Rahmat Wibowo's legal notice to Julyana Sonia Darmawati, copied to her employer DOSS, demanding Rp533 million over a quote post seen 519 times

What this document is

A 10-page somasi (legal notice), numbered 003/SOMASI/RW/VIII/2026 and dated Friday, 28 August 2026, from Rahmat Wibowo in Bekasi to Julyana Sonia Darmawati, holder of the X account @anaylujjj (“July”), in Jakarta. It is marked “Segera / Penting” (urgent / important) and copied to her employer, PT Global Sukses Digital Tbk. (DOSS Camera & Gadget). Rahmat posted it on X. All ten pages have been found; pages 8–10 are his evidence attachments B-1 to B-3, and B-4 is only described.

What it says

• The post. On 17 May 2026 she quoted an @KawalRahmatwi post — “Answering FAQs about Rahmat, anak pemilik SPPG Jatisari 2. Q: Kenapa Rahmat menyumpahi ibu hamil anaknya autis/gila? A: Saat itu, Rahmat lalai saat acara penting company…” — with the comment “AWS never beat the weird employee allegation 🤣 tahun 2022 gw pernah beefing sama salah satu AE mrk. bayangin gw fresh graduate beefing sm ibu2 in her mid 40s over small thing. dibelain ama bos gw katanya ‘sabar aja she’s one of a kind’”. When he documented it on 28 August at 11:18 WIB it had 519 views, 6 likes, 2 reposts and 1 reply.
• His position. By quoting the post she spread its accusations — that he cursed a pregnant woman’s child to be “autis/gila” and was negligent at work — and confirmed and mocked them, and spread a disability-related phrase as an insult.
• Legal basis. Defamation under Article 433(2) of the new Criminal Code as the main charge and slander under Article 434 as the subsidiary one, each increased by a third under Article 441(1); participation under Article 20; and civil tort under Articles 1365, 1366, 1367(3), 1372 and 1373 of the Civil Code. He lists Articles 143 and 145 of Law 8/2016 on disability “as a normative marker” only.
• Demands, within three calendar days, by Monday 31 August 2026 at 23:59 WIB:
  • permanently delete the quote post and any other content attacking him;
  • publish a public apology on the same account for 14 days, admitting the content was untrue, and send him a copy;
  • stop any further statements;
  • pay at least Rp533,333,334 in immaterial damages, “two times the maximum fine” for slander under Articles 434 and 441(1) (Rp266,666,666.67 × 2).
• Settlement. She must contact him by email within the same three days; he offers to meet in Bekasi or online.
• If not met, “without further notice”:
  • a first police report to Bareskrim for defamation, Article 433(2) jo. 441(1);
  • a second police report for slander, Article 434(1) jo. 441(1), as “two separate criminal cases”, each “demanded at the maximum penalty, both prison and fine”;
  • a civil suit with PT Global Sukses Digital Tbk. as co-defendant, with a request to attach assets (conservatoir beslag);
  • publishing the notice and all the evidence “as a lawful form of self-defense”.

Observations

1. Her own words are about someone else. The only words she wrote that could refer to him are “AWS never beat the weird employee allegation”. Rahmat worked at AWS. The rest of her comment is about a 2022 dispute with an account executive at AWS, a woman “in her mid 40s”. The notice itself says, in its table of elements (page 2), that “the 2022 issue with an account executive of another company is Saudari’s personal matter”. The LinkedIn history he attached (page 10) shows that in 2022 she worked at PT Berca Hardayaperkasa.
2. The “disability insult” is the accusation against him. The notice says she spread the phrase “autis/gila” as mockery of disability. She did not write those words: they are in the @KawalRahmatwi post she quoted, which describes what he is accused of wishing on a pregnant colleague’s unborn child. In June 2026 Kilat.com reported a viral video in which Rahmat cursed a pregnant colleague, wishing her unborn child to be autistic (media). The notice calls the accusation untrue but does not mention the video.
3. Rp533 million for 519 views. By his own count the quote post had 519 views, 6 likes, 2 reposts and 1 reply. The demand comes to about Rp1 million per view. It is the same Rp533,333,334, from the same calculation, as in his notices to Ghozy Ul Haq, Yassirullah Muhammad and Adith Widya Pradipta the same day and to Adityo Pratomo the next day (doc-20260828-004, doc-20260828-001, doc-20260828-002, doc-20260829-001).
4. Two criminal cases for one quote post. On page 3 he describes slander (Article 434) as only a “subsidiary qualification” to defamation (Article 433), to be tested at trial. On page 6 he says he will file both as “two separate criminal cases” and demand the maximum in each, “both prison and fine”. The articles, as he quotes them, provide prison or a fine. In Indonesian criminal procedure, the sentence is demanded by the public prosecutor, not by the person who files the report.
5. Published before his own deadline. The notice gives her until 31 August at 23:59 WIB and lists publishing it as a step to take only if she does not comply. He documented her post on 28 August at 11:18 WIB (evidence B-1), and his X post containing the notice dates, from its post ID, to 28 August at about 12:05 WIB — under an hour later and three days before his own deadline.
6. The employer as co-defendant. The notice says that because she lists her position and employer on her public profile, PT Global Sukses Digital Tbk. could be named a co-defendant under Article 1367(3) of the Civil Code. The article, as the notice itself quotes it, makes employers liable for harm caused by their staff “di dalam melakukan pekerjaan untuk mana orang-orang ini dipakainya” — in the course of the work they are employed for. A comment on a personal account is not presented as work for her employer. In a later notice he wrote that he would not use the recipient’s employer as leverage (doc-20261001-001).
7. He concedes the disability law does not apply. As in his notices 006 and 007, he writes that the facts do not meet the elements of Article 145 jo. 143 of Law 8/2016 and that it is “not fit to be the basis of a criminal charge”. Elsewhere he cites Article 145 as a crime, for example in his Propam complaint (doc-20261014-001).
8. The attachments are a profile of her. Evidence B-2 and B-3 (pages 9–10) are screenshots of her LinkedIn profile and work history back to 2021, put together to identify her employer. Page 1 lists “3 (tiga)” electronic exhibits; the attachments are numbered B-1 to B-4, and B-4 — his record of accessing the post — is only described as kept in his own files.
9. The lowest-numbered notice found so far. He documented her post at 11:18 WIB on 28 August, about an hour before he documented the reply in notice 004 (12:13), two hours before notice 006 (13:17) and four hours before notice 007 (15:16) (doc-20260828-004); 027 is dated the next day (doc-20260829-001). The numbers are not a running count for the year, though: his complaint of 14 August cites a somasi numbered 035/SOMASI/RW/IV/2026, dated 19 April 2026 (doc-20260814-001).
10. Not shown to have been sent or answered. The signature space on page 7 is blank, and the collected pages show no proof of delivery and no reply.

Legal references were not checked against the official gazette, which could not be accessed when this analysis was written.