Determination of JAK TV News Director as Suspect, Who is Actually Targeted?

The designation of the News Director of JAK TV, Tian Bahtiar, as a suspect in the obstruction of investigation case has raised questions. The Attorney General's Office stated that the designation of the suspect was made due to allegations of conspiracy. Meanwhile, the evidence seized by investigators includes dozens of negative news articles about the Attorney General's Office.

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

The Attorney General's Office stated that the three individuals are suspected of conspiring to create news and content on social media. The content is deemed to discredit the Attorney General's Office in handling the corruption case of PT Timah Tbk and the sugar importation at the Ministry of Trade. Furthermore, Marcella Santoso is a suspect in the bribery or gratification case at the Central Jakarta District Court, which is currently under investigation by the Attorney General's Office.

In response to this, on Tuesday (22/4/2025), the Chairperson of the Press Council, Ninik Rahayu, met with the Attorney General, Sanitiar Burhanuddin. As a result, the Press Council stated that assessing whether a news report qualifies as journalistic work or not is the authority of the Press Council as regulated in Law Number 40 of 1999 concerning the Press. However, the Press Council will not interfere in legal processes if a criminal act is indeed found.

"The Press Council has the obligation to safeguard and assess, and has the right to evaluate. Well, that is what we agreed upon when we sat together, acknowledging that there are areas handled by the prosecutor's office, but there are also areas managed by the Press Council," said Ninik.

Meanwhile, the Attorney General's Office stated that the designation of Tian Bahtiar as a suspect is related to personal actions and not connected to the media. In this case, according to the Attorney General's Office, there was an attempt at a malicious conspiracy through false information packaged to influence public opinion.

The Journalist Safety Committee (KKJ) through a written statement, on Wednesday (23/4/2025), requested that the use of the criminal offense of obstruction of justice or obstruction of investigation be reviewed because it must be a direct action. Meanwhile, reporting, public opinion, expressing opinions in public, are not acts of obstruction as referred to in Article 21 of the Corruption Eradication Law.

Thus, the concentration of investigators due to reading media reports and public assessments is unrelated and does not obstruct the investigation and prosecution. KKJ considers the determination of the suspect to be arbitrary.

"KKJ continues to fully support efforts to eradicate corruption, but urges that legal processes be conducted in an accountable and proportional manner, without violating the principles of press freedom," as quoted from the written statement.

Ronald Loblobly expressed a different view. Ronald Loblobly's name was clearly mentioned by the AGO in relation to evidence in the obstruction of investigation case, namely an invoice of Rp153.5 million, the details of which are for 14 news topics on the reasons for not continuing the sugar import case; 18 news topics on Jamin Ginting's responses; 10 news topics on Ronald Loblobly; and 15 news topics on Dian Puji and Prof Romli's responses.

"Regarding my name being implicated and the other names in the press statement, it is part of the Attorney General's Office's psy war against me and the other names that were also mentioned," said Ronald.

Although the Attorney General's Office stated that it is open to criticism, Ronald noted that during the press conference, they explicitly mentioned the names of individuals related to the evidence of obstruction of the investigation, rather than using initials. Typically, when the Attorney General's Office refers to witnesses or the names of suspects in a case, they always use initials, not full names.

And it is clear from the press release (Attorney General's Office) yesterday that the news regarding our report is viewed negatively by the Attorney General's Office. In fact, this news has appeared in many media outlets, not just (JAK TV) that are related to the case.

Ronald is convinced that his name was mentioned in the evidence solely because of his action in reporting Jampidsus Febrie Adriansyah to the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) some time ago. He stated that he has never had any connection with the Attorney General's Office. Ronald also claimed that he does not know Tian Bahtiar.

In March 2024, Ronald Loblobly, as the Coordinator of the Anti-Corruption Civil Coalition, reported Jampidsus Febrie Adriansyah to the KPK. At that time, Ronald reported Jampidsus concerning allegations of abuse of authority related to the handling of the Jiwasraya Insurance corruption case, the bribery case of Ronald Tannur, the abuse of authority in coal trading in East Kalimantan, and money laundering offenses.

"And it is clear from the press release (from the Attorney General's Office) yesterday that the news regarding our report is viewed negatively by the Attorney General's Office. In fact, this news has appeared in many media outlets, not just (JAK TV) that are related to the case," said Ronald.

In addition to Ronald Loblobly, another party mentioned in the evidence of the obstruction of investigation case is Indonesia Police Watch (IPW). In a press conference, the Attorney General's Office stated that one piece of evidence is media monitoring of news regarding IPW on June 3, 2024.

According to the Chairman of IPW, Sugeng Teguh Santoso, the actions of the Attorney General's Office in mentioning the name of IPW constitute intimidation. Sugeng stated that he does not recall the incident or the statement made by IPW on that date, thus he is not precisely aware of the connection between IPW and the case. Sugeng also admitted that he does not know Tian Bahtiar.

"Regarding IPW's media monitoring on June 3, it was intimidation because IPW was called Ronald Loblobly. When Ronald reported Jampidsus to the KPK, he was accompanied by IPW," said Sugeng.

From Kompas' records, Sugeng as the Head of IPW also reported Jampidsus to the KPK on May 27, 2024. Sugeng is a member of the Civil Coalition to Save Mines (KSST) which reported alleged corruption by Jampidsus related to the implementation of the auction of confiscated corruption items in the form of a package of shares of PT Gunung Bara Utama (GBU).

The shares were seized from the PT Asuransi Jiwasraya corruption case which was auctioned by the Attorney General's Office's Asset Recovery Center (PPA) on June 18, 2023 and won by PT Indobara Putra Mandiri (IUM) (Kompas.id, 5/27/2024).

According to Sugeng, the actions of the Attorney General's Office are seen as using the law to silence certain parties and seemingly positioning themselves as the rightful party. This is considered to further undermine the democratic order.

When asked about the names mentioned in the evidence, the Head of the Legal Information Center of the Attorney General's Office, Harli Siregar, stated that his office could not yet confirm whether those names would be summoned as witnesses or not. This is a matter of the investigators' needs.

There is a malicious intent exhibited by this perpetrator in collaboration with the parties that have been mentioned. For what purpose? To create public opinion that will influence the work of law enforcement officials.

Harli has not yet been able to confirm the connection of those names in the obstruction of investigation case. "Whether it is possible or not greatly depends on the attitude of the investigator," he stated.

Nevertheless, Harli emphasized that the prosecution is not anti-criticism. He also dismissed the notion that the case is a result of negative reporting, as the focus of the investigation is the conspiracy of the suspects.

"There is malicious intent exhibited by this perpetrator in collaboration with the parties that have been mentioned. For what purpose? To create public opinion that will influence the work of law enforcement officials," said Harli.

The continuation of the handling of this case transparently is awaited by the public. The disclosure of the case in a clear manner is important to understand the context and uncover who is actually being targeted in this case.