Press Council Speaks Up Regarding Suspect Determination of JAK TV News Director

JAKARTA, KOMPAS - The Press Council emphasizes that the assessment of a journalistic work is the authority of the Press Council. Meanwhile, regarding the alleged criminal act involving the Director of News at JAK TV, Tian Bahtiar, as a suspect in the obstruction of investigation case, that falls under the jurisdiction of the Attorney General's Office.

The Chairperson of the Press Council, Ninik Rahayu, conveyed this after meeting with the Attorney General on Tuesday (22/4/2025) afternoon. The meeting was in response to the designation of JAK TV's News Director, Tian Bahtiar, as a suspect in obstructing an investigation in a case handled by the Attorney General's Office, specifically the corruption case involving tin and sugar imports at the Ministry of Trade.

The day before, on Monday (21/4/2025) evening, the Attorney General's Office designated Tian and two lawyers, Marcella Santoso and Junaedi Saibih, as suspects. They are alleged to have obstructed investigations, prosecutions, and court examinations handled by the Attorney General's Office.

The modus operandi involved conspiring to create news and content on social media that discredits the Attorney General's Office in handling the corruption cases of PT Timah Tbk and sugar imports at the Ministry of Trade. The cases in question are the corruption case related to tin commodities within the Mining Business License of PT Timah Tbk and the alleged corruption case concerning sugar imports at the Ministry of Trade from 2015 to 2016, which is currently still in process at the Jakarta Corruption Court.

During her visit, Ninik questioned the handling process of the obstruction of investigation case being managed by the Attorney General's Office, one of the suspects being the Director of JAK TV News, Tian Bahtiar.

"The Press Council requests that each institution, if there is sufficient evidence that the case is related to a criminal act, then it is the full authority of the Attorney General's Office to follow up on the process. The Press Council certainly does not want to be an institution that interferes in legal proceedings," said Ninik.

According to Ninik, the authority to assess whether a news report falls into the category of journalistic work or not is within the jurisdiction of the Press Council. This is regulated by Law Number 40 of 1999 concerning the Press.

Therefore, through the meeting, the Press Council and the Attorney General agreed to mutually respect the processes carried out by each institution in accordance with the mandates provided by the law.

According to Ninik, the journalistic code of ethics as stated in the Press Law regulates the behavior of press workers or journalists when indicated to be abusing their profession, which falls within the realm of ethics. The Press Council will assess several things related to press reporting, such as the principle of covering both sides and accuracy. The Press Council will also assess the behavior of journalists in carrying out their profession.

Regarding the case involving Tian Bahtiar, the Press Council will gather news reports that the Attorney General's Office considers to be a form of collusion with the legal representatives. The Press Council may also request statements from the parties involved. If any violations are indicated, the Press Council has the authority to revoke the competency card of the individual concerned.

Niniek urged journalists not to worry or be afraid in carrying out their profession as journalists. "Continue to work professionally. What is important is to work professionally and adhere to the journalistic code of ethics," she stated.

The Press Council will gather news reports that, according to the Attorney General's Office, constitute a form of collusion with the legal representatives. The Press Council may also request statements from the parties involved. If any violations are indicated, the Press Council can revoke the relevant competency card.

On that occasion, the Head of the Legal Information Center of the Attorney General's Office, Harli Siregar, stated that the actions attributed to Tian Bahtiar are personal acts and not related to the media. He also emphasized that the issue in the obstruction of investigation case is not the reporting, as the prosecution is not anti-criticism.

According to him, what is being questioned by the investigators from the Attorney General's Office is the crime of conspiracy among the three parties, which is considered to have obstructed the investigation of the ongoing legal process. He mentioned that manipulation has occurred.

"We also conveyed to the Press Council that regarding the ethical process and assessment of journalistic works, we respect that the Press Council will carry that out," said Harli.

Regarding the application of Article 21 of the Law on the Eradication of Corruption Crimes against Tian Bahtiar, according to Harli, this was carried out due to the alleged obstruction of the investigation related to the corruption case handled by the Attorney General's Office. Meanwhile, concerning the ethical violations, this falls within the jurisdiction of the Press Council to assess.

In this case, the AGO sees an attempt at evil conspiracy through incorrect information packaged to influence public opinion. This is reinforced by the division of roles between the legal team on duty at the trial and the social engineering team tasked with creating public opinion regarding the case handled by the AGO.

"All of this is for what purpose? The weakening of the institution (Prosecutor's Office). For what? For handling cases according to their wishes. What is the perspective, including the judicial perspective, on the Prosecutor's Office institution? The masses are instructed to demonstrate and are paid. That has been confirmed," said Harli.

Harli also said that the acquittal in the corruption case with the corporate defendant some time ago occurred due to the formation of opinions by the three suspects. In addition, the civil lawsuit filed by the legal team by the defendant's legal counsel was narrated by the social engineering team as if the prosecutor's office was asking for compensation.