METROTV — broadcast
20261105 023000 UTC
497 transcript segments
Google Cloud Speech-to-Text API (Chirp) + Gemini 2.5 Flash Non-Thinking
Data courtesy of The GDELT Project (https://www.gdeltproject.org/), from the Internet Archive TV News Archive.
Machine transcription. Treat it as a searchable index of what was broadcast, not a verbatim quotation record.

[00:00:00] Because every story has more than one legal point of view, this
[00:00:03] law is not just about arresting people. This
[00:00:07] is a gamble for our survival as a nation to hear and test
[00:00:10] statements that cover both sides every Wednesday
[00:00:16] that those who live at 9
[00:00:17] was committed PM. This Saturday, for more than a decade, women around
[00:00:21] the world have had the right to vote, but the struggle
[00:00:25] for equality is not over. Even though more and more women
[00:00:28] are leading countries.
[00:01:02] the actions of the defendants that
[00:01:23] earlier, is actually
[00:01:56] Viewers, you are back watching Metro TV breaking news and this time
[00:02:05] writing, stamps. That's what
[00:02:14] arriving at the East Jakarta District Court building at around
[00:02:17] 0:30 Indonesian time.
[00:02:28] indictment. Well, the defamation
[00:02:39] TNI and Polri personnel were guarding the East Jakarta District Court. Yes, they will listen
[00:02:43] later. later
[00:02:47] bring
[00:02:47] or do they support each other, bring
[00:02:51] and to find out more about Joko
[00:02:55] Widodo testifying at Roy
[00:02:58] Tiva's trial today. We have joined with Mr. Abdul Fikar
[00:03:02] Hajar, a criminal law expert. Mr. Fikar, good morning.
[00:03:05] Good morning. Sir, Mr.
[00:03:09] Fikar, how important is
[00:03:12] Jokowi's direct presence
[00:03:14] cases, the victim witness as the reporter in this case?
[00:03:16] Yes, it is very
[00:03:19] important, because
[00:03:22] what is being tried here
[00:03:25] is defamation. defamation.
[00:03:29] Defamation is a complaint offense.
[00:03:32] Although defamation is actually
[00:03:36] more of a civil matter, actually,
[00:03:40] because the person who is harmed
[00:03:42] or any sentence that is an individual.
[00:03:44] But
[00:03:47] by the legal world,
[00:03:51] there is a public interest that must be protected,
[00:03:54] yes. If someone defames someone else and is not
[00:03:58] prosecuted, then... yes, this will become a habit for
[00:04:02] someone to commit a crime. That's why
[00:04:05] it's
[00:04:08] ask for placed as a criminal article as a complaint offense.
[00:04:10] A complaint offense means an offense or a crime
[00:04:14] that is only processed if a complaint is filed.
[00:04:18] Only then is the criminal case processed,
[00:04:22] anything done by the community but if no complaint is filed, it is not processed, because if you want to, if you want to
[00:04:25] look at everyday life, for example, on social media or
[00:04:28] in other forums, people insult each other,
[00:04:31] people defame each other,
[00:04:34] my submission and so on, that is something common. Well,
[00:04:37] that's why this is
[00:04:40] a new
[00:04:42] history,
[00:04:45] right? That there is a former public official,
[00:04:48] a former president, who chooses to pursue
[00:04:52] this case, even though on the other hand, there are, for example,
[00:04:56] other public officials, such as constitutional
[00:04:59] court judges... Arsul Arsul, when he was
[00:05:02] accused of having a fake diploma and never having gone to school, he simply
[00:05:06] issued a press release. A press release was shown to
[00:05:09] the press, what, proof
[00:05:12] of his diploma, it was over. People no longer slandered him by saying that he had
[00:05:16] a fake diploma and so on, but Mr. Jokowi chose to do this
[00:05:20] in court, choosing to prove it in court.
[00:05:23] That's why
[00:05:27] are considered to have defamed him are brought to
[00:05:30] court, and then Mr. Jokowi will prove in
[00:05:33] court that here is
[00:05:37] my diploma, here is that I have
[00:05:40] been to school and so on. That's
[00:05:42] what happened. But as I also said
[00:05:46] many times,
[00:05:50] when someone brings evidence to court,
[00:05:53] there are other consequences, yes. The other
[00:05:57] consequence is that there is a statement that is considered true
[00:06:00] and not true. That's why if someone gives
[00:06:04] false testimony in court, they can be reported for giving false testimony,
[00:06:08] and can also be prosecuted criminally. So that's one thing. Second,
[00:06:12] the statement or
[00:06:15] evidence that he brings to court
[00:06:18] must correlate or must be supported by
[00:06:22] other evidence, by other witness statements, by
[00:06:26] other written evidence. So it must be synchronized with
[00:06:30] other evidence. Well, that's also a risk, right? That is, when we
[00:06:33] decide to prove something in
[00:06:37] court, then it must also be calculated,
[00:06:40] right? Is it correlated with... what, other
[00:06:43] evidence or with other witness testimony? Well, that's what will
[00:06:46] determine it. Because if it's not
[00:06:49] correlated, it will stand alone. Well, in
[00:06:52] criminal law, the testimony of one witness
[00:06:56] is not considered testimony, it is considered non-existent. One
[00:06:59] witness is not a witness, that's the term. Well, that's what
[00:07:03] will happen. Well, that's why I said earlier, there are
[00:07:06] consequences, both legally and
[00:07:09] sociologically, right? When people
[00:07:13] choose the court forum to prove something,
[00:07:17] like that, ma'am. Hmm, Mr. Fikar, what
[00:07:20] is currently being discussed by the public
[00:07:23] regarding whether Jokowi will bring his original diploma
[00:07:27] to the trial, how
[00:07:29] important is the original physical document in this case,
[00:07:33] sir?
[00:07:35] Okay, yes, it goes back to the defamation
[00:07:40] that is being accused
[00:07:42] is because these people, these defendants, said
[00:07:46] that Mr. Jokowi's diploma was fake, right? That's right,
[00:07:49] it's considered to defame Mr.
[00:07:52] Jokowi, what, his diploma has
[00:07:55] not been proven that he actually has a diploma and so on. Well,
[00:07:59] those are the sentences that are then used as the basis to
[00:08:02] prosecute criminally by the state, in this case the public prosecutor,
[00:08:06] against these perpetrators. Well, that's why it is important
[00:08:09] for Mr. Jokowi to be present. The presence of
[00:08:12] the diploma being brought,
[00:08:16] that is important. Not to mention, if we what,
[00:08:19] pull it back to the general criminal
[00:08:23] case. Well, in general criminal
[00:08:26] should be examined first, because the indictment
[00:08:29] is built, or the suspicion
[00:08:33] or indictment against the perpetrators is built on
[00:08:36] the basis of the statement or report from the victim
[00:08:40] that there was defamation of his good name.
[00:08:42] Well, he should be examined first, then other evidence
[00:08:46] or statements from expert witnesses and other
[00:08:49] written evidence should be continued to
[00:08:52] support, what, the first evidence. That's how the process should be,
[00:08:56] yes. But what, it also
[00:09:00] doesn't invalidate it, if he is processed and heard
[00:09:03] at a time
[00:09:07] that is not the first time, what's important is that there is evidence.
[00:09:10] It's just that when the
[00:09:13] judge makes a decision, that decision is actually a conclusion,
[00:09:16] a conclusion from the facts of the trial.
[00:09:19] Well, in the
[00:09:22] laws and regulations and in the
[00:09:26] theory of legal science, a decision by
[00:09:30] a judge is based on the facts that occurred in
[00:09:32] the trial, then which creates
[00:09:35] certainty for the judge that the
[00:09:38] facts are indeed true or false, for example, only then does he
[00:09:42] draw a conclusion and make a decision, whether the decision
[00:09:46] is proven or not proven. Well, that's how the process
[00:09:49] is. Well, that's why it is important
[00:09:52] to prove that the
[00:09:55] diploma that was declared fake by the defendants
[00:09:59] is proven in court, like that, ma'am.
[00:10:02] Yes, Mr. Fikar, that's interesting, meaning that this original diploma
[00:10:05] is very important to be shown today,
[00:10:08] and we also want to know, sir, how much is this
[00:10:13] related to the original diploma that will be shown,
[00:10:17] the percentage to influence the strength of the proof
[00:10:19] of the case? Yes,
[00:10:23] in my opinion, if we talk about percentages,
[00:10:27] this has a larger
[00:10:30] percentage than other evidence, right? Because
[00:10:34] this is what will be convinced that defamation
[00:10:37] or the act of defamation arises
[00:10:41] because there is or is not a fake or
[00:10:44] not a fake diploma, right? This is how it started,
[00:10:48] right? Well, that's why this is important, right?
[00:10:52] This diploma plays a very important role and has a very large
[00:10:55] percentage of proof. This means that if the prosecutor
[00:10:59] examines any number of witnesses without examining
[00:11:02] what, the reporting witness,
[00:11:05] and the evidence that proves that, what,
[00:11:09] the act that is qualified as defamation
[00:11:12] is not true because it turns out that there is
[00:11:15] a diploma, right? There is a diploma,
[00:11:19] then what, this becomes important. It holds
[00:11:22] the highest percentage, although again,
[00:11:25] although it must also correlate with
[00:11:29] other evidence, other witness statements,
[00:11:32] statements what, that are generated
[00:11:36] by information, by letters and so on, right? That's it. Well,
[00:11:40] there was also written evidence in the form of
[00:11:44] forensic examination results, if I'm not mistaken, by the police,
[00:11:47] right? Well, this is also important, yes, important in the sense
[00:11:51] of whether there is a correlation with the diploma that Mr.
[00:11:55] Jokowi has, that Mr. Jokowi's diploma was once examined
[00:11:58] by the police with a
[00:12:01] forensic examination. But actually,
[00:12:05] with the conclusion that it is considered authentic
[00:12:08] and so on, but actually it is
[00:12:12] not enough if forensic
[00:12:15] examination is not also linked with, for example,
[00:12:18] information from other institutions that issued it or with other
[00:12:21] witnesses who know about it. Because forensics
[00:12:25] only examines the authenticity of the paper,
[00:12:30] is examined by forensics, yes. Forensics
[00:12:33] does not prove that an original document
[00:12:36] was issued by what, a certain
[00:12:39] institution, for example, it does not prove
[00:12:43] that, unless there is
[00:12:46] comparative evidence, or
[00:12:49] unless there is other information
[00:12:53] that supports that it was indeed issued by a certain institution.
[00:12:57] Well, that's how it is. So when it is
[00:13:00] submitted in court,
[00:13:03] it still correlates with other evidence.
[00:13:07] What I mean is, is there a connection with
[00:13:12] the witness statements that were examined with the forensic
[00:13:16] evidence, with the diploma brought by Mr. Jokowi,
[00:13:19] is there a connection, is there a situation that supports each other
[00:13:23] or not? Well, that's what will prove whether it's authentic or not,
[00:13:27] or what will convince the judge whether the act of
[00:13:30] defamation exists or not, ma'am. Mr. Fikar,
[00:13:34] this also serves as an education for the public
[00:13:37] and society on how we should distinguish
[00:13:40] criticism protected by freedom of expression from
[00:13:44] acts that attack someone's good
[00:13:46] name.
[00:13:49] Okay, the boundaries are clear,
[00:13:52] in my opinion, right? When someone
[00:13:55] holds a public office,
[00:13:59] holds a public office, then any criticism,
[00:14:01] any objection, right,
[00:14:07] is directed at someone will definitely
[00:14:11] be directed at their public office, right? Because
[00:14:14] why, they don't actually have a legal relationship, they don't
[00:14:18] have any correlation, but because they
[00:14:22] hold a public office, public officials are... paid by
[00:14:26] the people's taxes, taxes paid by the people. So the people,
[00:14:29] in this case the public, have the right to express
[00:14:33] any of their views about
[00:14:36] decisions, about behavior, about anything done by
[00:14:39] a public official. Well, that's why when someone
[00:14:43] holds a public office,
[00:14:47] must be seen as criticism,
[00:14:50] right? It must be seen as criticism,
[00:14:54] even if... it mentions a personal
[00:14:57] name, it must be seen in the context of an official. He would never
[00:15:01] be criticized if he did not hold a public office,
[00:15:04] right? He would not be
[00:15:07] said all sorts of things by the community if he did not hold
[00:15:11] a public office. Well, that's why when he stops
[00:15:15] being a public official,
[00:15:18] then he returns to
[00:15:22] his natural state as an ordinary human being. That is, as an ordinary
[00:15:26] person, only then does it apply.
[00:15:29] Is it defamation or
[00:15:33] whatever it's called, yes, because
[00:15:36] what is defamed is a person. A person,
[00:15:40] not their office. Public office cannot be defamed, cannot
[00:15:44] be criminally prosecuted for expressing an opinion about
[00:15:47] that public office. Well, that's why we see this. Is this trial
[00:15:51] trying an act
[00:15:55] when Mr. Jokowi was still president or
[00:15:58] after that,
[00:16:01] right? Or acts that came after. I dare
[00:16:04] to guarantee that if it was stated when... Jokowi was still
[00:16:08] holding the position of president, then
[00:16:11] what that indictment,
[00:16:14] that suspicion will be dropped, right? It will be dropped,
[00:16:18] or at least even if proven, it cannot
[00:16:20] be punished because it is not, because
[00:16:24] it is freedom of opinion, because it is democracy, because it is
[00:16:27] the people's opinion, because it is the people's criticism of their
[00:16:31] public officials. Well, that's how it will be placed. Well, that's why
[00:16:35] it's very possible that this trial will try
[00:16:40] were taken after Mr. Jokowi was no longer a public official,
[00:16:43] after Mr. Jokowi was no longer president. I think that's
[00:16:47] what will be proven. But if
[00:16:51] there are still actions that are linked to his public office,
[00:16:55] that, in my opinion, will make this
[00:16:58] indictment fall through, right? Because that's it, because he's still
[00:17:02] holding a public office, but when he's already a private
[00:17:06] individual, then he has the right to sue people who are indeed
[00:17:10] considered to have committed crimes against him. That's it, ma'am. That's very interesting,
[00:17:13] Mr. Fikar, but we will discuss it more completely after this.
[00:17:17] Viewers, please stay with us in Metro TV breaking news.
[00:17:45] This Thursday, in Go Healthy, I suffer from
[00:17:47] diabetes. My blood sugar level was
[00:17:51] 600. I thought that because
[00:17:54] I was a sports teacher, I could avoid
[00:17:57] health problems. It turns
[00:18:01] out that I was completely wrong. I regularly use
[00:18:05] laser technology. I feel...
[00:18:08] I am healthy and fit. Watch the full story.
[00:18:11] Thursday, November 5, at 1:31 PM.
[00:18:15] Calling all Indonesian documentary filmmakers. This is
[00:18:19] the time to make your ideas shine. Register now at Eagle
[00:18:23] Institute.id. Get a maximum production grant
[00:18:26] of Rp120
[00:18:27] million.
[00:18:31] We accompany you from afternoon until evening with actual and
[00:18:34] quality news. The hottest information.
[00:18:42] Metro today prime time
[00:18:46] news and top
[00:18:48] news.
[00:18:51] Renew and deepen your insights with the latest
[00:18:54] information only in evening
[00:18:56] programs
[00:19:01] today.
[00:19:06] We. Controversy exploration.
[00:19:41] This fake diploma and I also
[00:19:45] supporting evidence to be prepared.
[00:19:48] Was it
[00:19:50] true that before
[00:19:53] the incident
[00:19:56] on March 26,
[00:19:59] it had actually been since 202000.
[00:20:03] 24
[00:20:04] 25 and I think what
[00:20:08] was shown by
[00:20:12] was already excessive
[00:20:14] so I consulted
[00:20:18] with a legal advisor,
[00:20:21] Your Honor.
[00:20:23] And
[00:20:28] viewers, we invite you again to discuss with Mr. Abdul
[00:20:32] Fikar Hajar as a criminal law expert. Mr. Fikar, are you
[00:20:35] still with us, sir?
[00:20:38] Okay, ready. Mr. Fikar, if we
[00:20:42] just talked about distinguishing criticism that is protected by freedom
[00:20:45] of expression from acts that attack
[00:20:49] someone's good name, then in this case, how will
[00:20:53] the prosecutor have to prove that the actions of Roy Suryo
[00:20:57] and Dr. Tifa are criminal acts
[00:21:00] and not just acts of expression
[00:21:03] and criticism of public
[00:21:06] officials?
[00:21:08] Yes, the boundary is what I said earlier,
[00:21:11] whether the actions taken by Roy
[00:21:15] Suryo or Dr. Tifa
[00:21:18] were done
[00:21:21] when Mr. Jokowi was still holding a public office
[00:21:25] or after. That's what will be
[00:21:28] the clear dividing line. If it's still as a public
[00:21:32] official, in my opinion, this case is not relevant,
[00:21:36] because as I said earlier, the pattern of relationship between
[00:21:40] Roy Suryo and Tifa with
[00:21:43] Mr. Jokowi is that of president and people,
[00:21:47] and their people and society. That's the pattern
[00:21:51] of relationship. "But when he is no longer holding
[00:21:54] a public office, then the pattern of relationship
[00:21:57] changes. It changes to a relationship between
[00:22:01] citizens. So whatever happens,
[00:22:05] it can be a criminal aspect, and it can also be a civil aspect.
[00:22:09] Well, defamation, for example, as I said
[00:22:13] more of a civil aspect, because the person who is harmed is more of an individual,
[00:22:17] actually. It's just that there is a larger public interest that needs to be protected."
[00:22:21] If people are allowed to insult others just
[00:22:24] like that, then many people will insult others. That's why this
[00:22:27] then becomes a criminal article,
[00:22:30] this defamation becomes a criminal article. Well, that's why
[00:22:34] the
[00:22:36] actions taken by Roy
[00:22:39] Suryo or Dr. Tifa are qualified as
[00:22:42] defamation and can be brought to court,
[00:22:45] even though, as I said earlier,
[00:22:49] in the social
[00:22:53] facts, many such incidents
[00:22:56] happen, whether on social media or in other forums,
[00:23:00] right? It just doesn't go to court, right? It's more
[00:23:04] resolved by consensus or by
[00:23:06] meeting and then
[00:23:09] conducting negotiations and so on.
[00:23:12] Well, that's what happens. Well, that's why I say
[00:23:16] that this case going to court
[00:23:20] is also part
[00:23:23] of Mr. Jokowi's sensitivity as a human
[00:23:26] being, right? When he is
[00:23:29] told this and that, he feels
[00:23:33] defamed. That's why he takes legal action,
[00:23:36] ma'am. Mr. Fikar, if we know that Roy Suryo and Dr. Tifa
[00:23:40] have different backgrounds and roles, must the elements
[00:23:44] of fault and criminal responsibility be proven individually,
[00:23:48] sir?
[00:23:50] Yes, crime is an act
[00:23:54] of individuals, yes. Even if
[00:23:57] they act on behalf of a corporation,
[00:24:01] it is represented by individuals, individuals who have
[00:24:04] the authority to make decisions within that corporation. Well, that's why
[00:24:08] both the actions of Roy Suryo and
[00:24:11] the actions of Dr. Tifa must
[00:24:15] be proven separately, yes. They cannot
[00:24:18] be generalized. Because the cases, if I'm not
[00:24:21] mistaken, are separate, aren't they? They're not
[00:24:25] combined. There is a defendant, Roy Suryo,
[00:24:28] and a defendant, Dr. Tifa, separately. That's why
[00:24:32] they must be held personally responsible,
[00:24:35] right? Because a criminal act is a personal
[00:24:38] responsibility, unless it officially
[00:24:41] represents a corporation, and even then there must be
[00:24:45] a decision from a general meeting of
[00:24:49] shareholders that decides the actions taken by
[00:24:52] the corporation. But if it's an individual act, then they must
[00:24:55] be held criminally responsible individually.
[00:24:59] Like that, ma'am. Hmm, Mr. Fikar, again
[00:25:02] we see the legal process that is currently
[00:25:06] ongoing will certainly have an impact
[00:25:09] on society. This also serves as a means to
[00:25:12] educate society. Will a legal process like
[00:25:15] this have the potential and also create a deterrent effect, we can say, on society
[00:25:22] later? Yes, what I said earlier,
[00:25:25] freedom of expression is also limited by law,
[00:25:29] freedom of interaction with
[00:25:33] other people is also limited by law. There are rules of the game,
[00:25:36] right? But the problem is
[00:25:40] what I said earlier, whether freedom
[00:25:43] of opinion is placed in a forum
[00:25:45] of democracy, then it will become
[00:25:49] a different dialogue, right? Well, that's what
[00:25:53] happens, the interaction
[00:25:56] between public authorities and society,
[00:26:00] right? That's usually how it is. But
[00:26:03] if it's between people, or between
[00:26:06] party officials and party officials, that's already a private
[00:26:10] matter, right? When there are sentences or
[00:26:13] expressions that are personal, that can
[00:26:17] become a problem itself, yes, it can become a legal problem,
[00:26:21] yes, both civil and criminal. Well, the boundary
[00:26:24] is whether freedom of opinion
[00:26:28] is what applied in
[00:26:31] the public sphere, but
[00:26:34] towards public institutions or
[00:26:38] towards individuals, that's the boundary. If it's towards
[00:26:41] individuals, then there will
[00:26:44] definitely be legal consequences, both criminal and civil.
[00:26:48] But when it's done towards
[00:26:51] individuals, but the person
[00:26:54] is currently holding
[00:26:58] a public office, then the context is
[00:27:02] freedom of speech, the context is
[00:27:05] criticism, the context is
[00:27:08] giving an opinion about something, an act done
[00:27:11] by that public official. Well, so the
[00:27:15] boundaries that distinguish it
[00:27:19] are that public office, even though in reality,
[00:27:22] for example, the interrelationship is between
[00:27:25] individuals, but when someone holds a public office,
[00:27:29] then there is no such thing as
[00:27:32] defamation or any crime
[00:27:35] related to someone's opinion, but when that person
[00:27:39] as a private individual, don't forget that a
[00:27:42] public official, even if he
[00:27:45] is not on duty, he goes out, he still holds the position of
[00:27:49] a public official, meaning that when someone holds
[00:27:52] a public office, it doesn't stop, unless his position is terminated,
[00:27:56] retired or dismissed, that's how it is, Miss, Mr.
[00:28:00] Fikar, if later the indictment... is not proven, will
[00:28:03] there be legal
[00:28:05] consequences?
[00:28:07] Yes, if the indictment is not proven, it's like this, the court
[00:28:11] has possibilities eh uh what's it called
[00:28:14] eh three, right, the first is the indictment
[00:28:17] rejected, meaning it's not proven if
[00:28:21] rejected, right, or the indictment is not accepted,
[00:28:25] now if it's not accepted, it means the, actually the event has not
[00:28:28] fully entered the main
[00:28:32] case. or it is declared uh
[00:28:35] what not accepted yes not accepted
[00:28:37] it hasn't entered yet, it's still not accepted and rejected, right,
[00:28:41] if rejected, it means not proven, but
[00:28:44] if uh not accepted
[00:28:47] yes the act
[00:28:50] is proven, but it turns out that the act is not a criminal
[00:28:53] act, but as I said earlier, it can be criticism, it can be
[00:28:57] an opinion, so he can be released,
[00:29:00] the name is different, right, if acquitted, if acquitted,
[00:29:04] it's uh not proven at all, if released,
[00:29:07] the act is proven but it's not a criminal act,
[00:29:11] yes, but he is released
[00:29:13] from uh what's it called uh the criminal
[00:29:17] charge or the criminal act, because that act
[00:29:20] for example in the context of self-defense, in
[00:29:23] the context of uh what's it called public notification
[00:29:26] uh uh that there is a
[00:29:30] situation involving this person and... so on, for example, be careful and so on, that is also
[00:29:33] part of
[00:29:36] uh what's called uh facts that can
[00:29:40] release someone from what
[00:29:43] from uh criminalization or from a court
[00:29:46] sentence, so what limits or differentiates
[00:29:50] is uh what to what
[00:29:53] extent eh criticism or opinion is
[00:29:57] thrown out, right, uh
[00:30:00] what when that person is in a
[00:30:03] public office or or he is no longer a public
[00:30:07] official as I said earlier a public official is never off
[00:30:10] duty, even at night he is not working, he is still
[00:30:14] the village head, he is still the governor, he is still
[00:30:17] uh what a public official, right, so because of that, when interacting
[00:30:21] with uh the community then he uh
[00:30:24] what the pattern is that earlier, right, giving opinions,
[00:30:28] criticism and so on, that's how it is, Miss, yes, Mr. Fikar,
[00:30:32] this is interesting, because what the Panel of Judges is concerned about
[00:30:35] is that the verdict in this case is not just to resolve
[00:30:39] the conflict between the parties but also to provide
[00:30:42] but we will discuss it after we find out
[00:30:46] the latest conditions at the East Jakarta District Court, our colleague Rona Marina is already there
[00:30:49] who will report live from the East Jakarta
[00:30:53] District Court.