METROTV — broadcast
20261105 030000 UTC
463 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] or that opinion was thrown out
[00:00:03] right, what, when people
[00:00:06] are in public office or
[00:00:10] or they are no longer public officials as I said earlier,
[00:00:13] public officials are never free, right, even at night
[00:00:17] when they are not working, they are still the village head, they are still the
[00:00:21] governor, they are still public officials. So,
[00:00:24] because of that, when interacting with the community,
[00:00:28] then he
[00:00:30] the pattern is that pattern of expressing opinions, criticism, and
[00:00:34] and so on, Mr. Yes, Mr. Fikar, this
[00:00:37] is interesting because what concerns the panel
[00:00:41] that the indictment of judges is that the verdict in this case is not just to resolve
[00:00:44] conflicts between parties, but also to provide
[00:00:47] in conclusion between the experts legal certainty for the public, but we will discuss it after we find out
[00:00:51] the current condition at the East Jakarta District Court. Our colleague
[00:00:54] Rona Marina will report directly from the
[00:00:58] East Jakarta District Court.
[00:01:00] Rona,
[00:01:04] good, viewers, we will present the latest information
[00:01:07] regarding the case that will be heard today, after the following
[00:01:10] break, stay with
[00:01:12] us.
[00:01:19] Accurate news is more
[00:01:21] important than just delivering news quickly.
[00:01:24] Always check and
[00:01:27] clarify.
[00:01:30] Strong claims must
[00:01:32] be sought,
[00:01:34] evidence must
[00:01:36] be validated,
[00:01:39] prime time news only on Metro TV
[00:01:42] brought
[00:01:44] the prosecutor, there are also experts to you this Thursday in Go
[00:01:48] Healthy, I have diabetes, my blood
[00:01:52] sugar level was at 600, I
[00:01:56] thought that because I was a sports teacher, I could
[00:02:01] avoid health problems, it turns
[00:02:04] out that all of that was a big
[00:02:08] mistake, I regularly use laser technology, I
[00:02:11] feel healthy and fit, watch the full story, Thursday,
[00:02:15] November 5th,
[00:02:18] this is about and for those
[00:02:22] who are full of questions who choose to
[00:02:25] remain silent, we must remember that power
[00:02:28] belongs to the people.
[00:02:33] This is the place for policy makers to answer all
[00:02:37] questions, as well as a space for the people to understand their
[00:02:40] value to the country. Indonesia's
[00:02:43] and the evidence Priority every Monday to Friday at 3:30
[00:02:45] PM.
[00:02:48] We accompany you from afternoon to evening with actual and
[00:02:52] quality news. The hottest information of the day
[00:02:55] we review in depth along with
[00:02:57] its developments. Metro
[00:03:00] today prime time
[00:03:03] news and top
[00:03:06] news,
[00:03:08] update and deepen your insights with the latest
[00:03:11] information only on our afternoon
[00:03:14] programs.
[00:03:17] We
[00:03:24] act. On the other hand, the person
[00:03:56] is presented here, honor and
[00:03:57] awaited by the public, one in X. But the two
[00:04:01] video rings have already been said
[00:04:04] by your honor. Okay,
[00:04:07] regarding
[00:04:09] still related to the two video uploads,
[00:04:13] does the witness still remember who uploaded it
[00:04:17] or on what account?
[00:04:20] apa?
[00:04:32] Your Honor,
[00:04:34] its name, looking so
[00:04:35] the upload
[00:04:38] was uploaded to
[00:04:40] YouTube
[00:04:43] with the title "Fake Diploma Jo".
[00:04:46] Based on analysis of font type and operating
[00:04:51] that he had brought the necessary system, it was uploaded by Apur Egi
[00:04:55] Sujana channel, this was uploaded
[00:04:58] by oh Balide Academy, yes,
[00:05:01] Balige Academy, correct, then
[00:05:04] on YouTube, then the second one on
[00:05:08] YouTube again, this was uploaded by
[00:05:11] Mr. Sujana and Damai
[00:05:14] Haribis, then the
[00:05:17] third
[00:05:19] was uploaded
[00:05:23] to X
[00:05:25] by
[00:05:28] Dr. your Honor.
[00:05:31] Okay, regarding
[00:05:34] the three uploads from social
[00:05:37] media shown by Shariff,
[00:05:40] did the witness then
[00:05:44] have a second witness to collect other videos?
[00:05:47] lain
[00:05:51] The other videos
[00:05:54] are prepared
[00:05:56] by
[00:05:58] the legal advisory team, Your Honor, but in fact,
[00:06:02] viewers, we invite you again to dialogue with Mr. Abdul Fikar Hajar
[00:06:06] as a criminal law expert, Mr. Fikar is still connected with us,
[00:06:09] sir. Yes, okay. Ready,
[00:06:12] Mr. Fikar, in the previous segment, we talked about
[00:06:16] the legal consequences if the indictment is not
[00:06:19] proven. Of course, in the end, we
[00:06:22] want to see what should be the concern of the Panel
[00:06:25] of Judges so that the verdict in this case not only resolves
[00:06:29] conflicts between parties, but also provides legal
[00:06:32] certainty for the public.
[00:06:36] Yes, I think that's what
[00:06:39] the judges should also think
[00:06:43] about, right? Although theoretically, judges
[00:06:47] should not be influenced by anything, right? Because they
[00:06:50] have to decide a case
[00:06:54] based on the evidence in court and
[00:06:58] their own conviction. Well, that's what, meaning they
[00:07:01] should not accept intervention from, uh, uh,
[00:07:04] what, intervention from outside parties or
[00:07:08] from anything, right? Whether from power or
[00:07:12] from individuals and so on. Well, that intervention
[00:07:15] is not allowed. That is to guarantee the independence of the judiciary, the independence
[00:07:18] of judicial power, right? Well, because of that,
[00:07:21] uh, what, the judge
[00:07:25] usually only
[00:07:28] adheres to what happens in court
[00:07:32] and the consequence is that the parties
[00:07:35] in the case also have the right to prove
[00:07:38] each other wrong. If it used to be, right, criminal cases
[00:07:42] were one-sided, right?
[00:07:45] Usually, the one who
[00:07:49] dominated the trial was the state in the form of the public
[00:07:52] prosecutor with his witnesses
[00:07:55] brought because the defendant was considered to have committed
[00:07:59] a crime or a criminal act, uh, what,
[00:08:02] that's how it was, but uh, what, in its development,
[00:08:06] then after the birth
[00:08:09] of the Criminal Procedure Code in
[00:08:12] 1981, then the criminal trial
[00:08:16] became adversarial, right? It became
[00:08:20] like a civil case, the parties have the same
[00:08:24] right on one side, the state, right, through
[00:08:27] the prosecutor, proves the crime of a defendant,
[00:08:31] a person who has been accused of committing a crime or a criminal
[00:08:36] accused of committing a crime or a criminal
[00:08:40] act also has the right to...
[00:08:51] uh, not commit a criminal act or if they do, the condition is like this, they defend
[00:08:54] themselves or that's part
[00:08:57] of the self-defense
[00:09:01] mechanism and in certain attacks, for example, that's how
[00:09:05] it is. So what I want to say is that there
[00:09:09] is equality among the parties to present. That's why it's not
[00:09:12] now, for example, that a criminal case
[00:09:16] becomes long because in addition to the prosecutor
[00:09:20] presenting witnesses and other evidence, the legal
[00:09:23] counsel and the defendant can also present, for
[00:09:27] example, mitigating witnesses, or other
[00:09:31] mitigating evidence, right? If it used to
[00:09:34] be limited to witnesses, but if
[00:09:37] it's now, it's also open
[00:09:41] that the defendant and legal counsel can, for example,
[00:09:44] present evidence, but that evidence must still be
[00:09:47] tested, its validity, its
[00:09:50] issuance, and so on. Well, that's what happens.
[00:09:54] So now civil cases, if civil cases have always
[00:09:58] been, two parties have the same opportunity
[00:10:00] to prove their arguments,
[00:10:03] and also criminal cases or other cases,
[00:10:07] Mr. PTTUN and so on, now these have become
[00:10:11] adversarial, right? They have become a forum
[00:10:14] where the parties are given the freedom to
[00:10:18] prove and to refute. Well,
[00:10:21] uh, what's its name,
[00:10:25] the reference is that whoever
[00:10:27] mengajukan
[00:10:29] submits an argument or a fact,
[00:10:33] then they must prove it. Well,
[00:10:36] whoever refutes it also has to prove their refutation.
[00:10:40] Well, that's what happens. So it's not
[00:10:43] surprising if a trial, especially a trial that attracts
[00:10:47] public attention, will be long, right?
[00:10:50] Long in the sense of the examination of
[00:10:54] its evidence, the time is so
[00:10:57] long that it becomes a battle of arguments
[00:11:01] in the judiciary that will then be concluded by
[00:11:04] the judge in his verdict, miss.
[00:11:07] Mr. Fikar, in this case, if there is a difference
[00:11:12] presented by the prosecutor and the experts from the defendant's side, what
[00:11:16] will be the parameters used by the judge to determine
[00:11:20] which expert's opinion can be scientifically
[00:11:23] and legally
[00:11:25] accountable?
[00:11:27] Theoretically, it should not
[00:11:30] be possible for differences to arise among
[00:11:33] experts. Between parties, it's permissible, not permissible,
[00:11:37] but there will certainly be differences, for example, between
[00:11:40] the prosecutor and the legal counsel. But experts, because
[00:11:44] they start from the same theory,
[00:11:46] right? From the same research
[00:11:50] findings, right? It's just that maybe
[00:11:54] he has a different opinion because of a different
[00:11:56] perspective. But theoretically, there shouldn't
[00:12:00] be any differences among experts,
[00:12:03] but as I said, because the experts are brought
[00:12:06] by the state or
[00:12:09] brought by this side, so there will
[00:12:13] probably be differences that are not fundamental
[00:12:17] but more technical differences, right?
[00:12:20] But fundamental theoretical differences, I don't
[00:12:24] think will ever happen because,
[00:12:27] what, they are based on the same
[00:12:31] source, right? Especially, for example, legal science, legal
[00:12:34] theories, and so on,
[00:12:37] are all studied, right? All studied.
[00:12:41] It's just that there might be different opinions
[00:12:44] because of different situations. An expert's opinion can
[00:12:48] differ if there is
[00:12:51] an assessment of a different situation.
[00:12:55] So there is a different point of view from,
[00:12:58] what, if, if in one fact it's very possible, but
[00:13:02] as I said, if it's based
[00:13:05] on interests, then differences will definitely arise, but
[00:13:09] if the difference, what's its
[00:13:12] name, views it from the same perspective
[00:13:15] seeking the same truth, then
[00:13:19] I think there will never be a difference among the experts,
[00:13:22] miss. Mr. Fikar, but
[00:13:25] the results of the forensic laboratory examination of
[00:13:29] documents have a stronger position compared to digital
[00:13:32] analysis conducted independently. How does criminal procedure law
[00:13:36] place these two types of
[00:13:38] evidence, sir? Yes, okay,
[00:13:41] as I said earlier,
[00:13:43] uh,
[00:13:45] what, forensic laboratory examination, what was
[00:13:49] the other one, sir? Related
[00:13:52] to hello, this
[00:14:00] is how the judge should assess the digital analysis presented by
[00:14:04] the defendant, sir.
[00:14:07] Yes, okay, now this means,
[00:14:11] what, uh,
[00:14:14] we want to prove authenticity, right? As I said
[00:14:17] earlier, forensic for example, forensic
[00:14:20] in my opinion, it can prove
[00:14:23] authenticity. As long as the paper is original,
[00:14:26] the writing is original, the stamp is original, right?
[00:14:30] But whether its authenticity was obtained through a long
[00:14:34] process and issued by an institution
[00:14:37] that has the authority, that must be supported by other
[00:14:41] evidence. The same goes for cyber analysis,
[00:14:44] data analysis, and so on. That's also the same,
[00:14:48] in my opinion, it only
[00:14:50] analyzes authenticity in
[00:14:53] the context of, what's
[00:14:59] at one aspect that they master, right?
[00:15:03] These two should be confronted with the same
[00:15:06] facts, right? So we need to see
[00:15:10] whether this is authentic or not, right?
[00:15:13] That's the problem. Well, if the judge
[00:15:16] faces such a situation,
[00:15:20] then it goes back to what I said earlier,
[00:15:23] even though the formulation as stated
[00:15:26] in the verdict is
[00:15:29] a collection of facts that can convince
[00:15:32] the judge, right? His conviction,
[00:15:36] whether it's right or wrong, is all the
[00:15:39] judge's authority. Well, that's why when
[00:15:43] faced with two different research results,
[00:15:46] the judge must also look at the facts
[00:15:49] of the trial, right? And place these research
[00:15:53] results as facts as well, right? In addition to
[00:15:56] the facts revealed in the trial factually,
[00:16:00] there are forensic research results, there are data
[00:16:04] research results, right? So all of
[00:16:07] them must be seen as evidence, right?
[00:16:11] Whether this series of evidence can convince him
[00:16:15] to then conclude
[00:16:18] stated by the prosecutor is proven or vice versa.
[00:16:22] Well, that goes back to his conviction
[00:16:25] by placing both research results
[00:16:28] as part of the evidence as
[00:16:31] part of the series of facts
[00:16:34] of the trial that may or may not
[00:16:37] create conviction, it is entirely up to
[00:16:40] the judge's authority, miss. Okay, thank you, Mr. Abdul Fikar
[00:16:44] Hajar, criminal law expert, for providing your insights this
[00:16:48] morning. Viewers, Metro TV breaking news
[00:16:52] will return after the break,
[00:16:53] stay with us.
[00:16:59] This Thursday in Go Healthy, I have
[00:17:01] diabetes, my blood sugar level was
[00:17:04] at 600. I thought
[00:17:07] that because I was a sports teacher,
[00:17:11] I could avoid health problems.
[00:17:14] It turned out that
[00:17:17] all of that was a big mistake. I regularly use laser
[00:17:20] technology. I feel healthy and
[00:17:24] fit. Watch the full story Thursday, November
[00:17:27] 5th, at 11 AM. Milton Sugarfree is always
[00:17:31] there for my biggest moments. Every step we take must
[00:17:35] be meaningful. The whole world is watching...
[00:17:46] This Thursday in Go Healthy, I have diabetes. My blood sugar level
[00:17:49] was at 600. I thought that because
[00:17:53] I was a sports teacher, I could avoid
[00:17:56] health problems. It turned
[00:17:59] out that all of that was a big mistake.
[00:18:03] I regularly use laser technology. I
[00:18:05] feel healthy and fit. Watch the full story
[00:18:09] Thursday, November 5th, at 3:30
[00:18:48] Evolving with trust, some choose
[00:18:51] to only be spectators of change, but
[00:18:54] there are also those who choose to take action. 26 young
[00:18:58] Indonesians with ideas
[00:19:01] 26 days, 26 stories,
[00:19:04] find inspiration in 26.
[00:19:07] newsperation in Selamat Pagi Indonesia starting November
[00:19:11] 1st.
[00:19:14] Calling all Indonesian documentary filmmakers. This
[00:19:18] is the time to make your ideas shine. Register now
[00:19:21] at eagleinstitute.id. Get production grant funds up to
[00:19:25] 120
[00:19:26] million rupiah.
[00:19:33] President Joko Widodo becomes a witness in the defamation case.
[00:20:18] Jokowi's two children, Kaesang Pangarep and Kahiyang
[00:20:22] Ayu, also accompanied him. Upon arrival
[00:20:25] at the location, Jokowi confirmed
[00:20:29] documents. Jokowi also confirmed
[00:20:32] that the diploma he brought was an
[00:20:36] original document, sir.
[00:22:20] Well, we hope that this morning, the original
[00:22:23] physical analog diploma will be brought
[00:22:26] by the prosecutor or the public
[00:22:29] prosecutor. Don't let it be hidden. Imagine that
[00:22:33] until the 11th trial for Dr. Tifa and the fourth for
[00:22:37] us, that diploma never appeared in court.
[00:22:41] That's very strange because usually, evidence is always
[00:22:45] presented, and when someone says they have seen it,
[00:22:48] they will be confronted with whether this
[00:23:50] is what you mean. Well,
[00:23:53] there are two threats of punishment for 12 years, right? Or no, not
[00:23:56] two, four, four. Is it cumulative or
[00:24:00] alternative? Alternative. Alternative, right? According
[00:24:03] to you, as Mr. Roy's legal counsel, which threat
[00:24:07] is it leaning towards, sir? All this time,
[00:24:10] I don't want to talk like that. I don't want to
[00:24:13] answer. We believe and are confident
[00:24:16] that Mr. Roy and Dr. Tifa should be acquitted. There is
[00:24:20] no article that can be applied to them, neither
[00:24:24] the article on defamation, because Mr. Roy and
[00:24:27] Dr. Tifa work for the public interest, public interest,
[00:24:31] you want to know if the diploma is original or not, right? Unless
[00:24:34] you don't care, but as long as you care, then this is
[00:24:38] for the public interest, right? And second, if it's called
[00:24:42] slander, that's not right. Slander is when Mr. Roy
[00:24:45] and Dr. Tifa know that the diploma is original
[00:24:48] but he says it's fake. That's slander.
[00:24:52] But until now, we don't know if the diploma
[00:24:55] is original or fake. First, it has never been shown.
[00:24:58] Second, it has never been openly tested. Well, this is
[00:25:02] the opportunity. If it is shown today and it is original, how
[00:25:06] will the Rais Studio side react? A document is original or not
[00:25:10] original, it's not just shown without physical evidence and
[00:25:14] we believe it. There must be an adequate test. The question
[00:25:17] is, is Mr. Jokowi brave enough to give us
[00:25:21] all, especially Mr. Roy, the opportunity to test
[00:25:24] it independently, including an independent testing
[00:25:28] institution, whether it is original or not? So
[00:25:31] bring in independent experts to test
[00:25:34] it. For example, if there is a claim, for example,
[00:25:38] from, I'm sorry to say, a claim that this has been
[00:25:41] forensically examined by the investigator, right? The investigator
[00:25:45] is different because theoretically, he is indeed biased
[00:25:48] towards it in the sense that he is the one who
[00:25:52] makes the indictment articles. How can he
[00:25:56] indict and then not be confident in his evidence?
[00:25:59] Therefore, if it's the investigator's perspective, we cannot
[00:26:03] trust it. If it's the public prosecutor's perspective,
[00:26:06] because in this case, we are opposed, we are on opposite
[00:26:10] sides. Therefore, there must be an independent third party to test
[00:26:13] the diploma.
[00:26:16] It will show what
[00:26:19] is doubted because the item has not been presented
[00:26:23] all this time. What will happen, will your clients
[00:26:26] be ready to undergo
[00:26:29] the punishment process? Why do you keep directing it that
[00:26:34] way? I'm
[00:26:35] confused.
[00:26:38] No, no, no, first,
[00:26:41] you said, right,
[00:26:45] are you ready to be punished? I have said
[00:26:48] that our clients are innocent. Our clients have no
[00:26:52] article that can be applied to them because
[00:26:55] they work, they research for the public interest. Second,
[00:26:59] they did not commit slander because whether the diploma is
[00:27:08] original or not, they cannot be charged with articles of the ITE Law because there is no physical
[00:27:10] document testing of electronic
[00:27:14] documents and electronic information owned by Mr. Jokowi.
[00:27:17] Electronic documents and electronic information
[00:27:20] belong to Dian Sandi. So there are many things that we can defend,
[00:27:24] that's why I'm surprised by your two questions. Okay,
[00:27:28] please Mr. Refli, one more question, sir, Mr. Jokowi
[00:27:31] will also say and also tell
[00:27:34] about his experience while studying at UGM and also bringing
[00:27:38] that diploma, sir. Well, if there is evidence of that,
[00:27:42] what about the Raysur side? This proof in court
[00:27:45] is one moment,
[00:27:49] one screen only from the entire trial
[00:27:52] process. Of course, we will see the quality of
[00:27:55] the evidence, because if you tell a story,
[00:27:58] you can tell A, B, C, and so on, but later we will
[00:28:02] cross-check with other witnesses and other evidence.
[00:28:06] From there, we will then confirm
[00:28:09] whether Mr. Joko's story is true or not.
[00:28:12] Of course, our suspicion is that he has
[00:28:16] prepared a story about studying at UGM and so on
[00:28:19] and so on, even though we caught an anomaly, for example, regarding
[00:28:23] the time sequence between him finishing college,
[00:28:26] then going to Aceh, then coming back and giving birth
[00:28:29] to Gibran and so on. That itself doesn't match
[00:28:33] the time, even though it comes from
[00:28:36] Jokowi's own YouTube channel.
[00:28:39] Criminal law expert Hibnu Nogroho believes that Jokowi's
[00:28:43] presence in court is very important to prove the authenticity
[00:28:46] of Jokowi's diploma. Jokowi
[00:28:49] as a witness this time, how important is
[00:28:52] his testimony to then be able to find evidence
[00:28:55] in this trial? Yes, in the concept
[00:28:59] of law, the presence as a victim, as
[00:29:02] a complainant, is very
[00:29:06] very important, because in a judicial
[00:29:09] process, there are four indicators: first, a defense
[00:29:13] is already underway, then a public hearing,
[00:29:16] listening, then, uh, proof,
[00:29:19] and finally, independence, the independence
[00:29:23] of a judicial process. As a public hearing
[00:29:26] for the victim, that's where the victim
[00:29:30] who feels that he or she made
[00:29:34] the report, made the complaint,
[00:29:37] must be present to provide
[00:29:40] an explanation as to the feelings and circumstances
[00:29:43] of the victim, because in a legal context, there are four pillars,
[00:29:47] sir: first, the act,
[00:29:50] then the perpetrator, then the criminal
[00:29:54] sanction, and then
[00:30:00] awaited by the court to, at least,
[00:30:03] clarify, at least, confront with the
[00:30:06] testimonies of the defendants, confront with the witnesses.
[00:30:10] other, thus as the concept of justice now
[00:30:13] is a concept of justice that seeks material truth,
[00:30:17] the real truth about what object
[00:30:21] is going to be examined, that's right Mas, okay Prof. Hipnu,
[00:30:24] is Joko Widodo's current position as a reporter or as you
[00:30:28] said as a victim, does this mean when giving testimony.
[00:30:32] that its weight becomes heavier, so that it can then
[00:30:36] fight or confront what
[00:30:39] has been conveyed by the defendant so
[00:30:42] far? Yes, if we look at a
[00:30:46] concept of proof in a new paradigm of evidence,
[00:30:49] there is no weight, but it has
[00:30:53] the same qualification of evidence, it has the same
[00:30:57] evidence as other witnesses, only.