Anton Permana's post is a study, the reporter does not understand

KONFRONTASI -  The follow-up session of DR. Anton Permana in the case of alleged hoaxes and hate speech was held again at the South Jakarta District Court, Monday morning, May 3, 2021.
The agenda for the hearing this morning was to continue the statement of the reporter / fact witness Bro. Guntur Romli. In this case, Guntur was not present on behalf of the party but from an Indonesian cyber organization.

In the report last Sunday, the fact witness stated that what he conveyed regarding the assessment of the defendant's writing was the personal opinion of the fact witness. The witness also explained that he read Anton Permana's post not from Anton's personal account, but from a screenshot of the post he got from someone else, which later the defendant's writing was used as the basis for the report that the defendant was considered to be a hoax, spreading hate news.

In the hearing this morning the defendant's legal counsel conducted a deepening by asking for fact-witness testimony on the witness's report which stated that the defendant's writing was a hoax and spread hatred.
"Did the witness understand what the defendant wrote," asked the legal advisor to the witness, to which the witness then replied "don't know."

"The next question is, does the witness know that the defendant's writing that you are reporting is a study?" Don't know Sir, the witness replied.
In the hearing, the PH protested that what the witnesses conveyed was their own opinion, and this could not be accepted as a witness, because the testimony was based on the witness's personal opinion.

Furthermore, in the press statement after the trial, the defendant's legal advisor said that what the defendant had written was the defendant's study of Indonesian Defense and Security. The study conducted by the defendant is his obligation as an alumnus of the National Defense Institute in observing developments in national defense.
"The defendant was educated by Lemhanas to be able to make studies related to national defense. In his study, the defendant found a shift in the defense function of the security institutions in various aspects, including related to weapons, territory, budget and handling of terrorists," said Syamsiar attorney Anton Permana.
So what the defendant wrote, which later reported his writing as hoax news and slandering hatred was groundless, because what the defendant wrote was a study, even in that study many of his statements were sourced from high-ranking state officials, and the evidence could be seen from many media, such as statements. one of the state officials who said that the TNI's organic weapons were less sophisticated than the Polri, there was a role for the TNI which was shifted by the Police, etc.

From the observation, the defendant brought 2 suitcases containing documents and references from the Lemhanas regarding his study.
"That the defendant is an alumnus of LEMHANAS (National Defense Institute), the former Chairman of the FKPPI, an organization of the TNI / Polri Family in Batam City, a partner consultant to the Ministry of Defense (Menhan), military researchers, as well as an active member of the Tanhana Dharma Mangrava Intitute, an organization of the Official LEMHANAS alumnus who focus on the field of National Defense, which was founded by General (ret) Alm. Djoko Santoso, "explained Syamsiar.
Then related to the defendant's study that is being tried is the defendant's study / research which is taken from many sources, among the 80% from the TNI Kodiklat (Education and Training Command), etc. This study can be consumed by anyone, even this study has been used by several institutions, because the contents of the study contain things that contain positive and solution values.

"Regarding the abbreviation NKRI which stands for the State Police of the Republic of Indonesia, the defendant quoted from Media Tempo, and this has also been said by many figures and observers. figures, "concluded the Senior Advocate.
In this trial, Anton Permana was charged with Article 45A paragraph 2 in conjunction with Article 28 paragraph 2 of the ITE Law as well as Article 14 paragraph 1 and paragraph 2 as well as Article 15 of the Law on Criminal Law Number 1 Year 1946 and also Article 207 of the Criminal Code, with a threat of 10 years.(Juft/INDONESIAMASNEWS)