated that the land dispute had undergone legal processes, including the State Administrative Court (PTUN), and resulted in a legally binding decision.
They argue that Daging was merely implementing a legal decision and did not issue any new land products regarding the object. Conversely, the Pura Dalem Balangan community views the matter as a struggle for their temple’s surrounding land.
It was from this land dispute that reports were filed against Daging regarding documents and administrative actions taken during his tenure as Head of the Badung Land Office. In the first case, investigators utilised the old Article 421 of the Criminal Code and the Archives Law.
After that case was halted and the suspect status revoked, investigators reopened the case through a new report, this time alleging document forgery.