Rahmat Wibowo's complaint to Polda Metro Jaya's Propam against the SPKT officers on duty when runner and MC Edho Budiman posted photos from the police service centre, which Rahmat filed as an onlooker and published after saying Edho had blocked him

What this document is

A Surat Aduan Masyarakat (public complaint), reference no. 092/ADUAN/RW/XI/2026, dated 10 November 2026, from Rahmat Wibowo to the head of the professional standards division (Kabid Propam) of the Jakarta Metropolitan Police (Polda Metro Jaya). It is typed without a letterhead and ends “Jakarta, 10 November 2026, Pengadu, Rahmat Wibowo”, without a signature. It runs to ten pages, four of them evidence photos. His identity card number, place and date of birth, address, phone number and email are masked with asterisks; his occupation is given as “Profesional / CEO Infraloka”.

He posted it on Threads on 9 November 2026 at about 20:14 WIB (ev-20261109-007), tagging Meta AI and asking it to “explain the power of my somasi”. In the post he wrote that he had just been blocked by the account @edho_budiman.

What it says

Subject. A complaint about an alleged breach of the police code of ethics by officers on duty at the SPKT and/or an investigation room of Polda Metro Jaya, “in connection with the taking and spreading of photos of the service room and officers by a party outside the police”.

I. Complainant. Rahmat Wibowo. Status: “Warga masyarakat yang mengetahui peristiwa melalui media sosial (bukan korban langsung)” (a member of the public who learned of the event through social media, not a direct victim).

II. Parties.

• Complained about: the officers on duty at the SPKT of Polda Metro Jaya, and officers in the investigation room (Ditreskrimum) “suspected” of appearing in a photo. Their identities are unknown to him; one photo (B-3) shows a female officer with the nameplate “WIDI” and an “SPKT” badge, whose face, he says, “is clearly visible”.
• Related party, not complained about: the owner of the verified Threads account @edho_budiman (“EDHO | Edy S. Budiman”, “MC | suka komentar seputar lari, makanan dan dunia beserta isinya”, about 12,400 followers). He “suspects” the owner is Edy Supriyadi Budiman, because the display name matches a student record under that name in the higher-education database (PDDikti), and says the match is unverified. The owner is a civilian outside Propam’s jurisdiction, named only as someone who could explain his permission to be there, and he makes no criminal claim against him.

III. Events.

1. On 9 November 2026 at about 19:12 WIB he found a post by @edho_budiman, shown as posted “1h” earlier, seen about 10,100 times, with 459 likes, 57 comments and 42 reposts (B-1).
2. The post read: “Apa yang kita lakukan pasti ada risikonya. Memperjuangkan hal baik pun tidak serta-merta berjalan mulus. Tapi yakinlah, akan selalu ada orang-orang baik yang membersamai. Demi warga bisa tetap lari dengan aman dan nyaman. Panjang umur perjuangan!” (Everything we do carries risks. Fighting for something good doesn’t always go smoothly. But believe that there will always be good people alongside us. So that people can keep running safely and comfortably. Long live the struggle!)
3. Its photos, he says, were taken inside the SPKT: banners on police services and how to file a report; the waiting room and counters, showing officers and other people dealing with their business (B-2), with a sign “DILARANG MENGAMBIL FOTO DAN VIDEO” (no photos or videos) by the counter (B-2a); and the female officer “WIDI” at her desk with a computer, a printer and a form (B-3).
4. He also “obtained” a selfie of two men giving a thumbs-up in a room with striped wood panelling like the background of B-3 (B-4). He suspects it shows the account owner with the duty officer, but says he cannot confirm who they are, whether either is a police officer, or whether the room is an investigation room.
5. He does not know whether the photos were taken with permission, but the sign shows that photography is prohibited. He asks Propam to examine whether the duty officers knew of, allowed or tolerated the breach.

IV. Legal basis “checked”. He states that all quotations “have been checked against the official text”. He cites Articles 5(1)(c) and (f), 10(1)(a)(1) and (d), and 7(c) and (e) of Police Regulation 7/2022 on the police code of ethics. He says he searched the new Criminal Code (Law 1/2023) and Criminal Procedure Code (Law 20/2025) and found no provision forbidding the public to take photos at an SPKT or in an investigation room, “therefore does not claim a criminal offence”. He asks Propam to compare the facts with internal rules on photography in service rooms, access to investigation rooms and the privacy of people dealing with cases.

V. Possible rebuttals. A table of six objections and his assessment of each: that the SPKT is a public space (answered by the sign); that the photos were taken with permission (“not yet refuted”; if so, whether permission was given to everyone or only to certain people, citing the ban on discrimination in Article 12(i)); that B-4 was not in an investigation room (“acknowledged” as unverified); that the account owner’s identity is unverified (“correct”); that the owner is not a police officer (“correct”); and that the visit was for a community activity (“the complainant does not assess the owner’s intent”). His conclusion: the complaint is about whether officers allowed photos showing officers, files and other citizens in a room with a no-photo sign, “not intended to accuse the account owner of a crime”.

VI. Evidence. B-1, a desktop screenshot of the post at 19.12 on Monday 9 November; B-2, the waiting-room photo; B-2a, a crop of the sign; B-3, the officer at her desk; B-4, the selfie; and B-5, a screenshot of the account’s profile, “available on examination”.

VII. Requests. To record the complaint; to identify the officer “WIDI”, the other SPKT and investigation-room officers on duty and the two people in B-4; to examine whether the photography was allowed under the standard procedures; to process any breach under Police Regulation 7/2022 or report in writing if none is found; to forward matters outside Propam’s remit; and to inform him of progress.

Complainant’s note. “Efforts to uphold the truth, whether by officials or by citizens, should be carried out properly and according to procedure, so as not to give the impression of seeking sensation. This complaint is made in good faith to ensure procedural compliance, not to hinder criticism or legitimate community activities.”

Observations

1. Not his business, by his own account. He describes himself as an onlooker who saw a post on social media, “not a direct victim”. Nothing in the complaint concerns him, his reports or his dealings with the police.
2. Within three hours, after being blocked. Edho’s post went up at about 17:26 WIB on 9 November. Rahmat screenshotted it at 19:12, and at about 20:14 posted this complaint, saying he had just been blocked by the account and that it was time to act. The complaint is dated the next day, 10 November.
3. A stranger’s identity from a student database. To name the account’s owner, he matched the display name “Edy S. Budiman” with a student record in the national higher-education database (PDDikti) and put the full name, which the account does not use, into a complaint he then published.
4. Complaining about others’ photos while publishing them. The complaint is about photos showing an officer, files and members of the public at the SPKT. He reproduced all of them in the complaint and posted it on Threads, with the officer’s nameplate “WIDI” spelled out in the text. He covered the officer’s face and one man’s face with emoji, but left the other man in B-4 uncovered.
5. The photographer is not the subject, in theory. He repeats that Edho is not complained about and is not accused of a crime, yet Edho is the only person named, his post is the only evidence, and the complaint was published under a post about being blocked by him.
6. “The power of my somasi.” In the post he asked Meta AI to “explain the power of my somasi”, the same boast he made about his mail receipts (ev-20261108-006). He tagged the national police public relations division, the Propam division and its community account, Polda Metro Jaya, PERADI, Pandji Pragiwaksono and dr. Tirta.
7. Another complaint to the same Propam. It is at least his third complaint to Polda Metro Jaya’s Propam, after complaint 001/ADUAN-PROPAM/RW/IX/2026 against Machrio Achmad Nurhatta and complaint 087/ADUAN/RW/X/2026 against the Bekasi Utara investigators handling Machrio’s report against him (doc-20261014-001). Its number follows his request 091 for progress on his 13 police reports and 36 complaints, dated the same day (doc-20261110-001).

The regulations he cites are quoted as he states them and have not been checked against the official texts.