Januarius Reports Alleged Document Forgery to North Sumatra Regional Police
Januariuss Felix L.G. has reported an alleged criminal act of document forgery concerning the Minutes of Constatering (Berita Acara Konstatering) for approximately five hectares of land to the North Sumatra Regional Police. The report pertains to discrepancies in the description of the land’s location within two documents that are part of an execution proceeding.
The report was received by the Integrated Police Service Centre (SPKT) of the North Sumatra Regional Police on 31 August 2026, and is recorded under STTLP Number STTLP/B/1453/VIII/2026/SPKT/POLDA SUMATERA UTARA.
Januarius is acting as the authorised representative for the alleged victim. He has requested that the police investigate the conflicting information regarding the land’s location as stated in Execution Minutes Number 01/Eks/2008/5/Pdt.G/2001/PN-Trt and the Minutes of Constatering dated 10 July 2026.
“The issue lies within the Execution Minutes Number 01/Eks/2008/5/Pdt.G/2001/PN-Trt and the Minutes of Constatering dated 10 July 2026,” Januarius stated on Tuesday (15/9).
According to him, the Execution Minutes describe the land object as being located in Simpang Tiga Hutapaung, Pollung District, Humbang Hasundutan Regency, North Sumatra. Meanwhile, the Minutes of Constatering dated 10 July 2026 describes the object as being located on Jalan Siborong-borong, Pansabung Village, Siborong-borong District, North Tapanuli Regency, North Sumatra.
This discrepancy in location is being contested as it affects the identity of the object of the case, which must be matched with the actual conditions on the ground.
Januarius also noted that the approximately five hectares of land claimed as the subject of the case were not measured during the constatering process. He has asked law enforcement to investigate the basis for determining the location and the verification process used before the minutes were issued. “This difference in location needs to be explained because it concerns the identity of the case object,” he said.
He questioned whether the location listed in the Minutes of Constatering was determined based on a court decision, an execution order, a certificate, a land map, or other land-related documents.
Furthermore, Januarius has asked the police to determine whether the discrepancy in location is an administrative error or relates to a change in the fundamental details regarding the case object.
EXPLANATION FROM TARUTUNG DISTRICT COURT
Januarius has also requested that the Tarutung District Court provide an explanation regarding the issuance and implementation of the Execution Minutes and the Minutes of Constatering.
The Chairperson of the Tarutung District Court, Reni Pitua Ambarita, through staff member Finson Sitohang, stated on Tuesday (15/9) that the media should submit an official letter to request an audience regarding the matter.
An explanation from the court is required, specifically regarding the basis for listing the object’s location in both documents and the verification process conducted before the constatering was formalised in the minutes.
In addition to the location discrepancy, Januarius questioned why the approximately five hectares of land were reportedly not measured during the constatering process.
NOTIFICATION OF PROCEEDINGS
Januarius is also challenging the mechanism used to notify the parties involved in the legal process. He questioned why notifications were conducted manually when the case is said to be using the e-Court system and the parties are represented by legal counsel.
Another issue requiring clarification is the basis and detailed breakdown of the costs for notifying the parties regarding the Judicial Review (Peninjauan Kembali - PK). According to Januarius, an investigation into all these matters is necessary to ensure that the administration and execution of the legal proceedings are carried out in accordance with applicable regulations.
The report of alleged document forgery now serves as the basis for the police to investigate the documents and the statements of the parties involved regarding the discrepancies in the case object reported.