Rahmat Wibowo's complaint to Bareskrim and Polda Metro Jaya accusing Ferry Irwandi of spreading “false news” in his economic analysis

What this document is

A 9-page Surat Aduan Masyarakat (public complaint), numbered 063/ADUAN/RW/09/2026 and dated 11 September 2026, from Rahmat Wibowo as the “Pengadu” (complainant) to the head of Bareskrim and the chief of the Jakarta regional police (Polda Metro Jaya). It is copied to Bareskrim’s Directorate of Cyber Crime, the Ministry of Communication and Digital Affairs and the Press Council. It concerns content creator Ferry Irwandi and the “Krisis 2026” macroeconomic videos and posts he published in May 2026. Rahmat posted it on Threads. Pages 1–7 and 9 have been found, and the top part of page 8; the rest of page 8, which would carry the signature, has not.

What it says

• The charge. Spreading false news that “may cause unrest” (Article 263(2) of the new Criminal Code) and spreading news that is “uncertain, exaggerated or incomplete” (Article 264), which he calls “the most proportionate” basis. He also lists Articles 28(1) and 28(3) of the Electronic Information and Transactions (ITE) Law and, “as context”, financial-sector, currency, central bank and press laws and Articles 1365–1366 of the Civil Code.
• What he disputes. Seven “factual representations” (pages 2–3), among them:
  • calling the rupiah’s record low “the weakest in history” without adjusting for inflation;
  • presenting a fall in foreign-exchange reserves as an urgent crisis;
  • an exchange-rate pass-through parameter of 0.13–0.20;
  • a debt-sustainability projection;
  • a worst-case foreign outflow of US$10 billion where the market consensus was about US$2 billion;
  • a causal chain from a weak rupiah to “social unrest”;
  • the savings figures in Ferry’s cost-effectiveness analysis of the free-meals programme (MBG).
• His concessions.
  • Criticism of economic policy, including pessimistic analysis, is protected by Articles 28E(2) and 28F of the Constitution.
  • No unrest has occurred, so the element in Article 263(1) is not met.
  • The element “should have suspected it was false” is “the weakest point”.
  • “Knew it was false” is “not supported by the available evidence”.
  • Ferry did not call for unlawful acts, violence, mass withdrawals or unrest, and much of his criticism is partly correct. Rahmat places the conduct at “gross negligence in presentation”, not “deliberate provocation”.
• Requests.
  • Accept the complaint as the basis for a preliminary investigation under Article 264.
  • Summon and examine Ferry.
  • Seek expert evidence from Bank Indonesia, Statistics Indonesia and the Ministry of Finance.
  • Trace the content’s reach with the ministry.
  • Look into his monetisation.
  • Consult the Press Council.
  • Stop if investigators find it was legitimate opinion.
• Evidence.
  • D-0: a photo of Ferry.
  • D-1 to D-4: four of Rahmat’s own analyses of Ferry’s content, from May 2026, kept in a public Google Drive folder.
  • D-5: Ferry’s original content, which he asks the police to secure themselves.

Observations

1. A disagreement about economics, filed as a crime. Every item in the table is a dispute about interpretation: real versus nominal exchange rates, which outflow estimate to use, how to calibrate a parameter, which interest rate belongs in a debt projection. The complaint itself calls Ferry’s policy conclusion — that fiscal and structural reform is needed — “partly correct”.
2. His own analysis says the key elements are missing. The complaint concedes that no unrest happened and that there is no evidence Ferry knew anything was false. Its strongest finding is that some figures were “exaggerated or incomplete” compared with official data. It still asks the police to summon and examine him.
3. The evidence is Rahmat’s own writing. Exhibits D-1 to D-4 are his own critiques of Ferry’s analysis (ev-20260523-001, ev-20260728-034, ev-20260728-044). The content he complains about is not attached; he asks the police to collect it.
4. A rival with a record. The complaint anticipates the objection that Rahmat is a competitor criminalising criticism and answers that he has disclosed his interest. In June he said his own AI tool had scored Ferry’s analysis 4.4 out of 10 and that he had out-analysed an economist (ev-20260615-004). In October he announced that he had reported Ferry and called him a coward for blocking him instead of accepting a debate (ev-20261002-001), and he later cited his police reports against Ferry in a reply to a poll (ev-20261011-004).
5. The “false news” articles. Articles 263 and 264 of the new Criminal Code carry over Articles 14 and 15 of Law 1/1946, which the Constitutional Court declared unconstitutional in March 2024 (decision 78/PUU-XXI/2023). The complaint states that every article it quotes was verified against the official text, but does not mention that ruling.
6. The reason for “parameter manipulation” is crossed out. In row 4 of the table, which accuses Ferry of “manipulasi parameter”, most of the explanation is struck through. The struck-through text runs between two “~” (approximately) signs, which Markdown, the format he says he used for his exhibits, reads as strikethrough.
7. An image over page 1. In the copy posted on Threads, an image covers the complainant’s identity table: “PUSING KAN LU? kan kamu anak ITB, masa gini aja ga ngerti” (“Confused, aren’t you? You’re from ITB, how can you not understand this”).
8. Not shown to have been filed. The pages found show no police receipt or report number. The bottom of page 8, below “Hormat saya,”, has not been found.

Legal references, including the Constitutional Court decision, were checked against published summaries, not official texts.

Pages still needed

The bottom part of page 8.