Supreme Court Decisions on Environmental Crimes in Indonesia: A Statistical Analysis of the 2020 - 2023 Period Overview onesia fsa significant contributor to the 75% of tata global sesh and Nigeria] While the ion isu has been of on ring the second halt of nat have emerges throughout the Jebodetabe are nanen, which is belleved to have a sting link to currently eitcal > been criticize for adapting 9 reactive er that alr petaton cual eauaped with the relevant beso ing existing environmental sues, However, the issue of the implementation of these ‘crimes are punishetle under Indonesian criminal av any stony ions ti <: LO) offers & discussion of the implementation of various envrenm he Supreme Cour as they relate tothe specific environmental crimes that are addressed unde Law No and Management (‘Law 32/2008) should be nosed that Law 32/2005 was proviously amen: he Government in Lit Creation (Regulation 2/2022), However, it rework of Law 32/2009 prir to its amendment. adelton, sid cases also rer to the Indonesian ‘nvonmental Protection again by Regulation of that are outhned in this ati se (Krab Undang-U 1 that ato adchossod in thie article will spoetialy refer to Regulhtion of the Supreme Court sos (Regulation 12025), Howox. ate under Regulatir ty implementa in telation ta any ofthe cases that are adresse in orzo the promulgation ef thisnew framework. anatels to enviranenent ceases that are covered by Law 32/2008. 1 hove been eategorzed as environmental criminal ‘Special Crimes & Environmental Crimes Rendered during the 2020 2023 period” “7 Our discussion of 2025 nas been limited due tothe fact that decisions rendered during 2023 have yet to ‘meet our imitations as tne relevant ils ave not yet publicly accessible, wn the relevant. decsions were ret specific tothe environmental crimes accessed Under the framework af Law 32/2009,vironmental crimes regulated under Law 32/2009 nupsleutusangmahkamansaung gol! Files on decisions andor summaries of decisions must be public The keynotes that were used dung dete colletian break down as fotos: Perlindungan Dan Pergelolaan Lingkungan Hidue*,“Lingkungan Hicup’ “Undang Rep lie Indonesia No, 32/2005 The filters at were use to navigate te crectory break down a2 fallow: Pidana Khusus 8 Lingkungan Hidup Wahkaman Agung oroughly analyzed in order to offer insights into the in-the-fiel implemen above. With the overall objective of providing a systematic and datadriven discussion of these maitets this elton of nto the folowing weston n tn limitations ans methods that ate summarized in the two tables above, wo have assembled a total of 26 cases which have Jon ef the various applicable laws and regulations that are Isted has been Croken down, | ldentitieation of Crimes: Types of Environmental Crimes under Law 32/2009 and the Regional Distribution of Crlmes in Practice 1 Proving Liability: Criminal Procoedings Relating to Environmental Crimes in Indonesia 1. The Imposition of Sanctions: The Status Quo and Room for Improvement |. Identification of Crimes: Types of Environmental Crimes under Law 32/2009 and the Regional Distribution of Crimes in Practice ‘As outlined above, ewvienmental cases relate to vaious malters thal ave specially regulated under the framework of Law 32/2008, slong with various implementing provisions and other sectoral laws and regultione/6] While the law ako mandates 4 ions of Lew 32/2009 are considered punishatle as criminal actions and are imposition of relevant er minal seretions. depending on tne types environmental crimes tat are committed The able below provides a summary ofthe ypes of wvionmental evimes that ate punishable ur ork of Law 52/2008 Intentional committing of acts that result in ambiont air quality standards, water qually Handards, seawater qualty standards or standard erteria for envrenmental damage being ‘exceeded o vilateo{) In cates where the relevant actions reeu in SSS injury to poopie, endangerment of hhuman health, serious injury anc/or ‘cts of negligence tha result» ambient ait qualty standards, water quality standards seawarer | death ‘uality standaras or stancara criteria for environmental damage being exceeded or violated 10} Criminal sanctions may only be imposed if Violations of qualy standards eating to wastewater oF emissions quality] ecined or if the relevant violations are commined repeatedly. Release ansior distribution of genetically engineered products into environmental mecla in Vielition of applicable laws and regulations or erwanmental pert 2 Production of hezardous and toxe waste finbah bohon berbahoya dan beracun "BS Waste’) without engaaing in waste management{I3) The dumping of waste is only permed in Engaging in the dumping of waste andlor materials into environmental mea without securing required permitsImporting of waste materials into Indonesian territory) Importing of BS Waste into Indonesion tortor) Importing efprohibited 83 waste into Indonesian territory Land burning Engagement in business andlor activities that result in casuatiskiamage to health. safety | this includes icenses that ae esued on the andlor the environment 3s performed without securing 20) Sen ec ere requirements or licenses for certain activities fog 83 Waste management, vaste dumping} (2) 1 Businesslicanses o” approvals from he relevant government oficial: 2 Approvals from the relevant govarnment oficial: oF {5 Approvals trom the central gavernment, Fappleable Officials lesue environmental approve without the necessary Envitonmental impact Analyste lAnalisis Mengenal Dameak Lingkungan ~ “AMDAL’) or Environmental Management Etforts ane Environmental Monitoring Effects (Upaya Pengeloloan Lingkungen don Upaya Pemantouen Lingkungan -"UKL-UPL') 122) Offieals ate reauved to supervise compliance with business licenses and ‘ther approvals (24) Officials intentionally donot implement supenision of compliance wth laws ang environmental permits by personnelin charge of businesses andlor activities 23], All persons who submit fake oF misleading Informatan, remove oF destey information of Submt incarect information in terme of information requited for supervision and law ‘enforcement efforts relating ta environmental protection and management [25] Personnel in charge of businesses andlor activities who refuse to comply with government coercion 26) Intentional prevention, obstruction or falure to execute the duties of environmental supervisors anojor civil sorrant investigators (22) {A total of Steen types of environmental crimes as summarized abave, are punishable under Law 32/2008, By scrutinizing a number of Supreme Court e 2020 - 2022 period, we have found thatthe mask commenly occurring erviranmmental PERCENTAGE ON THE TYPES OF ENVIRONMENTAL CRIMES BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT 23.1% 16.4% 19.2% 3.8% 17% 19.2% 17% 3.8% ‘The data presented above reveal that andior damage to the environment, 3 =pec'ficlly screed ‘clement of intention the crimes covered under Artie 98) af Law $2/2008 are not exclusively lmited o tne dec, tet-hand commiting at]Sus-LH/2018in whieh the perpetrator was found guilty under Article 98 I) of Law 32/2008 of intentionally ‘enabling, 2. Decision N 1298!) of Law 32/2009 0 Issuing orders to *, heted tat said articles ave now crested under Artcle 102 and ticle 108 of (267 during the 2020 - 2022 periog a total of Five ‘rtherrnore, a total of five case specifically adaressed u urt during the 2020 - 2072 period for che crime of land burning, as 1205, we found that Jettors wno nag been unaware that ther actions constituted cricrinal activity under Arce 108 of ahlighting the fact that @ substantial sof negligence and wore tries under Article 9) of Law 32/2008, Riau The chart below cffersa summary of REGIONAL DISTRIBUTION OF mee el la ae Vets) Es fovea) Coe i n“porat JawaBarst Ei lumately tee bet incvidual and corporateMe Y= em eI ely ited tL hoy 61.5% Cee ood BUSINESS SECTORS OR PROFESSIONS OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL CRIME PERPETRATORSIIL The Imposition of Sanctions: The Status Quo and Room for Improvement FINAL MERIT ON THE CASES OF ENVIRONMENTAL CRIMES BEFORE ‘THE SUPREME COURT oN cadTerm of imarisonment amounting to a minimurn of three years land » maximum of ten yeats and fines amounting ta minimum of Rp Sbillon and a maximum of Rp 10 lion, Iran act resale hea 1 Injuries andlor the endangerment of human Intentional committing of any act that results in the exceeding of the applicable ambient sirqually standards, wster-qualiy standar, | Term of imprisonment amounting toa minimum of four yeste and seawater-qually standards or standard citeria fer environmental | a maximum of twelve years and fines amounting to 8 minimum of ‘oamage 7 Rp. 4tillon and a maximum of Rp 12 Bilin, Iran act results in severe injuries or death Torm of imprisonment amounting 0 a minimum of fv years and ‘a maximum offiftesn years an fines arrourting to @ minimum of Rp Sbillon and 2 maximum of Ra. illon. Tllion and a maximum of Rp. 3 bilian, tran act results in injuries and/or danger to human health: Negligence that results In the exceeding of the applicable ambiont = | Term of imprisonment amounting toa minimum of wo years and ‘quality standards, water-qutliy standards seawater-qualy standards or | maximum of six years and fines amounting to a minimum of Rp. standard criteria for environmental damage 3) 2 lion and a maximum of 8p 6eillon, Iran act results in severe injuries or death Term of imorsonment amounting to @ minimurn of three yeors {and a maximurn of nine years and fines amounting to @ rinimurn ‘of Rp Sbillon and a maximum of Rp. 9 bilion Violations of quality standards for wastewater, emissions quality | Torm of imprisonment amounting to a maximum of tree years standards or quay standards fer welations (38) nd fines amounting to a maximum of Rp. 3 bilan. Release andlor distribution of genetical engineered products intohhrough environmental media in violation of apaticable laws and regulations or environmental permits) Term of imodsonment amounting toa minimum ef ene year and a maximum of tives years and fines amounting £9 @ minimum of, Lillion and 2 maximum of Rp. $ilion. Production of 5 Waste without the performance of ory waste management Dumping of waste andior material into environmental media without | Term of imprisonment amounting to a maximum of tnree years permitsi42) and ines amounting to maximum of 2p $bilion Importing of waste into Indonesian teritory/43] a maximum of twelve years and fines amounting to a minimum of Rp 4 illon and a maximum of Rp. 12.lion Importing of 8S Waste into Indonesian tetera] ‘a maximum offiftesn years and fines amounting to & minimum of Importing of prohibited BS Waste into Indonesian tertony a Term of imarsonment amounting to @ minimum of three years Land burning(4a land a maximum of ten yeas and fines amounting to minimurn (of Rp Sbillon and a maximum oF Rp 10 Bln,Fagosing in business andor activites that result in easuatiestiamage ‘whealtr safer andor the environment without fst securing. ‘Term of imprisonment amounting 29a minimum ef ene year anc a ‘Business lcanses or approvals from the relevant government | maximum of three years and fines amounting to minireum of Bp. oficial: Tilion and'a maximum of Rp. illon, 2 Approvals from the relevant government ota: oF 5 Agproval rom the central government it applicable, Officials who issue environmental approvals without the iswance of the | Term of imprisonment amounting to a masimum of three years relevant AMDAL or UAL-UPL 48] and fines amounting toa maximum of Rp. sbilion. Cfteals whe intentionally do not supervise cormallance with laws and ‘the environmental permits of personnel in charge of businesses andior activins 49) Term of imersonment amounting to a maximum of ene year of fines arounting toa maximum ofp. 500 milion. ‘Any persons whe provide false information, mislead, remove Information, destroy Information of provide incorrect information ragateing supervision and law enforcement relsting to environmental protection and management} ‘orm of imprisonment amounting toa maximum of one year and fines amounting ta maximum of Rp. illon. Personnel in charge of businesses andor activities who refuse to comply wath government coercion 5} Intentional prevention of obstruction of or fallure to execute the duties | Term of imprisanmmant amounting to @ maximum ofa year or fines ‘ofenvironmental supervisors afore sarvant investigators [52] amounting toa maximum of Rp, 500 milion ‘ofthe 26 Supreme Court decisions that we exarvined during the course af our research we found a numberof iffrert treatments in terms ‘ofthe macaition of sanctions after perpetrators haa been found guilty, a summarizad inthe chart below IMPOSITION OF CRIMINAL SANCTIONS FOLLOWING THE JUDGMENT OF THE SUPREME COURT 33.3% Q rvieewinewconio 29.6% QY v0w nein TA% e SSanetions are not imposed Tate QS 22.2% QQ sete catures 1 majority af decisions resulted in the imposition of sanctions that were in accordance with the sanction limit that hal bean stiulated for ions below nnetions ware imaged within the minimum an maxima {ch ofthe crimes commtec.Furthar Gerailson the imposition of criminal senctions ae st outin the su lof tre 28 cases addressed above, 296% of the sanctions were Imposed at ates under the minimum sanction mits set out under Law 32/2008. In total eight cases resulted in and the sanctions that were Imposed af levels below the minimum sanction limits set under Lawy $2009 fs summarized in the falloning tab: ‘8562 K/PID SUS LH/2020 ‘Sanetions wore deducted by the Court of Appeal{4267 KIPIDSUSA MOIS ‘The same sanction amount wes subsequently imposed by the District Court, 1382 K/PIDsUSI M2071 ‘Sanetions wore deducted by the Court of Appeal ‘Sanctions were imposed by the District Court but the perpetrator was found innocent by te 2751 K/ptD.sus/2022 Court of Appeal. However, at the Supreme Court level, the perpetator was found guilty and ‘was subject to the imposition of sanetions $3996 K/PIDSUS-L4/2020 ‘Sanetions were deducted by the Court of Appeal en ‘Adcitonal criminal sanctions that requited the repair ef the environment were imposed by the ‘Supreme Court 18s K/PIDSUs-L4/2020 ‘Sanetions wore deducted by he Court of Appeal “462 KIPIDSUSLN2072 Sanetions wore imposed bythe District Cour, ‘Adettonaleriminal sanctions requiring porpetr 12 t9 complete ervitonmental repairs were any imposed in 74% ofthe eases, which ‘corresponded to anly tw out of the total of 26 cates that we analyzed. These {Wo eases inves envtonmental ermes perpetrated by ‘carporatians that were ultimately held lable through direct corporate hablty, specifica: Decision No. 6978 K/PdSus-(4/2022 and Decision No, 3882 K/Pid sus/H/2022 similarities were found in both cases, special, the additional sanctions of being required to ‘engage in environmental ropalr efforts were included in the claims that were made in relation to sald corporations, starting from the relevant District Court proceedings. In compargon, the corporate environmental cme that was dealt with through the handing down af Decision No. 519 K/Pid-Sue- 1H72020 drt eeu inthe imposition of any such addtional sanctions ae 0 such claims had been included during the proceedings Utena ly then, tne concern is that criminal environmental law in Indonesia is fang =o impese ervircrmmental repair sanctions and ‘that thi state of afar wil nly change i demancl to aerform environmental repairs are include az apart af the claims that are made in relation to perpetrators instad of ming sid elas o the sanetions that are set out under Law 52/2008, Sanctions Were Not imposed on Perpetrators ‘these cases, the defendants were conditionally released on tne bass of Article [a] of KUHP, Under Decision No. 82 K/PidSus-.+/2022, the ce‘endant was charged with engaging in business activites without First securing an Cevrormental permit. Subsequently, despite having been found gully, the defendant was conditionally released of determined that the damage that the business had caused wes of a reasonable scale and that the defendant had handed thelr business assets over toa party who had secured the requlred envrcnmental permit In contrast, Decision No. £788 K/Pid Sus-LH/2022 resulted in the defendant being fourd quily of managing BS Waste without fist securing permission but was subsequently condionally released after the court determined thar there was no alect causalty between the conauct ofthe defercant and the environmental darnage in question. innpesed unon defendants may vary depending on the scale of the damage committed and inline wth other considerations ofthe 11 8 ron, “ret man Yam reso pale baton trian eek ie SheSt, meres shon SHAK saree con fit an seemed treat 1 Yok, Mone PA Menge Atot Pau) Uso af Jetestatet” or aceon meg ieluuincneacir ae eeraminentsnieciae abeuetenmssineajon20howbe ZL | 55c Indanes, “IE ntlon Jepezan erpat pertohoa> panetet ele! users wane Mennca! Renapo baru seaang?” at seeuted chauat acute cntasaecanaikas lana on 22 Now 1 Mama, “na Th Baa Unghie J dan Mine Ketan Ugh osx og barn Peds cing 2 an 2 Mo 228, (a torees"Aerepoan Hur nghingon He Be Je seemed ro ie nna laa Aacetmpanaeeaab he Ingeaa: ‘dna pt need past pack en d® Newb 228Dan a tagtion v0 Ip Ar eanepaiten teas wan ona soon yar om tewoce w ara tan 2008 user naw, a A anason spr aktaw no0e Petey aaron tan hoon aac ontew aan lancom nesa008 2yane 2619 601 58M 0} anda i LeeaaoCS Liar can sonoo8 aaa as 2508 29am an s08 nan ns ane aan egutton 2028 tr 6 a Aon 28, (ai agen Yas ayn gto vas (a6 pion Yas (247 70 Rut 028 2g eta. tepien 20 (tar a 008 aan. ows, (alan oy m0, apron as008 (tan oe tan 3008 are oem, ep amventans 2603 aye izastoo8 (ear on am2008, an rasan mie ater raw (Bena tne 28muxum oa san Huu tokumenting antone Reukunconclnas a satan com aon ay st (Ao amie he 3118 Srausans Ho apy pues, oxen e2 vane va ta Oo a cerarontncire q sxissighmoninacom eoney