Rahmat Wibowo's complaint to the Metro Jaya Police's Propam division against Bekasi Utara investigators handling Machrio Achmad Nurhatta's threat report

What this document is

A 17-page public complaint (Surat Pengaduan Masyarakat, “Dumas”) written by Rahmat Wibowo as the “Pelapor” (complainant). It is numbered 087/ADUAN/RW/X/2026, dated Wednesday, 14 October 2026, marked “Penting” (important), with one electronic evidence file attached, and addressed to the head of the Profession and Security Division (Bid Propam) of Polda Metro Jaya. Copies go to the head of Propam at national police headquarters, the Metro Jaya police chief, the Bekasi Kota police chief, the National Police Commission (Kompolnas) and the National Commission on Disability (KND).

It is a complaint about police officers. The “Teradu” (the people complained about) are five officers of the criminal investigation unit of Polsek Bekasi Utara (Team II). They are handling police report LP/B/267/VI/2026, which “Sdr. R. Machrio Achmad” filed on 14 June 2026 for alleged threats of violence on social media (Article 449 of the Criminal Code and/or Article 29 jo. 45B of Law 1/2024). Rahmat is the reported party in that case. The collected pages do not say what he is alleged to have said. The document names the complainant in that case “Machrio Achmad” and “Machi Achmad (@machi_achmad)”; we took this to be Machrio Achmad Nurhatta.

In the version he posted, the officers’ names and his own ID details are covered by stickers (“terverifikasi goblok”, “PUSING KAN LU?”, “SERLOK TAK SOMASI” and a photo), so they cannot be read. Pages 12 and 17 have not been found. The evidence items P-1 (Polsek Bekasi Utara’s letter of 8 July 2026) and the two doctors’ letters (P-3, P-8) are not among the collected pages, and are probably on those two pages.

What he asks for

Twelve requests (pages 10–11). The main ones: that Propam examine whether the investigators asked a doctor or psychiatrist for their consideration before examining him (Article 30 of Law 8/2016), on what basis the case was upgraded to the investigation stage, why restorative justice was not offered first, how the stages of the case reached Machrio and were posted on social media, and whether his emotional state was written into the progress letter (SP2HP) given to Machrio (Article 443 of the Criminal Code); that future examinations of him be postponed until his treating doctor gives a consideration; and that sanctions be imposed “if proven”.

Observations

1. What the complaint rests on. His statement that he has bipolar disorder, supported by two doctors’ letters that are not among the collected pages; a WhatsApp chat with an officer (P-2); and Threads posts by Machrio (P-4, P-7). This analysis does not assess medical matters; it only looks at what the pages show about procedure.
2. The chat shows a reply, not silence. On Sunday 12 July 2026, two days before the first invitation, the officer (Brigadir Reza Noviardi) answered him within minutes: he told him to come to Polsek Bekasi Utara first, to explain at the office and bring his evidence, and to tell the unit chief, IPTU Ali Imron, so that “our chief also knows your condition”. When Rahmat said he could not reach the chief, the officer said he would pass it on the next day. The complaint’s point is that no formal response and no doctor’s consideration followed; the collected pages show none.
3. Attendance. The 8 July letter (B/54/VII/2026) invited him for Tuesday 14 July 2026; he did not come. On 31 July he came (his photo in front of the station carries the metadata time 09:11) and was examined, and says he cried and that this is not in the interview report (BAI). Machrio’s reply (P-7) says he failed to come “2 kali” (twice); the complaint says it was once.
4. The disclosure claim is unverified. The only evidence that the progress letter (SP2HP) mentions his crying is Machrio’s reply of 19 September: “LP ente ada 8, SP2HP gw ada Lo gak datang 2 kali.. tiap diperiksa nangis…” — it says he has an SP2HP, not what it says. The complaint itself writes “apabila klaim pihak pelapor benar” (“if the reporter’s claim is true”) and asks Propam to check; the pages do not show anyone having read the letter. The reply is mocking (“cengeng”, “nangis kek anak bayi kocak”). It was written under Rahmat’s own post of the same day, in which he shows himself at a police station and asks Machrio “mau ane kenain Pasal 433, 434, 441 apa nggak” — whether he wants to be charged under Articles 433, 434 and 441 (P-7).
5. The “leak” posts do not name him or the case. P-4 shows two replies by Machrio in a thread started by another user about “Somasi as a service & Professional Troublemaker”: “Beberapa sudah naik sidik tinggal menunggu gelar tersangka saja” and “Ahli bahasa sudah diperiksa, tinggal ahli pidana lalu gelar perkara Tersangka”. The visible text names neither Rahmat, the report number nor a police station. Machrio has at least two reports involving Rahmat — this one and the 17 July report in South Jakarta (doc-20260930-001) — so the posts could refer to either, or to other matters. The complaint asks Propam to check “sejauh mana” (how far) investigation information was passed on. In P-5 he asks the officer on WhatsApp “pak ini katanya machi udah ada ahli bahasa emang benar??”; no answer is visible. Above that question the chat appears to show him forwarding the officer a message about a legal guide from Infraloka with “bagus gk pak?” — the company that sent Bareskrim the book request in doc-20261007-001.
6. Law quotations. The complaint says all its quotations “telah dicocokkan” (have been checked) against the laws. Where we could compare with published summaries, they match: Article 4(1)(c) of Law 8/2016 and its explanation, which lists bipolar among psychosocial disabilities; Articles 7, 26, 143 and 145 (obstructing the rights in Article 143, up to 2 years and Rp200 million); and the conditions for restorative justice in Article 80 of the new Criminal Procedure Code (Law 20/2025). Published commentary also describes Article 30 as a duty to seek a doctor’s, psychologist’s or social worker’s view before examining a person with a disability. We could not check the wording of Article 30 or of the rest of Law 20/2025, and the official gazette was not accessible.
7. Restorative justice. He says it was never offered and that both offenses carry less than 5 years. As he quotes Article 81(1), restorative justice can also start with an application by the reported person or the victim, not only an offer by investigators; the collected pages show no application from him. Published reports say a Constitutional Court case (No. 245/PUU-XXIV/2026) was challenging the word “penyelidikan” in Article 79(8)(a) — the inquiry stage — when hearings began on 6 July 2026; we did not check the outcome.
8. Not shown to have been delivered. The collected pages show no stamp, receipt, agenda number or reply from Propam; the signature line has his typed name only. (The Bareskrim registry sheet he posted for a different letter shows what a receipt looks like: doc-20261007-001.) The missing pages 12 and 17 could change this.
9. Complaint numbers. The first part of the number looks like a running counter: 009 (14 August, to the Ministry of Higher Education, ev-20260814-001), 063 (11 September, to Bareskrim, ev-20260911-001) and now 087 (14 October). The month is in Roman numerals here (X) and in digits there (08, 09).
10. Same day. 14 October is also the day he was invited to the South Jakarta police as the reporter of an insult case (doc-20260930-002), a day before the interview in the case where he is the reported party (doc-20260930-001).

Legal references were compared with published summaries; the official gazette could not be accessed when this analysis was written.

Pages still needed

Pages 12 and 17.