Professional Documents
Culture Documents
The Killing of Journalist AA Prabangsa
The Killing of Journalist AA Prabangsa
Published by:
The Alliance of Independent Journalists (AJI) Indonesia
Jl Kembang Raya No. 6, Kwitang, Senen
Jakarta Pusat 10420
Email. office@ajiindonesia.org
Website: www.ajiindonesia.org
Supported by
Table of Contents
Introduction....................................................................................................... v
CHAPTER XI - Epilogue.....................................................................................75
iv | After Blood Stains
Introduction
Bali is not only an Island of the Gods, but home of the Gods
and Goddesses of Justice taking into account the murder of
Radar Bali journalist, Prabangsa. It is the island with eager law
enforcers working relentlessly for the sake of law and justice.
| v
time that police, prosecutors, and judges, worked on a case of
journalist murder based on strong legal principles and sense of
public justice. The general public are oftentimes cynical over
law enforcement officers. However, in the case of Prabangsa,
people thanked Bali Police Department, attorneys, and panel
of judges of the District Court of Denpasar.
lll
lll
| vii
Southwest Moluccas (2010).
In a year, legal enforcers in Bali Province has solved an
important murder case. Amidst piles of unsolved murdered
journalist cases, the Prabangsa case is an achievement.
The Alliance of Independent Journalists wants to share
the experiences gained by the press and civil communities
in revealing the Prabangsa case. We hereby thank the Soutth
East Asia Press Alliance (SEAPA) in Bangkok for the support
in preparing and publishing the book. We also thank our
colleagues in AJI Denpasar, Radar Bali, Nusa Bali, traditional
Balinese communities, writers, editors, and all parties involved
in the book “After Blood Stains.”
We are hoping that the book is worth the reading.
Eko Maryadi
President of AJI.
| 1
Prabangsa married Anak Agung Sagung Istri Mas Prihan-
tini on 8 January 1995 and had two children. The first child
was a daughter named Anak Agung Istri Sri Hartati Dewan-
dari, 14; while the second one was a boy named Anak Agung
Gde Candra Dwipa, 12. The small family lived on Jalan Nusa
Kambangan, Sanglah, Denpasar, Bali.
The man who was born in Bangli, 20 November 1968, was
a zealous journalist. He kept records of his works in archives
and data. Piles of documents and research papers were on his
desk despite the fact that all stories connected with the said
data had been circulated. “I will need any of those someday,”
he said. Prabangsa also knew how to cover issues that other
journalists were not aware of.
Nine years working for Radar Bali, he was appointed as one
of the editors which focused more on local stories. He was re-
sponsible of managing sections on local issues in Bali – Dwipa
1 and Dwipa 2 pages. In addition to editing stories, Prabangsa
was also in charge of arranging news coverage and reporters
for the pages.
At times, he still wrote stories on his own. In fact, Radar Bali
did not have reporters covering Bangli, Prabangsa’s hometown.
“Therefore, he frequently wrote stories on Bangli issues,” said
Justin Maurits Herman, Radar Bali CEO. “He felt that he had
this moral obligation to cover important stories in the area.”
No one ever expected that such stories would then lead Pra-
bangsa to his death.
lll
| 3
“Did you know who had arranged desks in the meeting
room?” Suyatra said.
“I did,” Prabangsa replied.
“Did you know where the bolts are?” Suyatra said.
At a sudden, the conversation ended prior to Prabangsa’s
answering Suyatra’s question. Suyatra tried to make another
call to Prabangsa but failed. Despite the dial tone, Prabangsa
did not answer the phone. Suyatra was the last man from Ra-
dar Bali who talked with the living Prabangsa.
lll
lll
| 5
Radar Bali to circulate an announcement on Prabangsa’s miss-
ing. It was expected that readers would supply them with any
valuable information of their colleague.
The announcement read: “Anak Agung Prabangsa left home
on Wednesday, 11 February 2009. He wore white shirt and jeans
as he left home on Jalan Nusa Kambangan, Denpasar, riding a
GL Pro motorbike. In the afternoon, the short-haired Prabangsa
dropped by his mother’s house in Taman Bali, Bangli at 3 PM.
He left his motorcycle there. The family said he received a phone
call from someone and soon got away as the conversation ended.
Prabangsa had never been anywhere near home ever since. For
those who see him, a phone call to the family at 08123817233
or (0361) 417153 is most appreciated. Thank you.”
Two days later on 16 February 2009, Prabangsa’s body was
found floating on Bungsil Bay, Karangasem.
lll
| 7
CHAPTER II
Hints from Prabangsa
| 9
A number of colleagues and close friends of Prabangsa wrote
their impressions on the late journalist.
In the epilogue, Radar Bali attached a short prayer in San-
skrit, “Om Suargantu, Murcantu, Suniantu, Ya Namah Swa-
dah.” It literally says, “May he be at peace in heaven. May he
gain moksha, in the State of Final Release, in God’s Realm.”
lll
| 11
CHAPTER III
At Wits End
| 13
“We are linking the case to other problems. Now, it’s getting
focused,” said Ashikin. The statement was taken as an empha-
sis over police’s confidence on the main cause of the murder.
However, the said eveidence was weak. Police said a num-
ber of witnesses seen as being related to the case had been
questioned. No single clue appeared.
Police concentrated on Prabangsa’s last day in Bangli. The
data from Prabangsa’s cellular operator confirmed that he was
last seen in Bangli. Investigators also detected a clue that Pra-
bangsa had made a promise with someone in Bangli prior to
being missing.
Based on the clue, police sent the special team to Bangli.
They found two blood stains suspected as Prabangsa’s. How-
ever, the finding was then refused as it was not Prabangsa’s
blood.
A month after Prabangsa’s body was found, the investiga-
tors had questioned dozens of witnesses. It was nearly March
2009. Police said Prabangsa’s killing was not concerned with
the love affair. Police seemed to have lost their minds.
During the critical phase, the Alliance of Independent Jour-
nalists (AJI) of Denpasar started to play its role. In a press re-
lease, Chief of Aji Denpasar, Bambang Wiyono, urged police
to settle investigation on Prabangsa. “Police have to workd
hard and fast. The murder may have to do personal matters,”
he said. l
| 15
The small meeting continued until wee hours. The discus-
sion is more about Justin story on the condition of Radar
Bali office and the daily routine of Prabangsa life at his of-
fice and also out of his journalism work. Justin talked a lot on
Prabangsa`s love story. Justin nodded to the plan to form an
advocacy team. The next day, Rofiqi, Bambang, and Joko start-
ed the campaign.
Some prominent figures in Bali were invited to support
the team. AJI Indonesia, as the umbrella organization of AJI
Denpasar, fully supported the cause. Instantly, the team gained
more supports. Advocates, activists of NGOs, politicians, reli-
gious figures, even vandals, were in the team.
It was important to have members of various backgrounds
as anticipations to possible problems during the investigation
had to be brought forth. Team members were requested to
gain supports to solve the Prabangsa case. The team also had to
solidify civil society network in efforts to urge police speed up
the probe. In addition, team members were also expected to
enrich information on the background of Prabangsa’s killing.
The advocacy team invited journalists to be pary of the team.
The team in particular recruited journalists focusing their cov-
erage on DPRD and Bali Governor’s office as the two insti-
tutions had been the focus of Prabangsa’s coverage. The team
also called for journalists who covered issues on Karangasem
and Bangli to join as Prabangsa was found dead in between the
two areas. The team also included journalists covering issues
on crime to ease them monitor police investigation.
Names of the team members were never discovered to the
public. Not every member knew other team members. The cell
system was applied to facilitate advocacy team to gain access
to information from important sources. In addition, the safety
of the team had been the primary concern.
| 17
The three stories did not last long. They were published in
December 2008, and then died down. It was likely that Pra-
bangsa’s investigation hit obstacles. Or else, he chose to keep
the issue in efforts to find more facts. Radar Bali did not as-
sign reporters in Bangli. Prabangsa’s determination to work on
Bangli issues was more encouraged by his personal concern as
part of Bangli’s resident.
The finding of the three articles affirmed the initial allega-
tion of the advocacy team that the motive behind the journal-
ist’s killing was the articles he wrote. However, the information
did not stop the police to work unhurriedly.
lll
At the same time, police were busy handling two big cases
such as a case in Karangasem Membangun cooperatives and
killing of a married couple in Denpasar by the end of February
and early March of 2009. Police had to share resources to look
into the cases.
The advocacy team viewed that an exceptional strategy was
required to ensure police solving Prabangsa case. Therefore,
on 28 March 2009, AJI Denpasar held an event “Prayer Com-
memorating 40 Days of Prabangsa’s Death” at the secretariat
office.
The event was designed to bring into life news coverage on
Prabangsa case. The advocacy team was sure that police moni-
tored the media. Any case that the public put interest in would
gain more magnitude.
All elements of civil society and Human Rights defenders
were invited. There were activists of Bali Legal Aid Agency
(LBH), Indonesia’s Association of Legal Aid (PBHI), Bali
Corruption Watch (BCW), and boards of advocacy organiza-
| 19
of advocacy division).
As expected earlier, the strong arguments were put forward
in the meeting on the motive behind Prabangsa’s murder. Most
editors in-chief were convinced that Prabangsa was killed for
blackmailing sources. The idea surfaced as police did not find
any lead on Prabangsa’s alleged love affair. The audiences were
positive that had the love affair assumption failed, then black-
mailing would be the cause.
During the discussion, Rai Warsa and Justin of Radar Bali
said they had browsed over all articles written by Prabangsa
a month prior to his death and did not find any that might
threaten his life. They were not aware that the story that led
to the murder was produced in December 2008, two months
before Prabangsa was dead.
The afternoon discussion almost found no way out. Should
the motives be either love affair or blackmailing, the Bali me-
dia would stay away. In other words, if the motives were non-
journalistic issues, the news coverage on the case would be no
different from other criminal cases.
AJI Denpasar offered a solution in the final moment of the
meeting. Bambang Wiyono, Rofiqi Hassan, and Joko Sugianto
appealed to the editors in-chief to pay attention to police in-
vestigation on the case. “The most important issue is that the
killing must be solved whatever the trigger is, whoever the per-
petrator is,” said Bambang.
Everyone in the room was in agreement on the proposal.
The audiences also agreed to use AJI Denpasar as the media
center for processing information and coverage on Prabangsa
case. Ever since, AJI Denpasar released a press statements on
the latest issues on Prabangsa case to all Bali media. The Pra-
bangsa case now appeared on the news again.
| 21
CHAPTER V
New Evidence
| 23
lll
| 25
26 | After Blood Stains
Prabangsa`s body arrived in Sanglah Denpasar Hospital after found at Bungsil
Bay, Karangsem.
Prabangsa`s wife, Anak Agung Sagung Istri Mas Prihantini was escorted to the
mortuary room after she notified that his husband was found death.
| 27
The team of Forensic Laboratory identified to find the blood trace in the car which
is used by the suspect to brought the death body of Prabangsa and throw it to
the sea.
Bali Police Chief Irjen Teuku Asikin Husein (on the left side) conduct press
conference at ali Police Department and showing the evidence.
The member of legislative RI Kadek ‘Lolak’ Arimbawa (in the front left side),
Member of advisory board of Democrat Party of Bali Pasek Suardika (left side
rear), Nyoman Sudiantara (second person from the right side) also some of Bali`s
figure were attended the Praying for Prabangsa at AJI Denpasar secreariat.
| 29
The mass media leaders also attended the praying for Prabangsa at AJI Denpasar
secretariat.
Bangli`s people around Susrama`s house at Banjar Petak, Bebalang, Bangli were
watching the reconstruction process of Prabangsa killing.
| 31
Reconstruction process of when the suspect hide Prabangsa`s death body at one
of room at Susrama`s house at Banjar Petak, Bebalang, Bangli after Prabangsa
killed.
Reconstruction process of when the suspect put the death body of Prabangsa in
the car to brought and throw in the sea.
Reconstruction process of when the suspects throw the death body of Prabangsa
to the sea by using the barge.
| 33
The main suspect of Prabangsa murder, Susrama submitted to the Chief of Police
Regional Bali to the prosecution of Bali to be trial.
The suspect
Susrama at the
detension of PN
Denpasar, waiting
for the trial.
| 35
Susrama gave testimony at the session.
The attorney of Susrama, Suryadharma SH (wearing batik and glasses) after got
sentenced against the code ethics of advocate by assemblies of honor of Peradi,
because he directed the witnesses to lie.
5 T he advocates accompanied Nyoman Susrama when he was questioned for the first time by Bali
Police investigators, 19 May 2009.
| 37
The supporters of Susrama launched strategies to split the
focus of AJI team of advocacy. They pointed out that the Bali
Journalists Solidarity who encouraged the probe into Prabang-
sa’s death was sponsored by PDIP’s rival. A setup was made
that the investigation on Susrama was based on a political mo-
tive aiming at weakening supports over PDIP in Bangli.
Susrama’s attempt to plot the case to political issue was
backed by the maneuver of his elder brother, Bangli Regent,
Nengah Arnawa. Rumor has it that Arnawa had requested
Chief of PDIP Centra Board, Megawati Soekarnoputri to have
a political sanctuary. Arnawa said he and the family were only
victims of defamation.
In the mass media, the regent made an oath in Catur Desa
and Catur Setra (cemetery) to make sure that his extended
family was not related to Prabangsa’s murder6.
Susrama massive efforts were positive. The inquiry team
once met a dead end. Police looked doubtful in dealing with
dominant political power. Disturbing PDIP in Bali had big
consequences. Six out of nine regencies and cities in Bali were
helmed by a provincial head from PDIP. Almost all Provincial
House of Representatives (DPRD) were controlled by PDIP.
The advocacy team of Prabangsa case had to think harder
to prepare better strategies to oppose Susrama’s party. They fi-
nally agreed to part Susrama from his party. That way, police
could freely question the man.
After the strategy was okayed, a number of AJI Denpasar
figures approached PDIP cadres and leaders in Bali and Jakar-
ta. The lobbying was made as an effort that the Susrama case
had nothing to do with politics, but pure crime7.
6 See article in Metro Bali, “Bupati Arnawa Nantang Diperiksa Tanpa Izin SBY,” 29 May 2009.
7 A
number of PDIP figures that AJI Denpasar approached included: Head of PDIP Bali Representatives
Council (DPD) PDIP Bali AA Agung Ngurah Oka Ratmadi, also Head of Bali Regional House of
Representatives, Chief of PDIP Bali DPD Campaign Team, Nyoman Adi Wiryatama, also Tabanan
Regent; and Deputy Head of Campaign Team Nyoman Dhamantra. An approach to the Central
Board of PDIP in Jakarta and PDIP Bangli was also carried out.
| 39
Bangli Regency; whereas in the Presidential elections, couple
Megawati and Prabowo Subianto gained 78,458 votes.
lll
| 41
the backyard of Susrama’s house in Banjar Petak, Bebalang Vil-
lage, Bangli10.
Police targeted the house as a report earlier said that Mecaru
ritual had been performed in the vacant residence. Police soon
set up a forensic test to find out the blood origin.
Another finding which aroused police’s suspicion was Sus-
rama’s effort to remove his Toyota Kijang Rover, which had
supposedly been handed over to his relative in Yogyakarta.
Fearing of losing the key evidence, police traced the car.
Following the interrogation of Susrama, police started to
pursue two men said to have been of close acquaintances of
susrama: Komang Gede Wardana alias Mangde and Nyoman
Wiradnyana alias Rencana. The two men were alleged of be-
coming the executors of Prabangsa’s murder11.
In addition, Susrama’s home in Banjar Petak, Bebalang, had
been searched by the police twice. In the second survey, police
found a car carpet full of dried blood stains hidden in one of
the house’s corner12.
From there, police moved to Susrama’s rented house on
Jalan Ngurah Rai, Bangli. Police also deployed a team to search
Rencana’s house on Tusan Village, Banjarangkan, Klungkung.
As police arrived in Klungkung, Rencana was not anywhere
in the house. Holding a warrant, police entered the house. Two
jeans and jackets belonging to the house’s owner were care-
fully examined. The Forensic Laboratory of Bali Police took
samples of dirts on the clothing. Out of a sudden, Rencana
came home.
10 Metro Bali, “Misteri Darah di Rumah Kosong Pengusaha Bangli,” 11 May 2009.
11 Metro Bali, “Eksekutor Prabangsa Ada Empat Orang,” 18 May 2009.
12 Metro Bali, “Rumah Susrama dan Rencana Digeledah,” 19 May 2009.
lll
| 43
passenger seat. It was confirmed that the blood was of the same
type with the one found on car’s carpet discovered in Susrama’s
house. It was the same blood type that Prabangsa had.
On 24 May 2009, the investigators of Bali Police held a
meeting to present all evidence and witnesses as regards Pra-
bangsa case. Almost all evidence led to the same direction. The
had made an unanimous decision. The next day, 100 days af-
ter Prabangsa’s death, Chief of Bali Police Ins. Gen. Ashikin
Husein announced the names of seven suspects who were
strongly alleged of being involved in the killing of the Radar
Bali journalist.
The announcement was presented in a special press con-
ference. Prabangsa’s wife, Prihantini, and her two children,
were also in the conference room. The seven suspects are as
follows:
Suspects Occupation Role
Komang Gede Driver, living in Susrama’s house Executor and body’s carrier
Wardana alias Mangde
Dewa Sumbawa Driver, living in Susrama’s house Driver of car which carries
Prabangsa’s body
Darianto alias Jampes Worker in bottled drinking water “Sita” Cleaner of blood stains
| 45
Susrama ordered two of his men, Endi Mashuri and Darian-
to, to clean up Prabangsa’s blood around the scene. They used
water to wash it and covered the taint with sand and soil.
Prabangsa was still breathing. He was carried into the house
and kept in a room. The wounds in his head were left open.
Night approached. It was 9 PM local time. As instructed,
Mangde and Rencana loaded the red Toyota Kijang Rover
with Prabangsa. The car then headed to Goa Lawah Beach.
When questioned by the police, Dewa Sumbawa, the driver,
said how Prabangsa’s body was thrown out to sea. Approach-
ing Goa Lawah Beach, Blatung Hamlet, Pesinggahan Village,
Klungkung Regency, Susrama contacted someone who was
said as boat owner.
As soon as the car arrived on the beach, the boat owner
was already there. Gus Oblong and Maong carried Prabangsa
aboard to the boat. Not long after, the boat sailed away and got
back without Prabangsa.
lll
15 A
fter the announcement of the nine suspects, police arrested Dewa Swarjana, an officer of
Planning Division of Bangli Education Agency. He was apprehended on 1 June 2009 but then
released after no evidence of involvement was found.
| 47
to his knees following the blows launched by Rencana16.
A day after the reconstruction on 4 June 2009, Susrama was
questioned by the police. Despite the complete evidence and
testimonies, he still denied his involvement in Prabangsa’s kill-
ing. When police asked him about his activities on 11 Febru-
ary 2009 – the day Prabangsa died – here is the answer:
“…I did my normal activities. At around 7 AM I went to the
office of “Sita” drinking water company as I brought my kids
to their school in SD Negeri 5 Kawan and SMA Negeri 1 Ban-
gli. Before reaching the office, I dropped by the house of Pak
Wayan Rupa, PHDI Secretary of Bangli Regency, who was at
the time falling ill, until 10.30 AM. Afterwards, I proceeded to
my house in Banjar Petak, Bebalang Village, to see the progress
of the house development. Then I left for Gianyar and bought
traditional clothes at Kadek store. I happened to drop by Bank
BCA and Bank Mandiri of Gianyar. Then I got home to Ban-
jar Petak house, Bebalang Village. I got there at around 4.25
PM…”
Susrama’s description did not change police’s belief. Testi-
monies and evidence had put emphasis on Susrama’s vital role
in the killing. “He may not say a word about his involvement.
But we have witnesses and evidence,” said Chief of Satuan I
Criminal Investigation Division of Bali Police, Adj. Chief.
Comm. Akhmad Nur Wahid17.
A confession came from Ida Bagus Made Adnyana Narbawa
alias Gus Oblong. When he was questioned by the police on
8 June 2009, he clearly pictured the role Susrama played. He
said he heard Susrama shouted to his men, “kill him, kill him,”
a moment before Mangde and Rencana hit Prabangsa’s head
with wood beams.
16 Metro Bali, “Prabangsa Ngidih Urip, Tapi Dibunuh Juga”, 4 June 2009.
17 Metro Bali, “Komang Gede Mulai Berkicau”, 6 June 2011
18 Bali Express, “Para Tersangka Cekcok, Gus Oblong Mau Mukul”, 11 June 2009.
| 49
CHAPTER VIII
Court Drama
19 Bali Express, “Berkas Kasus Prabangsa Perlu Sedikit Perbaikan,” 19 August 2009.
lll
| 51
of Denpasar District Court, Djumain, told reporters. Djumain
was also the Chief Judge for the same case with Nyoman Sus-
rama as the defendant.
However, a police squad stood in guard during the court
session. Bali Police deployed a platoon of riot police and armed
mobile brigade. Metal detectors were also installed at the main
entrance of the court.
To anticipate security breaches, another court was prepared.
In line with the crime scene, the trial was initially intended to
be held in Bangli District Court. However, for the sake of neu-
trality, taking into account Susrama’s influence in Bangli, Bali
Chief of High Court decided the court was held in Denpasar.
The new location also considered time effective. All suspects
were detained in Bali Police Department and Bali Mobile Bri-
gade Headquarters around Denpasar. A Denpasar court would
facilitate the sessions well.
AJI Denpasar held a demonstration just outside the court
room. Dozens of AJI activists distributed black ribbons to
journalists, the general public, and public figures coming into
the court.
The small act was designed by the Advocacy Team of Pra-
bangsa Case. Although the case was through to court, the Ad-
vocacy Team said the work had yet been over. They in fact en-
tered the most crucial phase of all series of the advocacy job.
The team was demanded to monitor every session until panel
of judges pass a just verdict.
During the first trial, the prosecutor presented articles
aimed at the nine defendants. Seven were charged with Ar-
ticle 340 of the Penal Code subsidiary Article 338 of the Pe-
nal Code in conjunction with Article 55 and 56 of the Penal
Code on Premeditated Murder with maximum sentence of
lll
| 53
stains found in the three different spots were Prabangsa’s. They
accused investigators of Bali Police were absent from doing
DNA test to prove whether or not it was Prabangsa’s blood.
In the next trial on 3 November 2009, there was unexpected
progress. Two key witnesses who were also defendants of the
case withdrew their confessions from the deposition. The two
were Darianto alias Jampes and Endi Mashuri. Both admitted
they were beaten by the police to provide information and in-
criminated Susrama.
Before the panel of judges, as tears rolling down on his face,
Jampes admitted of making false deposition. Stuttering, he
said he could not stand police torture during the interrogation.
“I finally made up stories which were in line with what police
wanted,” he said. The same confession was produced by Endi
Mashuri. “When police beat me, my eyes were blindfolded,”
he said.
The confession of both defendants surprised court attend-
ees. Different from their previous statements, both defendants
said they were not in the know of Prabangsa’s murder. “I was
forced to confess,” said Endi.
Other defendants in return pulled out their statements in
the deposition. Being a witness for Darianto’s trial, Gus Oblong
denied his own testimony. “Everyone accused me [the crime].
I finally signed the deposition,” he said. In the deposition, Gus
Oblong was said as playing a role in killing Prabangsa.
Coordinator of Susrama’s team of advocates, I Nyoman
Wisnu, said the removal of defendants’ confessions highlight-
ed legal manipulation to sacrifice Susrama. “All evidence that
the prosecutor could have been inaccurate,” he said.
The removal of confessions might destroy the verification
framework that the prosecutor was building. The reason for
| 55
The plan was set up in May 2009 at Bangli Regent’s house.
Mercadana and Rajin came there with five other construction
workers to ask for payment. At the Regent’s house, they met
Susrama, who was with six lawyers.
“I was told to say that I worked the whole days, including
on 11 February 2009, as the book of workers’ presence was
torn. Thus, he did not have record of my days off,” said Mer-
cadana. He was promised to get full payments including the
three days where he was asked to have days off by Susrama.
Nyoman Rajin had the similar statement. He was told to lie
by Susrama’s nephew, Nyoman Talenan, when Rajin came to
ask his payment.
When they got to work on 14 February 2009, both men
saw ashes accumulated in the backyard resulting from blood-
stained wood beams that had been burnt by the perpetrators.
The confessions of the two workers surprised the attendees.
Susrama and the team of advocates were likely trying to win
the case by promoting lies.
Chief of the panel of judges asked both witnesses whether
or not it was the lawyer who had asked them to deceive the
court. Mercadana pointed his finger at Suryadharma, one of
Susrama’s advocates. “That one, the man who wears glasses,”
he said.
Susrama’s team of advocates attempted to rebuff Mercadana
and Rajin’s statements. Controlled by anger, Suryadharma
asked Mercadana to give oath on the manipulation. “As a
Hindunese and former pemangku (religious leader) you must
tell the truth to the court,” he said.
Susrama’s team of advocates then showed a letter that Mer-
cadana signed to the panel of judges. The letter clearly noted
that on 11 February 2009, Mercadana was working in Susra-
lll
In the next trial, Gus Oblong was back on his previous tes-
timony. In fact, two weeks earlier, one of Prabangsa’s killers
admitted that police tortured him to get the information that
they wanted. “I happened to withdraw my deposition because
another defendant threatened to kill me. It was Rencana,” he
said.
Gus Oblong said the lies he produced earlier caused him to
be insomniac. Finally, in the next session, he returned to the
deposition. “As of today, I will only offer truths,” he said.
Despite the incriminating testimonies over him Susrama
remained on his stance: not saying yes to attorney’s prosecu-
tion. He in fact accused Mercadana, Rajin, and Gus Oblong of
supplying the court with false information. “They’re all lying,”
he said. l
| 57
CHAPTER IX
Uncovering Legal
Manipulation
| 59
the team would take notes and reported the findings to their
superiors.
The advocacy team also held regular press conferences and
released the evaluation of the court sessions to the press.
On 1 December 2009, the Press Freedom Advocacy Team
personally met Deputy Head of Bali District Attorney, AF
Darmawan, to file reports on a number of prosecutors seen as
not persevering enough in looking for court facts.
The reports were welcomed. In the next court session, AF
Darmawan and an assistant at the District Attorney, Made Par-
ma, made their way to the court for the monitoring.
lll
| 61
CHAPTER X
The Verdict
lll
| 63
Susrama actually had lighter sentence than it was that the
prosecutors demanded. Based on court facts, prosecutor Lalu
Saifudin demanded death sentence for Susrama in a file he
read by late January 2010. Saifudin said Susrama was the mind
behind the murder. In addition, the crime scene took place in
Susrama’s house in Banjar Petak, Bebalang Village, Bangli.
In his defense, Susrama was resolute in denying all allega-
tions. He in fact accused prosecutors fabricated the issue. “I
will not say sorry on the the killing, for I have never committed
any murder,” he said.
The main concern of the panel of judges in passing verdicts
had been the testimonies of Susrama’s men. Although seven
out of eight Susrama’s men revoked their confessions in the
deposition, the judges viewed that the withdrawal was made
with no unclear reason. Therefore, their testimonies were still
preserved.
After the panel of judges passed the verdicts, Prihantini
cried. She kept crying her eyes out despite reporters’ asking
her about the verdict. “Are you satisfied with the verdict?” said
a reporter.
“It doesn’t matter whether or not I’m satisfied,” said Prihar-
tini. “If only I am, it won’t give life to my husband,” she said.
lll
Komang Gede Wardana alias Mangde Executor and body carrier 20 years in prison
Nyoman Suwecita alias Maong Beat and throw out body 8 years in prison
| 65
court with several points which incriminated and relieved
defendants. Rencana was given severe penalty as he troubled
the general public, especially the press. Rencana’s action was
against the teachings of Hinduism and caused losses to other
people, especially victims’ family. The deed was deemed ruth-
less and inhumane. However, Rencana was during the court
sessions considered cooperative. Based on the considerations,
he was given 20 years in prison. “I did not kill him,” he said.
Rencana’s wife, Ni Wayan Juliantini, cried as the verdict was
passed. “Please, sir, please help my husband,” said Juliantini.
The woman of one child went unconscious when she was es-
corted out.
lll
The final court of Prabangsa case was not the end. The soli-
darity of Bali Journalists and the Advocacy Team of Prabangsa
Case believed it was crucial to proceed with the alleged legal
manipulations that Susrama’s team of advocates committed.
Out of shame, Susrama’s advocate tried to persuade two
witnesses, Nengah Mercadana and Nyoman Rajin, to tell lies
before the panel of judges. Both men were asked to support
Susrama’s alibis the day the murder occurred. Mercadana said
it was Suryadharma who did the persuasion.
Using the ground, Bali Journalists Solidarity which con-
sisted of various journalist associations like AJI, PWI Reform,
PWI, Perwani, and PJI sued Suryadharma to Indonesia Advo-
cates Association (Peradi) on alleged manipulations over wit-
nesses.
On 20 February 2010, the Peradi meeting of Honorary
Council of Denpasar pronounced Suryadharma guilty of vio-
lating advocates’ code of conduct. He was then suspended for
lll
| 67
rama.
Chief Judge of Bali High Court, I Ketut Suamba, and two
of panel members, Ni Wayan Maryati and Sunaryo, was of the
same opinion with Denpasar District Court Judges who stated
that Susrama was guilty of committing premeditated murder.
The crime was committed in group against Prabangsa.
Rencana and Mangde were still given 20 years in prison.
The decision was conveyed by spokesperson of Denpasar
District Court, Posma Nainggolan. “Bali High Court Judges
certify all verdicts passed by the judges of Denpasar District
Court judges,” said Posma.
Upon the the decision, all defendants by Gus Oblong,
Jampes, and Endi, filed cassation appeal.
Four months later on 24 September 2010, the Supreme
Court gave final decision on Prabangsa case. In a special press
conference, Chief of Supreme Judges, Artidjo Alkostar, con-
firmed that the verdict for the six perpetrators of Prabangsa’s
murder remained. Susrama was still given life sentence. Ren-
cana, Komang Gede, and Mangde were given 20 years in pris-
on. In addition, Maong and Dewa Sumbawa got eight years in
prison.
“All cassation appeals were declined,” said Artidjo Alkostar.
“Judex Factie (fact examiners) did not wrongly apply the law
as various elements (witnesses and evidence) had been judi-
cially considered,” said Artidjo. l
| 69
accidents with vague IDs. Other reporters were asked to
check the house of his former female friend. We have in
fact asked the help of witchdoctors.
One said he would return after six days. It was Mon-
day of the next week. It was true, indeed. On Monday,
our reporters in Karangasem reported finding of a dead
body believed as Prabangsa. That Monday, Prabangsa
went home, lifeless.
How did you react over the case?
A friend commented that the killer must be in great
revenge of Prabangsa following the condition of the
body. However, I was in great doubt. Prabangsa was easy
to befriended with and had no enemy. Prior to becoming
a CEO, he dropped me home at times. I believe he was
not a kind of journalist who had serious enemy.
What Radar Bali did to unveil the case?
After the body was discovered, we assisted police to
seek information. We gathered all colleagues of Prabang-
sa. We also dug his archives of news, either the articles
had been published or not. He often wrote on Bangli as
we do not have men reporting from there. So, Prabangsa
felt the urge to write stories on Bangli because he came
from there.
How did you become suspicious if Prabangsa’s
death was concerned with his stories?
When Chief of Bali Police called for a perusal over
stories that Prabangsa wrote, we gave full access to the
police to look into any files in Prabangsa’s PC. Thence,
we then knew that the murder was concerned with sev-
| 71
approached police investigators in person. We were al-
ways in the know of the progress.
Was the public pressure that AJI and other jour-
nalist organizations carried out prove effective?
It was effective. The general public will keep the case
in mind. Several protests that other journalists did were
effective enough in filling the space on the investigation
progress. Police got high-spirited. We thanked the hard
work attempted by our fellow journalists as we promised
ourselves not to blow up the case.
Susrama has great influence in Bangli. How did
you anticipate this?
This is where we should thank AJI and other journal-
ist alliances. They made the move. It was they who ap-
proached PDIP high-ranking officials and told them not
to see the case politically. That helps much as we have
limited resources. When the official team of PDIP law-
yers withdrew and refused to assist the suspect that was
awesome. We owed them morally.
Journalists also initiated journalist solidarity
movement to monitor the court sessions. Did it help
as well?
It benefited us very much. We all knew our judicial
system is not yet perfect. It is important to monitor a
judicial process to run well. In addition to journalists,
many advocates and activists were willing to join the
movement.
After the trial, how did Radar Bali cover the case?
| 73
wife. Jawa Pos President Director, Dahlan Iskan, said, “If
Prabangsa’s wife has difficulties, please come to Radar
Bali.” We have offered her to work here. But she said no
to the offer. l
| 75
Bangli Regent, Nengah Arnawa, who also signed the MoU of
a development project with the National Education Depart-
ment on 9 June 2006.
After the proposal was approved, Arnawa then issued a de-
cree on the committee of development. Defendan Susrama,
his brother, was appointed Committee Chief.
Total fund spent for the project reached Rp16.5 billion and
was channeled through State Budget and Bangli Regional Bud-
get. “The disbursement was carried out in phases since 2006 to
2009,” said Mega Adnyana.
Adnyana then gave the details of the funds. The 2006 proj-
ect worth Rp2.5 billion was financed by the 2006 State Budget
at Rp1.5 bilion and Regional Budget of Rp1 billion, which was
used as secondary fund. The money was used to build elemen-
tary school building and elementary class rooms.
“The committee has to hand over the report of the project
completion to the central government as part of the fund dis-
bursement in 2007,” said Adnyana.
Nearing the 2007 project, Arnawa modified the structure
of project committee through a decree. Despite changes in
other members, Susrama was still assigned Chief of the Proj-
ect Committee. This time, Rp3.5 billion of fund was disbursed
through the 2007 State Budget and Rp2.5 billion was from
Bangli Regional Budget.
“The Rp6 billion of funds were used to build more class-
rooms, laboratory, and arts and craft centers,” said Raka Arim-
bawa, another attorney.
The final phase of the project witnessed more disbursement
in billions of rupiah of development fund. It reached Rp8 bil-
lion. Rp3 billion was from the 2008 State Budget while Rp5 bil-
lion was from Bangli Budget. A total of seven projects surfaced.
| 77
tion,” said Ngakan Dirga, the advocate.
After the court session, Susrama was escorted to Bangli
penitentiary. Susrama shook hands with all member of the
panel of judges and prosecutors.
lll
| 79
“I and the kids will never forget him. However, as time
goes by, we have to carry on with our lives. We must accept
this bitter fact,” said Prihantini.
He said the memories of her living husband as well as the
recollection of the murder that took his life have been haunting
her mind. Prihantini said it is difficult for her to forgive the
murderers of her children’s father. “I’m not in vengeance, nor I
ever forgive,” said the woman. “We’re trying to accept all this.
We believe that this is what it should be,” she said. l