The findings matter because they directly impact how corporations are held accountable for environmental damage, especially in high-risk sectors such as palm oil, forestry, and mining.
Corporate Pollution and Legal Uncertainty
Environmental pollution by corporations remains one of Indonesia’s most pressing legal and policy challenges. Large-scale industrial activities have contributed to forest fires, land degradation, and air and water pollution, often causing massive economic and ecological losses.
Indonesia’s legal framework, particularly Law No. 32 of 2009 on Environmental Protection and Management (UUPPLH), provides two main civil liability mechanisms:
- Fault-based liability (Article 87), which requires proof of negligence
- Strict liability (Article 88), which holds corporations responsible without requiring proof of fault
In theory, strict liability is designed to protect victims and simplify legal processes. In practice, however, its application has been inconsistent across courts.
How the Study Was Conducted
The research by Grace L.D. Lingga and her colleagues uses a normative legal approach, focusing on legal texts and court decisions rather than field experiments.
The team analyzed:
- Key provisions in UUPPLH and the Indonesian Civil Code
- Four final court rulings from two major peatland fire cases (2015–2017)
- Legal reasoning applied by judges at both district and appellate levels
The cases examined involved:
- PT Bumi Mekar Hijau (BMH)
- PT Waringin Agro Jaya (WAJ)
Both cases occurred in Ogan Komering Ilir (OKI), South Sumatra, and involved large-scale environmental damage caused by fires on peatland ecosystems.
Key Findings: Three Patterns of Judicial Disparity
The study identifies three consistent patterns of disparity in how courts apply strict liability under Article 88:
- BMH case: initial rejection of claims
- WAJ case: strict liability applied, with substantial compensation and environmental restoration ordered
The Root Cause: A Vague Legal Standard
The study identifies a single underlying issue: the phrase “serious threat to the environment” in Article 88 lacks a clear definition.
There are no measurable criteria for:
- The scale of environmental damage
- The type or concentration of pollutants
- The geographic scope of impact
- The likelihood of environmental recovery
As a result, judges interpret the same legal provision differently based on their own reasoning, experience, or available expert testimony.
Grace L.D. Lingga of Universitas Negeri Manado emphasizes that this ambiguity creates “open interpretive space” that leads directly to inconsistent rulings and weakens the effectiveness of environmental law enforcement.
Implications for Justice and Policy
The study shows that Indonesia’s environmental legal system struggles to balance three fundamental legal values:
- Legal certainty: weakened by unclear legal definitions
- Utility: inconsistent application reduces effectiveness
- Justice: victims may receive different outcomes depending on the court
In some cases, affected communities do not receive adequate compensation or timely environmental recovery. This inconsistency also reduces the deterrent effect on corporations, potentially allowing harmful practices to continue.
From a policy perspective, the findings highlight the urgent need for clearer legal standards and stronger institutional coordination.
Real-World Impact and Recommendations
The research offers practical recommendations for improving environmental governance in Indonesia:
- Legislative reform: Clearly define “serious threat” using both qualitative and quantitative indicators, such as irreversible damage and measurable pollution thresholds
- Judicial guidance: The Supreme Court should issue standardized guidelines to ensure consistent interpretation of Article 88
- Executive action: Government agencies should develop technical frameworks for assessing environmental damage and liability
- Capacity building: Judges and legal practitioners should receive training in environmental science and ecological risk assessment
According to the authors from Universitas Negeri Manado, strengthening the clarity of legal norms is essential to ensure that strict liability functions as intended: protecting victims and holding polluters accountable.
Author Profile
- Grace L.D. Lingga – Legal scholar, Faculty of Social Sciences and Law, Universitas Negeri Manado; expertise in environmental law and corporate liability
- Engeli Y. Lumaing – Researcher in legal studies and public policy, Universitas Negeri Manado
- Stince Sidayang – Lecturer and legal researcher focusing on environmental governance and civil liability
Source
Lingga, G.L.D., Lumaing, E.Y., & Sidayang, S. (2026). Corporate Liability in Environmental Pollution Cases: An Analysis of the Strict Liability Principle in Indonesian Jurisprudence. Formosa Journal of Multidisciplinary Research, Vol. 5 No. 3, pp. 969–980. DOI: https://doi.org/10.55927/fjmr.v5i3.30
0 Komentar