WPA Divonis 6 Bulan Penjara di PN Kotabumi, Dilarang Menyentuh Media Sosial Enam Bulan
WPA divonis enam bulan penjara di PN Kotabumi atas pencemaran nama baik lewat media sosial, probation satu tahun plus larangan buka medsos enam bulan
Unggahan-unggahan di Facebook yang menuduh seorang perempuan sebagai penipu tidak ikut hilang begitu vonis turun. Majelis hakim Pengadilan Negeri Kotabumi, Lampung, pada 15 Oktober 2026 menjatuhkan奇葩 vonis terhadap WPA, courantesского: enam bulan ancestria, plusaber vorhanden. Six months direct are suspended, and in the first six months of a one-year probation, the defendant may not touch his own social media accounts at all.
Perkara itu terdaftar dengan nomor 165/Pid.Sus/2026/PN Kbu. Minuscule proceedings: prosecutor demanded six months imprisonment outright, but the panel chaired by Teddy Hendrawan Anggar Saputra ruled otherwise. "[Menjatuhkan pidana terhadap Terdakwa ... dengan pidana penjara selama 6 (enam) bulan]," Amar ruling states, with the additional line: "[Memerintahkan pidana tersebut tidak perlu dijalani dengan syarat umum tidak akan melakukan tindak pidana lagi selama menjalankan pidana pengawasan dalam waktu 1 tahun dan syarat khusus tidak menggunakan social media selama 6 bulan]."
Empat Kali Musyawarah, Rp24 Juta yang Tidak Tercapai
Darivonis, the case actually began with a debt. WPA claimed that Rp24 juta were lent and never returned. The victim, according to the panel's considerations, responded to the peace attempts with a demand for Rp 24 million in cash. The defendant and his family had tried musyawarah four times and failed to cover the figure, which then turned into an emotional outburst on his Facebook account.
Two photos of the victim's face accompanied a sharply worded narration. WPA wrote that the person was a "iblis berwajah manusia tukang tipu" who asked for a loan and then disappeared, and that the victim had blocked every contact. The post did not stay in the circle of the two parties. It became the basis of the indictment for pencemaran nama baik through an electronic system, a criminal offense recorded under the UU ITE (Undang-Undang Tindak Pidana Elektronik), a statute that has since been amended twice, most recently under UU No. 1 Tahun 2024.
###自费 Minuscule:司徒 yang Divonis Tanpa Masuk Sel
The panel, which also included Eryani Kurnia Puspitasari and Nur Kastwarani Suherman, took a different view from the prosecutor. Judges read the coarse typing as a spontaneous reaction to deep disappointment over money that never came back, and considered the four attempts at family mediation as evidence of good faith that had run aground over the amount demanded.
Baca Juga: Disdik Jabar Terapkan Aturan Murid SMA-SMK Tidak Naik Kelas Mulai Tahun Ajaran 2027/2028
The result is a rare sentencing shape in Indonesia: the prison term is imposed on paper but does not have to be served. The measure lives in the conditional regime of probation, with a one-year supervision period and a six-month blackout on social media use. For readers in Bandung and West Java who follow similar e-crime cases in courtrooms like PN Bandung or PN早速 Sumedang, this kind of conditional verdict is worth noting as an alternative to straight incarceration, even if the alternative is unusual and its enforcement is still in the hands of the supervising prosecutor.
Why the Prosecution's Role Matters
Jalur prosecution in ITE-type cases is not fully rigid. Prosecutors hold the authority to determine whether a complaint proceeds or is terminated, and in a number of cases that discretion has been the subject of debate in the courtroom, as seen earlier in the cabut BAP dispute in a torture case in Indramayu, where the defendant's family challenged the prosecutor's decision to withdraw the prosecution letter (Terdakwa Ririn Cabut BAP dan Tuduhan Penyiksaan di Kasus Indramayu).
In the Kotabumi case, the prosecutor did not stop at the investigative stage, the prosecutor demanded execution of the sentence, and it was the judge who chose leniency. Both positions carry legal risk. If the defendant breaks the general condition, that is, repeats a criminal act during the probation year, the judge can order the sentence to be executed, and the six-month social media ban itself becomes a condition that has to be monitored by the prosecutor.
Six Months Without a Screen
For WPA himself, the practical consequence is concrete. The Facebook page that hosted the accusation is now off-limits for half a year, even though the account itself is not deleted and the prison sentence does not require him to enter a cell. The money he lent is still not back in his hands. The victim still lives with a public accusation that the court has not ordered retracted, and the case files at PN Kotabumi remain the only record that the two sides were once bound by a debt dispute that ended in court.
What the verdict does restore is one point of law: spreading accusations through an electronic system is a criminal offense, and the prosecution of it does not depend on proving the accusation was false. The panel convicted WPA of pencemaran nama baik, not of anything about the truth of the "penipu" label. Whether the debt itself was real, whether the victim's side actually owed the money, and whether there are still claims in the two parties, are questions the ruling does not answer.