The Role of an Individuals in Environmental Litigation: Legal Standing in State Administrative Court Jurisprudence

Environmental Dispute in Indonesia

Article 1 number 25 of Law Number 32 of 2009 on Environmental Protection and Management (“Indonesia Environmental Law”) that has been amended through Law Number 6 of 2023 on the Stipulation of Government Regulation in Lieu of Law Number 2 of 2022 on Job Creation into Law (“Job Creation Law”), has stipulated regarding environmental disputes, which are conflicts between two or more parties arising from activities that potentially and/or have impacted the environment.

Read Also: UU No 32 Tahun 2009 Tentang Perlindungan dan Pengelolaan Lingkungan Hidup dalam Satu Naskah

Following the enactment of the Job Creation Law, unlike the regulation on the environmental disputes in the criminal and civil courts, an explicit provision under the Indonesia Environmental Law regarding environmental cases in the realm of administrative law is no longer regulated. Accordingly, to file a claim on such matter may now refer to the Supreme Court Regulation Number 1 of 2023 on Guidelines for Adjudicating Environmental Cases (“Supreme Court Reg. on Environmental Case”).

As stated in Article 4 paragraph (1) of the Supreme Court Reg. on Environmental Case, environmental cases include administrative cases, as far as they are related to environmental protection and management efforts.

Referring to Article 13 of the Supreme Court Reg. on Environmental Case, both State Administrative Decision (“Keputusan Tata Usaha Negara/KTUN”) and Administrative Action may serve as the object of dispute in environmental administrative cases. In practice, these types of disputes often give rise to legal issues, one of which concerns the claimant’s legal standing.

Read Also: Authority Defects in State Administrative Law Jurisprudence

Given that the damages and/or losses caused by a KTUN or Administrative Action typically directly affect the environment rather than specific individuals, the claimant might not be the party to whom the KTUN or Administrative Action was specifically directed, nor someone who is directly and personally affected by it. This condition is frequently used by the defendant as a basis to challenge the claimant’s legal standing.

Legal Standing in Environmental Dispute

Concerning the legal standing in filing an administrative claim, Article 53 paragraph (1) of Law Number 9 of 2004 on Amendments to Law Number 5 of 1986 on State Administrative Court, has stipulated:

“Any person or civil law entity who feel that their interests have been harmed by a State Administrative Decision may file a written claim to the competent court containing a demand that the disputed State Administrative Decision be declared null and void or invalid, with or without a demand for compensation and/or rehabilitation.”

Considering that cases of environmental damages in a state administrative dispute often affect large number of people or even the entire communities, the prevailing laws and regulations have provided mechanisms such as class actions and the right of environmental organizations to claim.

However, this also leads to ongoing debate as to whether, in cases where environmental damage impacts large communities, an individual acting independently and not as a representative of the affected community has the legal standing to directly file a claim.

The following study case, through the Decision Number 277 K/TUN/LH/2024 will further examine whether the claimant in an environmental administrative dispute must be necessarily representing the interest of the affected community.

Jurisprudence Number 277 K/TUN/LH/2024 jo.  265/B/LH/2023/PT.TUN.JKT  jo. 59/G/LH/2023/PTUN.JKT

The Claimants are members of the community who live and reside in the areas near the mining site that is referred to in the object of dispute. As for the object of dispute, namely the Decision of the Minister of Environment and Forestry of the Republic of Indonesia Number: SK.854/MENLHK/SETJEN/PLA.4/8/2022 on the Environmental Feasibility of Zinc and Lead Mining Activities, addressed to a company that entered this case as Defendant II Intervention.

In this case, the Claimants essentially argued that the issuance of the object of dispute by the Defendant had violated the laws and regulations, the principles of environmental law, and the principles of good governance.

The Defendant in its exception argued that the Claimants did not have the legal standing to file an environmental administrative claim since they are not residents of the area in question as defined in the object of dispute and therefore do not have a direct interest that has been harmed. Furthermore, the Defendant noted that no construction or activities related to the actualization of the object of dispute had commenced.

Previously, Judex Facti of the first level of court through the Decision Number 59/G/LH/2023/PTUN.JKT, has stated:

“… The Claimants are members of the community… who feel that their interest have been harmed by the zinc and lead mining activities… and are filing a claim to defend the interest of the environment so that pollution and/or environmental damage does not occur, and it is the right of the community members to file a claim regarding environmental administrative dispute in order to obtain legal protection for the right to a good and a healthy environment…”

While the Claimants were initially found to have a legitimate interest in filing a lawsuit to protect the environment from pollution and/or damage, the decision was overturned on appeal, stating that the Claimants’ claim did not represent the entire community, as the majority of the community did not object the presence of Defendant II Intervention, when involving the local community in the preparation of their previous Environmental Impact Analysis (Analisis Dampak Lingkungan Hidup/ANDAL) Addendum.

However, the Court of Appeal decision was then overturned by the Supreme Court. Whereas in the legal considerations in Decision Number 277 K/TUN/LH/2024, Judex Juris argues:

“Although it is difficult to prove the presence of the community who attended the meeting representing the Claimant to discuss the process of preparing the Addendum to the Environmental Impact Analysis (ANDAL)… as a representative of the community, however, in environmental cases, individuals can also file a claim in court, especially since there is a statement of rejection by Dairi residents of zinc and lead mining activities…”

Concerning the legal standing of individuals as in the said case, Article 91 of the Indonesia Environmental Law has stipulates that:

“The community has the right to file a class action lawsuit for their own interests and/or the interests of the community if they experience losses due to environmental pollution and/or damage.”

Even further, when referring to the Supreme Court Reg. on Environmental Case, it has specifically stated regarding the legal standing to file an environmental administrative claim, namely:

“Individuals, legal entities, and/or environmental organizations whose interests have been or may potentially be harmed by State Administrative Decisions and/or Government Administrative Actions may file a claim in the State Administrative Court.”

Individual Legal Standing on Environmental Case

An environmental state administrative dispute is often filed on behalf of the broader affected communities. However, in the instances where such claims are initiated by individuals seeking to protect their personal interests arising from environmental damage and/or pollution caused by a KTUN or Administrative Action as illustrated in the jurisprudence discussed above, their legal standing may be challenged.

As in the above jurisprudence, while the Defendant may contest the Claimants’ legal standing, arguing that the Claimants lack sufficient interest, as they are not residents of the area as specified in the object of dispute, and thus are not the directly affected parties, the Supreme Court ultimately acknowledged the Claimants’ right to file the claim. Additionally, although the Judex Facti at the court of appeal held that the Claimants did not represent the interest of the wider community, the first level of court has previously recognized their right to claim based on the need to protect the environmental interests and to prevent potential environmental damages. Further, the Judex Juris affirmed that individuals also have the right to file such claim in environmental cases.

Ultimately, based on the jurisprudence above and the relevant laws and regulations, including the Indonesia Environmental Law and the Supreme Court Reg. on Environmental Case, individuals may still possess sufficient legal standing in environmental administrative disputes even when not acting as representatives of a particular community and only act based on their personal name.

---

Author

---

Co-authored by

---

---

Sources:

• Law Number 9 of 2004 on the Amendment of Law Number 5 of 1986 on State Administrative Court.
• Law Number 32 Year 2009 on Environmental Protection and Management.
• Law Number 6 Year 2023 on the Stipulation of Government Regulation in Lieu of Law Number 2 Year 2022 on Job Creation into Law.
• Supreme Court Regulation Number 1 of 2023 on Guidelines for Hearing Environmental Cases.
• Supreme Court Decision Number 277 K/TUN/LH/2024.
• Jakarta State Administrative High Court Decision Number 265/B/LH/2023/PT.TUN.JKT.
• Jakarta State Administrative Court Decision Number 59/G/LH/2023/PTUN.JKT.