Rahmat Wibowo's complaint to the Jakarta police chief over photos posted from the police service centre by Edho Budiman and lawyer Machrio Achmad Nurhatta, which says it alleges no crime but reproduces the same photos of an officer and other citizens

What this document is

A Surat Aduan Masyarakat (public complaint), reference no. 097/ADUAN/RW/XI/2026, dated 12 November 2026, from Rahmat Wibowo to the chief of the Jakarta Metropolitan Police (Polda Metro Jaya). It is typed without a letterhead and runs to 19 pages, “Halaman 1 dari 19” to “Halaman 19 dari 19”: six pages of complaint followed by the evidence. His ID number, date of birth, address, phone number and email are masked with asterisks in the copy shown here. It carries the same number, 097, as his somasi to Paper.id of the same day. He posted all 19 pages on Threads himself that afternoon, asking Meta AI to explain it and tagging PERADI, entertainers and two TV stations.

What it says

Subject. “A public complaint about the taking and spreading of pictures of the service room and of the handling of police reports by parties outside the police (Sdr. Edy Supriyadi Budiman and Sdr. R. Machrio Achmad Nurhatta, S.H., M.H.), and alleged neglect by the officers on duty.”

Status of the complainant. For part A (Edho Budiman), “the Complainant learned of it through social media and is not a direct victim”. For part B (Machrio), “the Complainant is suspected to be the party referred to as ‘Plenger’” in the lawyer’s posts, “and so has a direct interest”.

The parties complained about.

• Edy Supriyadi Budiman (“suspected”), owner of the Threads account “edho_budiman”. Rahmat “suspects” the verified account “EDHO | Edy S. Budiman” belongs to Edy Supriyadi Budiman, “based on the similarity of the display name with the student biodata in the higher-education database (PDDikti) under the name Edy Supriyadi Budiman”, which he says he has not verified.
• R. Machrio Achmad Nurhatta, S.H., M.H. (“Machi Achmad”), an advocate whose name is printed in the complainant column of the documents in his stories.
• The police officers on duty, whom he asks to be identified: “(a) the female officer with the nameplate ‘WIDI’ and the ‘SPKT’ emblem in photo B-3; (b) other SPKT duty officers and investigation-room officers on duty when the photos in Part III.A were taken; (c) SPKT officers and investigators on duty when the documents and rooms in Part III.B were photographed; and (d) the two people in photo B-4.”

He notes that neither Edy nor Machrio is a police officer, so neither can be examined under the police code of ethics; “this complaint does not seek criminal charges against Sdr. Edy and does not contain any new criminal allegation against Sdr. Machrio”, whose alleged offences are “set out separately in Complaint No. 008/ADUAN/RW/09/2026”.

III.A. The Threads post. On 9 November 2026 at about 19.12 WIB, @edho_budiman posted: “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 has risks. … So that citizens can keep running safely and comfortably. Long live the struggle!), with photos of the SPKT banners, waiting area and counter, where a sign reads “DILARANG MENGAMBIL FOTO DAN VIDEO”, and of a female officer with the nameplate “WIDI” at her desk. He also “obtained” a selfie of two men giving a thumbs-up in a room with similar wood panelling, which he “suspects” shows the account owner with a duty officer, though he “cannot yet confirm the identity of the two people”.

III.B. Machrio’s Instagram stories. Seven screenshots, posted “around June to August 2026”, of the lawyer filing reports against “Plenger”, with captions including:

• “Bikin LP Atas nama Sendiri … Korban2 dugaan pemerasan dan Pengancaman banyak yang mau bersaksi … Ini baru LP Pertama” (Filing a police report in my own name … many alleged victims of extortion and threats want to testify … This is only the first report);
• “Pemeriksaan LP ke 2 terhadap Plenger ‘Pengancaman Pembunuhan’” (Examination of the 2nd report against Plenger, “death threat”), with the hashtag #polripresisi;
• “LP ke-3 buat si Plenger. Kawal semua sampai Penjara” (3rd report for Plenger. Escort everything all the way to prison);
• “LP ke-6 buat si Plenger. Setiap LP tidak ada yang sama Laporannya. Setiap LP 5-6 Fitnah Pencemaran / Ancaman Kekerasannya … Sejak 2015 jadi Lawyer baru Kali ini buat LP dan bertubi2” (6th report for Plenger. No two reports are the same. Each report has 5–6 counts of slander, defamation or threats of violence … A lawyer since 2015, and this is the first time I have filed reports, one after another);
• “LP ke-7 buat si Plenger. Doi minta di PMJ maka gw Kabulin. 1 Polda + 3 Polres + 3 Polsek … Btw Si Plenger kemarin ke PMJ + Curcol Nangis Pula. Curhat ttg Keluarga dan Bipolarnya” (7th report for Plenger. He asked for it at Polda Metro Jaya, so I granted it. 1 regional police + 3 district police + 3 sector police … By the way, Plenger came to PMJ yesterday and cried too, venting about his family and his bipolar disorder);
• “LP ke-8 buat si Plenger. Udah di undang di 2 Kantor Polisi, Plenger Gak dateng. Gak Sabar nunggu nanti dijemput Paksa. Sedang memantau untuk LP ke-9” (8th report for Plenger. Invited to two police stations, Plenger didn’t come. Can’t wait for him to be picked up by force. Monitoring for the 9th report).

He says what he disputes “is not Sdr. Machrio’s right to report”, but the photos taken in service and examination rooms, the publication of the progress of reports, the information about his own visit to Polda Metro Jaya, the hashtag #polripresisi, and the handling of the reports across seven units.

IV. Legal basis. He cites the police code of ethics (Perpol 7/2022) for officers’ duties of professionalism and confidentiality. On the new Criminal Code and Criminal Procedure Code he writes that he “found no provision that expressly prohibits citizens from taking photos in the SPKT service room” or in investigation rooms, and therefore “does not state that any crime has occurred in this complaint and does not cite any specific criminal article”.

V. Anticipated rebuttals. He concedes that the identity of @edho_budiman is “not yet verified”, that the location and people in the selfie are unverified, that Machrio “has the right to his receipt”, and that the stories are months old. He concludes: “This complaint is not meant to accuse Sdr. Edy or Sdr. Machrio of committing a crime.”

VI. Evidence. Screenshots of the Threads post (B-1), the SPKT waiting area and counter (B-2, with a crop of the sign as B-2a), the female officer “WIDI” at her desk (B-3), the selfie of the two men (B-4), and Machrio’s stories (C-1 to C-7). He offers to hand over the original files and show the links to the examiners.

VII. Requests. Ten requests to the police chief, among them: forward the complaint to the head of Propam; “identify the officer with the nameplate ‘WIDI’ in Evidence B-3”, the other SPKT and investigation-room officers, “and confirm the identity of the two people in Evidence B-4”; examine whether the photos were taken with permission; establish the source of the information about his visit to Polda Metro Jaya; ask Edy Supriyadi Budiman and Machrio for clarification; “coordinate the handling of the reports filed by Sdr. R. Machrio Achmad Nurhatta at one regional, three district and three sector police offices so that summonses and examinations are proportional and procedural”, with every summons sent to him in writing; and report the outcome to him.

Complainant’s note and signature. “The Complainant takes the view that efforts to uphold the truth, whether by officers, advocates or citizens, should be carried out properly and according to procedure, so as not to give the impression of seeking sensation.” It is signed “Jakarta, 12 November 2026”, “Pengadu, Rahmat Wibowo”, with the signature space left blank in this copy.

Observations

1. The same photos, again. The complaint is about photos of an officer, her desk and other citizens at the SPKT being shared. It reproduces those photos in full, with the officer’s face and nameplate, the citizens in the waiting area, and a selfie of two men whose identities he admits he does not know.

2. A name from a student database. He names the Threads account’s owner by a full name taken from a student record in PDDikti, “suspected” on the basis of a display name, and repeats it in the subject line. He did the same in his complaint to Propam two days earlier, filed after he said the account had blocked him (ev-20261109-007).

3. “Not a direct victim”, “no crime”. By his own account he is an onlooker to the first incident, finds no rule that the photos broke, alleges no crime and accuses no one, yet asks the regional police chief to identify and examine officers by name.

4. Eight police reports. The stories he submits show a lawyer saying he filed at least eight reports against “Plenger” for defamation and threats, across one regional, three district and three sector police offices, which Rahmat himself identifies as about him. Among his requests is that those reports be “coordinated” and every summons sent to him in writing; in the lawyer’s words, he had not come when invited by two police stations. His own videos about the lawyer in July threatened “maximum legal action” against him and his employees.

5. “The impression of seeking sensation.” He closes by saying that efforts to uphold the truth “should be carried out properly and according to procedure, so as not to give the impression of seeking sensation”. In the months covered here he published numbered “Bowo Files” on YouTube telling viewers to “check at the police” and read a “final official warning” to the same lawyer on camera.

The police reports and the earlier complaint numbers are as the documents state them and have not been verified.