Invitation for clarification from Polsek Cisauk, the police station where Rahmat Wibowo ended up crying, asking him to give a statement as a witness in the defamation report filed by Dinda Auchterin Rhapsodya

What this document is

A one-page Undangan Klarifikasi (invitation for clarification) from the Cisauk sector police (Polsek Cisauk), part of the South Tangerang police (Polres Tangerang Selatan) under the Jakarta Metropolitan Police, numbered B/101/VII/2026/Sek. Cisauk, classified “Biasa” (ordinary), dated Cisauk, 5 July 2026, and signed and stamped by the head of Polsek Cisauk “selaku penyidik” (as investigator).

Rahmat posted a photo of it on Threads on 31 October 2026 with the caption “Apasih Manggil Manggil Buat Pemeriksaan Sebagai Saksi Gk ada Surat Rekomendasi Dokter” (“What’s with summoning me for questioning as a witness, there’s no doctor’s recommendation letter”). He covered his own name and address with a laughing emoji, and parts of the last two paragraphs, including the name and WhatsApp number of the officer to contact, with two chef’s-kiss emojis.

What it says

1. References. Law No. 2 of 2002 on the National Police; Articles 3 and 618 of Law No. 1 of 2023 (the new Criminal Code, KUHP); several articles of Law No. 20 of 2025 (the new Criminal Procedure Code, KUHAP); police report LP/B/1697/VI/2026/SPKT/POLRES TANGERANG SELATAN/POLDA METRO JAYA of 3 June 2026; and inquiry warrant SP.Lidik/28/VI/2026/Reskrim of 15 June 2026.
2. The inquiry. Polsek Cisauk’s criminal investigation unit (Unit Reskrim Tim 2) is conducting an inquiry (penyelidikan) into alleged defamation (Pencemaran Nama Baik) under Articles 441 and/or 433 of the KUHP, which took place on Wednesday, 22 April 2026 and became known at Jl. Green Office Park, Sampora, Cisauk, Tangerang, on the report of DINDA AUCHTERIN RHAPSODYA.
3. The invitation. To follow up the case, the police need a statement from the addressee “selaku Saksi” (as a witness), and ask him to meet the investigators on Tuesday, 14 July 2026, at 13.00 WIB, in the examination room of Unit Reskrim Tim 2, bringing documents related to the case.
4. Contact. For further information he may contact an officer (named “BR… SAPUTRA”, partly covered) on WhatsApp.
5. Signature. “Kapolsek Cisauk Polres Tangerang Selatan selaku Penyidik”, with the Polsek Cisauk stamp and the name “…BHARY ARSYA, SH., MH.”; the rank and NRP are mostly hidden by his caption.

Observations

1. The station where he ended up crying. Lawyer Machrio Achmad Nurhatta posted on Threads that he had a video of Rahmat crying at Polsek Cisauk: “Siapa yang mau liat video @rweebs21 nangis di Polsek Cisauk?” (“Who wants to see the video of @rweebs21 crying at Polsek Cisauk?”). The insinuation was that Rahmat is only brave online and breaks down in tears as soon as he has to face the police (“cuman beraninya online, begitu ditangkap nangis”). Rahmat attached a screenshot of that post himself on 19 October (ev-20261019-006). Machrio’s Instagram story about Rahmat barging into his law office also says Rahmat looked about to cry (ev-20261031-001). We have not seen the video.
2. Not the first invitation. In June he published a “legal analysis” of the same report that planned his response to a clarification at Polsek Cisauk scheduled for 26 June 2026, which he said he had only learned of the day before (ev-20260626-001). This letter, dated 5 July, sets a new date of 14 July.
3. A witness, not a suspect. The letter is an invitation at the inquiry stage, before anyone is named a suspect, and asks him to come as a witness. In his own words, Dinda Rhapsodya “reported me to the police”, and he wrote that he suspected she had used money to bribe the police officer (ev-20260627-005).
4. “No doctor’s recommendation letter.” His caption suggests the police should not call him without a doctor’s recommendation. Nothing in the letter mentions his health, and a psychiatric certificate of 13 May 2026, which he has quoted himself, declared him FIT TO WORK (doc-20260513-001).
5. He hid his own name, not hers. He covered his own name and address and the officer’s contact details with stickers, but left the full name of Dinda, who filed the report, readable, and posted it publicly.

Pages still needed

None; it is a one-page letter. The parts under his stickers and caption (his name and address, parts of the last two paragraphs, the contact officer’s full name and number, and the signatory’s rank and NRP) cannot be recovered from the photo.