Rahmat Wibowo's reply to Rama Abdurachman's emailed apology, which calls the apology a “written admission”, counts it as only half because Rama declined to pay Rp533 million, asks Rama to name a counter-offer and keeps the 17 November deadline

What this document is

A Surat Tanggapan (response letter), no. 094/TANGGAPAN/RW/XI/2026, dated Tuesday, 10 November 2026, from Rahmat Wibowo, “acting for myself as the injured party”, to “Abdurachman Ramadhan, S.H. (Rama Abdurachman, Threads account @ramaabdr)”, founder of Master Legal Solution, copied to “Arsip” (file). It answers the reply Rama emailed at 05:18 WIB that morning to Rahmat’s somasi 093 (doc-20261110-003), which Rahmat had posted on Threads about an hour earlier (ev-20261110-001). It runs to seven pages; page 6 (the rest of section IV and section V) was not shown. He posted it on Threads at about 10:19 WIB the same day, five hours after Rama’s apology. Rama’s reply itself is doc-20261110-005.

What it says

Opening. Rama’s reply was signed “Abdurachman Ramadhan” and sent from Master Legal Solution’s address, so Rahmat treats the identification in his somasi, including the PKPA certificate, as “not denied and now confirmed by you”. “I appreciate that you answered. But an answer is judged by its content.”

I. What Rama “admits”. Rahmat lists five statements from Rama’s letter and records them “as your written admission”: that Rama knew of Rahmat’s health condition from Rahmat’s own public statements; that his choice of words was inappropriate; that the post contained “expressions demeaning [Rahmat] personally and [his] health condition”; that Rama apologises and withdraws them; and that he will not repeat them. Rahmat says the first and third answer the questions of intent and stigma under the Disability Law, and that Rama’s statement that the apology is not an acceptance of Rahmat’s legal conclusions “does not change the facts you admitted”.

II. Inconsistencies. A ten-row table setting each statement in Rama’s letter against his post of 12 October, under the heading “logical flaws / double standards”. Among Rama’s statements, as Rahmat quotes them:

1. that mentioning medication was meant “to remind of the importance of looking after one’s health and getting professional support”;
2. “I did not mean to assess your diagnosis or its treatment”;
3. “decisions about care or consultation are your right; I respect that”;
4. that he knew of Rahmat’s condition from Rahmat’s own public statements;
5. “I apologise for the choice of words in my comment that offended you”;
6. a reference to ultimum remedium, criminal law as a last resort;
7. “I hope we can stop the personal debate and refocus on work and useful activities”;
8. (the letter’s legal format and reference to criminal-law principles);
9. “I withdraw the demeaning expressions … and will not repeat them”, made in a private email;
10. “I do not agree with the basis or the amount” of the damages, and “I remain open to discussing a fair settlement”.

Rahmat’s answers include: the post contained no word about health or support; calling someone “cacat mental” is itself an assessment; his openness about his condition is “not a licence to be insulted”; the apology covers word choice but not the factual claim that police laughed at him and sent him home; Rama “laughs at people who use the complaint route, then shelters behind a principle so as not to be complained about”; Rama questioned others’ credentials (“no PKPA”) although his own PKPA certificate is dated 27 October 2025, “less than a year before the post”, “and I never claimed to be an advocate”; the insult was public but the withdrawal private; and under Article 1374 of the Civil Code an apology is made “without reducing the obligation to pay damages”, so “apologising while refusing any restitution is only half of what you admitted”.

III. Status of the demands. Confirmation of receipt: met. Deleting the post: “not yet stated”. Public apology on Threads for 30 days, withdrawing “diketawain disuruh pulang”: “not yet”. Stopping statements about his health, disability or intelligence: “written commitment, not yet proven”. Rp533,333,333.34: “refused without reason and without an offer”. Written confirmation: “not yet”.

IV. His position.

1. He accepts communicating by email, as Rama proposed.
2. He records the apology by email “but it does not cancel the demands”; he accepts it “as a first step”.
3. The deadline is unchanged: Tuesday, 17 November 2026, 17:00 WIB, for all five demands.
4. Before then Rama must answer in writing: whether the post has been deleted and a public apology published as demanded; the source of “Pas lapor polisi, ditanya sama penyidik diketawain disuruh pulang”, or else withdraw it publicly; and the concrete reasons for objecting to the damages, “with the figure you offer, so that the discussion can be assessed”.
5. Talks by email do not suspend the time limits for a criminal complaint or a civil claim, and he reserves all his rights, including a criminal complaint under Article 434. The rest is on the missing page 6.

VI. Evidence. T-1, the header of Rama’s reply: from “Master Legal Solution Indonesia”, to Rahmat, 10 November 2026, 5:18 AM, “Re: Somasi Hukum No. 093/SOMASI/RW/XI/2026 — Rama Abdurachman — 10 November 2026”.

Observations

1. An apology within the hour. Rahmat posted the somasi at about 04:14 WIB. Rama answered at 05:18 with an apology, a withdrawal of the words and a promise not to repeat them. Rahmat’s seven-page answer is dated the same day.
2. The apology recast as an admission. Rahmat records each sentence of the apology as a “written admission” to be used on intent and stigma, quoting Rama’s private email at length, and then posts the letter on Threads, so that an apology Rama made privately is published with Rahmat’s commentary on it.
3. The money is the sticking point. Every demand that costs Rama nothing beyond words is acknowledged, at least in part; the one he calls “refused” is the Rp533 million. Rahmat cites the Civil Code to say an apology does not reduce the duty to pay, calls an apology without payment “only half”, and asks Rama to name his own figure.
4. His own credentials, and Rama’s. He faults Rama’s advocate training for being recent, while noting that he himself has never claimed to be an advocate. In the somasi he had conceded that “not a law firm, not a notary, no PKPA” was true of himself (doc-20261110-003).
5. “Ultimum remedium”, refused. Rama invoked the principle that criminal law is a last resort. Rahmat answers that the Criminal Code requires only a victim’s complaint within six months, not prior clarification, and keeps a criminal complaint under Article 434, carrying up to four years, on the table over a seven-like reply that has been apologised for.

Legal references are as he states them and have not been checked against the official texts.

Pages still needed

Page 6 (the rest of section IV and section V).