6. February 2009 Made Jati, Ni Nyoman Suti and Heru Widiyanto Reported at Polda
Bali for Perjury
(Police Report No: Pol: LP/ 101/ II/ 2009/ Siaga-1 Bareskrim, dated 26 February 2009,
investigation based upon Order for Investigation Number: Sprin Sidik/ 267/ III/
2009/ Dit Reskrim, dated 12 March 2009.)
The Initial Report:
Michael did not trust the police in Bali to investigate charges against Made Jati,
so he filed a new complaint, this time for suspected Perjury, at the National Police
in Jakarta in February 2009. After a quick review of the case the National Police
sent the complaint to Polda Bali as the local investigative unit with an endorsement
and clear instructions to conduct a thorough and transparent investigation.
The indications of perjury were clear:
• Made Jati claimed in her 2005 Accusation of Divorce that a Balinese marriage ceremony
had occurred at her home in Kuta in September 1996. She admitted in 2006 to the
police, and in many other documents afterwards, that this ceremony had never occurred.
• Made Jati submitted photos of a 1994 ceremony and claimed them to be evidence
of the 1996 ceremony.
• Made Jati submitted marriage documents which Supreme Court decisions declared
to be invalid and “acquired in a manner contrary to law.”
• Made Jati submitted supporting documents falsely claiming to have been unmarried
in 1992, 1993 and 1994 and 1996, all which were declared by the courts to be untrue.
• Made’s sister Nyoman Suti, testified that she had witnessed Made Jati and Michael’s
Balinese marriage ceremony in 1996, which was untrue.
• The Uluwatu manager Heru Widiyanto testified in two separate trials that he knew
of the Balinese marriage ceremony in 1996, which was untrue.
Later Developments:
Investigation at Polda Bali was extraordinarily slow and only advanced with continual
prodding from the National Police. When Michael called the investigator on 15 July
2009 to ask about progress, the investigator told him:
• The police had interviewed Nyoman Suti and Heru Widiyanto and asked them if they
had committed perjury and both said they "forgot," so there was no evidence of perjury.
• Although it was true that Nyoman Suti's and Heru Widiyanto's testimonies were
recorded in the trial records and they clearly said "1996", decisions of the Supreme
Court had overturned these National Court decisions. This meant that everything
in the National Court trial records now meant its opposite.
• Although the police had not yet interviewed Made Jati, they would have to interview
Michael in Bali before the case could continue.
The National Police advised Michael that traveling alone to Bali could be dangerous
but they recommended an interview by a Polda Bali investigator to take place under
their supervision in Jakarta. The Bali police immediately declared the case closed
and issued a stop order.
Further prodding by the National Police was apparently ignored by Polda Bali until
a letter ordering an explanation of the stop order was sent by the National Police
Internal Affairs Commission in March 2010. In response, the Chief of Police (Kapolda)
stated that the relevant section of the criminal code, Section 242 KUHP Regarding
Perjury, under which he had been ordered to conduct an investigation, contained
four paragraphs:
(1) Whosoever is ordered by law to give true testimony under oath, or other consequence
of law because of that testimony, does purposely gives false testimony or swears
falsely, either orally or written, whether personally or through an attorney acting
on his behalf, faces a penalty of imprisonment for a maximum of seven years.
(2)If that testimony under oath is given in a criminal proceeding and causes a loss
to the accused or the suspect, the subject faces a penalty of imprisonment for a
maximum of nine years.
(3) Also considered equivalent to an oath is an agreement or other situation governed
by public regulations or other equivalents of oaths.
(4) Conviction can also result in loss of rights per Section 35 No 1 - 4 KUHP (right
to vote, hold public office, etc.)
Because there were four paragraphs, the Kapolda stated, investigators at Polda Bali
did not know which was the appropriate paragraph and there were no instruction from
the National Police about which paragraph to use, therefore the case was at a dead
end.