Normative juridical analysis of strict liability in environmental cases

The Indonesian Supreme Court rejected the cassation and imposed a fine of IDR 199 billion on PT. Rambang Agro Jaya (RAJ), a subsidiary of Malaysia’s Kulim Berhad, for a 500-hectare forest and land fire case in Ogan Komering Ilir Regency, South Sumatra. This study aims to conduct a normative juridical analysis of the courts’ decision, holding PT. Rambang Agro Jaya was strictly liable for the environmental damage caused by the fire. The research reveals: (1) Central Jakarta District Court Decision No. 445/Pdt.G/2019/PN Jkt.Pst establishes strict liability and orders the Defendant to pay material losses totaling IDR 137.57 billion. (2) Jakarta High Court Decision No. 398/PDT/2021/PT DKI upholds the Central Jakarta District Court’s decision, reinforcing strict liability and increasing the total compensation to IDR 199.57 billion. (3) Supreme Court Decision No. 2196 K/PDT/2022 rejects PT. Rambang Agro Jaya’s cassation confirmed the Defendant’s unlawful actions and strict liability and imposed a material loss compensation of IDR 199.57 billion. The rulings signify a progressive step in enforcing environmental responsibility, with the substantial fine signaling a strict stance against ecological violations. The Supreme Court’s consistent rejection of cassation strengthens legal certainty and establishes a robust legal precedent for similar future cases, and underscores the significance of corporate accountability in promoting environmental sustainability.


Introduction
In 2019, forest fires and land degradation emerged as a global issue [1].Indonesia has been grappling with persistent forest and land fires for an extended period [2].Forest and land fires are a recurring phenomenon in Indonesia, posing significant harm to the environment and human well-being almost annually [3], [4].The historical record of forest fires, as indicated by the Ministry of Environment and Forestry data, traces back to the early 1980s.Subsequently, these fires have been transpiring at an average annual rate of 46,882.25 hectares (ha) [5].
In 1982-83, Indonesia faced a significant forest fire, witnessing the burning of approximately 3.6 million hectares of tropical rainforest only in East Kalimantan.This event garnered global attention, as tropical rainforests, typically perceived as humid and always wet, were unexpectedly ablaze.The occurrence was particularly striking, given the common belief that such forests remain evergreen and fire-resistant.Due to its simplicity and effectiveness, traditional farming practices in Indonesia have employed fire as a clearing tool for centuries-forest fires in Kalimantan date back at least to the 17th century.Despite historical records and evidence of charcoal in soil profiles, fire is considered endemic in tropical rainforests, with rare instances occurring for hundreds to thousands of years [6].The case of a 500-hectare forest and land fire in Ogan Komering Ilir Regency, South Sumatra, as per the Central Jakarta District Court Decision No. 445/Pdt.G/2019/PN Jkt.Pst, Jakarta High Court Decision No. 398/PDT/2021/PT DKI, and Supreme Court Decision No. 2196 K/PDT/2022, which found PT.Rambang Agro Jaya, guilty of the forest fire and established strict liability, indicates a deterrent effect has not been achieved.Despite numerous previous court decisions imposing penalties on various companies responsible for forest fires, the recurrence of such incidents persists.The Tempo Institute, supported by the International Media Support, reported that there have been five forest and land fires within the concession of PT.Rambang Agro Jaya in the last six years [7].The Tempo Institute also asserts numerous indications strengthening the argument that the forest and land fires in the concession area of PT.Rambang Agro Jaya are intentional [8].
Despite the recent legal actions taken against PT.Rambang Agro Jaya for a significant forest and land fire case, the recurrence of such incidents persists, indicating a limited deterrent effect.While imposing substantial fines and establishing strict liability, the existing legal decisions have yet to prevent similar ecological violations by other companies effectively.This raises concerns about the overall effectiveness of the legal framework in promoting environmental responsibility and preventing forest and land fires.
This study aims to conduct a normative juridical analysis of the legal decisions, particularly focusing on the case of PT.Rambang Agro Jaya, to evaluate the efficacy of strict liability in addressing environmental damage caused by forest and land fires

Methodology
This study utilizing a juridical-normative approach serves as a comprehensive guide to the research design and analytical framework employed in the study.In normative legal research, the methodology is crucial for establishing a systematic and logical foundation for analyzing legal norms and principles.The following components are integral to the method of a juridical-normative study: In the initial phase, the research begins by identifying and formulating the legal issues or problems under consideration.This involves comprehensively examining relevant legal doctrines, statutes, and precedents to pinpoint gaps, ambiguities, or inconsistencies within the legal framework [9].The specific focus of this study revolves around three key legal decisions: the Central Jakarta District Court Decision No. 445/Pdt.G/2019/PN Jkt.Pst [10], Jakarta High Court Decision No. 398/PDT/2021/PT DKI [11], and Supreme Court Decision No. 2196 K/PDT/2022 [12].Second, conducting an extensive literature review is imperative to familiarize oneself with existing legal scholarship, theories, and jurisprudential perspectives related to the identified legal issues.This step helps establish the normative analysis's contextual background and theoretical framework.Third, building on the analysis of legal sources, the methodology should articulate the legal arguments and synthesize principles derived from the normative investigation.This includes constructing a coherent and logical legal argument that addresses the identified legal issues [13].

Analysis of Central Jakarta District Court Decision Number 445/Pdt.G/2019/PN Jkt.Pst
In its decision, the Central Jakarta District Court numbered 445/Pdt.G/2019/PN Jkt.Pst on January 26, 2021, rendered a verdict with multiple facets.Firstly, the court rejected the defendant's exceptions and the plaintiff's provisional demands.Moving into the substantive matters, the court partially granted the plaintiff's claims, establishing the principle of strict liability in the case.Notably, the court imposed financial penalties on the defendant for material damages, encompassing ecological damage amounting to IDR. 38,253,375,000.00,economic loss of IDR.15,974,716,000.00,and recovery costs totaling IDR. 60,000,000,000.00.Additionally, the defendant is obligated to cover expenses for activating lost ecological functions (Rp.4,350,875,000.00),development of the hydrological system on peatland (IDR 6,000,000,000.00),revegetation (IDR 10,000,000,000.00),environmental dispute verification (IDR 89,364,900.00), and monitoring recovery implementation (Rp.2,900,000,000.00),cumulatively amounting to IDR 137,568,330,900.00.The court specified that these payments should be made through the State Treasury's account at Mandiri Bank [10].
Furthermore, the court imposed a compulsory daily payment of Rp. 1,000,000.00on the defendant for any delay in executing the court's decision.In a temporary restriction, the defendant is prohibited from planting on a 500-hectare burnt plantation within the palm oil concession until the completion of the recovery.The court also ordered the defendant to cover the costs incurred in the case, although the exact amount was not provided.Notably, the court rejected the plaintiff's remaining claims, showcasing a comprehensive and nuanced approach to addressing the various aspects of the legal dispute.
The Central Jakarta District Court's decision, as reflected in number 445/Pdt.G/2019/PN Jkt.Pst on January 26, 2021, carries significant implications for environmental sustainability.The rejection of the defendant's exceptions and the plaintiff's provisional demands demonstrates the court's commitment to thoroughly assessing the case's substantive elements.By partially granting the plaintiff's claims and establishing the principle of strict liability, the court underscores the importance of holding the defendant accountable for environmental harm.
The imposition of substantial financial penalties on the defendant is noteworthy.The ordered payments, covering ecological damage, economic loss, and recovery costs, amount to Rp. 137,568,330,900.00.These financial obligations aim to address the tangible impacts of the environmental violation, emphasizing the court's role in securing reparations for ecological harm.

Analysis of Jakarta High Court Decision Number 398/PDT/2021/PT DKI
In the Jakarta High Court Decision Number 398/PDT/2021/PT DKI, in the substance of the case, the court partially granted the plaintiff's claims, establishing the principle of strict liability.The defendant was ordered to pay material damages to the plaintiff, including ecological damage amounting to Rp. 38,253,375,000.00,economic loss of IDR 15,974,716,000.00,and recovery costs totaling IDR 122,000,000,000.00.Additionally, the defendant is obligated to cover expenses for activating lost ecological functions (IDR 4,350,875,000.00),developing or repairing the hydrological system on peatland (IDR 6,000,000,000.00),revegetation (IDR.10,000,000,000.00),environmental dispute verification (IDR 89,364,900.00), and monitoring recovery implementation (IDR 2,900,000,000.00),cumulatively amounting to IDR 199,568,330,900.00[11].
The Jakarta High Court's Decision Number 398/PDT/2021/PT DKI, particularly in the substance of the case, demonstrates a significant commitment to environmental protection, particularly in the context of forest fires.By partially granting the plaintiff's claims and establishing the principle of strict liability, the court acknowledges the defendant's responsibility for the ecological and economic consequences of the forest fire.
The ordered payment of material damages, including IDR. 38,253,375,000.00for ecological damage and IDR.15,974,716,000.00for economic loss underscores the court's intention to hold the responsible party accountable for the extensive harm caused by the environmental incident.These financial penalties are crucial in providing reparations and funding for future restoration efforts, emphasizing the deterrent effect intended to discourage negligence leading to ecological disasters.
Moreover, the allocation of IDR.122,000,000,000.00-forrecovery costs signifies the court's recognition of the need for substantial resources to rehabilitate the affected areas.This fund is expected to contribute significantly to the restoration of the environment, helping to mitigate the long-term ecological impacts of the forest fire.
The specified obligations for the defendant to cover expenses related to the activation of lost ecological functions, development or repair of the hydrological system on peatland, revegetation, environmental dispute verification, and monitoring recovery implementation amounting to IDR. 199,568,330,900.00provide a detailed breakdown of the areas that require attention.This level of specificity ensures that the financial compensation is directed towards activities that directly contribute to environmental rehabilitation, enhancing the effectiveness of the court's decision.
This decision sets a precedent for stringent accountability in cases of environmental degradation, specifically forest fires.The financial penalties imposed emphasize the financial responsibility of entities involved in activities leading to environmental harm.Such accountability compensates for the immediate losses and contributes to broader ecological conservation efforts by funding restoration projects and implementing preventive measures.
The Jakarta High Court's decision is a robust legal instrument in promoting environmental protection and holding responsible parties accountable for their actions, particularly in forest fire prevention and mitigation.This landmark decision is expected to influence future legal proceedings, encouraging a proactive approach to safeguarding the environment and preventing ecological disasters.[12].

Analysis of Supreme Court Decision
In the substance of the case, the Supreme Court upheld the rejection of the defendant's exceptions and the plaintiff's provisional demands.The court partially granted the plaintiff's claims, establishing the principle of strict liability.Significantly, the court declared the defendant responsible for environmental damages and imposed financial penalties for material losses.This included ecological damage amounting to IDR 38,253,375,000.00,economic loss of IDR 15,974,716,000.00,and recovery costs totaling IDR 122,000,000,000.00[12].
Furthermore, the court held the defendant strictly liable for various environmental restitution components, such as activating lost ecological functions, developing or repairing the hydrological system on peatland, revegetation, environmental dispute verification, and monitoring recovery implementation.These obligations, amounting to Rp199,568,330,900.00, will be paid through the State Treasury's account at Mandiri Bank [12].
The decision's environmental implications are profound, emphasizing a robust legal stance against actions causing harm to the environment.By establishing strict liability, the court underlines the need for accountability in environmental protection.The imposed financial penalties are compensatory and serve as a deterrent against future ecological transgressions.
The specific allocation of funds for environmental restoration activities, such as revegetation and water management system development, demonstrates a nuanced understanding of the multifaceted nature of environmental damage.This decision, therefore, sets a precedent for comprehensive restitution measures in environmental litigation.
The Supreme Court's commitment to environmental justice, as evidenced by this decision, provides a robust legal framework for addressing ecological disputes.It is a commendable guide for promoting responsible conduct and fostering sustainable practices in matters affecting the natural world.This decision is a testament to the judiciary's dedication to upholding environmental integrity and ensuring a balance between human activities and ecological preservation.

Discussion
The series of court decisions analyzed collectively signifies a progressive and robust legal approach to addressing environmental violations [14], [15].The imposition of strict liability and substantial financial penalties serve as a deterrent against future offenses by companies engaged in environmentally harmful activities [16], [17].The specificity in allocating funds for environmental restoration activities further ensures that the legal measures contribute meaningfully to ecological conservation [18].
In Indonesia, the concept of strict liability finds its legal basis in Article 88 of Law No. 32 of 2009 concerning Environmental Protection and Management.This article explicitly states, "Everyone, whose actions, business, and/or activities use B3, generates and/or manages B3 waste, and/or poses a serious threat to the environment, is strict liability for the losses that occur without the need to prove the element of fault."The explanation of the law includes that: Article 88 What is meant by "strict liability" is "that the element of guilt does not need to be proven by the plaintiff as the basis for payment of compensation.The amount of compensation that can be charged to polluters or environmental destroyers, according to this Article, can be determined to a certain extent." Widowaty et al. interpret Article 88 of Law No. 32 of 2009 regarding strict liability as the perpetrator of a criminal act can be prosecuted solely based on fulfilling the elements of the criminal act, irrespective of their actual guilt.This strict liability principle is not universally applicable to all criminal acts but is limited to specific offenses.These include cases where a crime is committed within the scope of one's profession, involving elements of sufficient expertise, social responsibility, and corporations adhering to a code of ethics [19].
Sadino et al. said that in strict liability, traditionally, an act is deemed unlawful when the perpetrator is found guilty of such an act, resulting in harm to the victim.The liability and obligation to provide compensation arise from the perpetrator's fault for causing damage to another person.The concept of strict liability is relatively new in the Indonesian legal system, particularly within countries following the Continental European legal system, except in terms of violations.Initially, this concept was only present in the common law system.[20].
Wibisana asserts that since 2013, the Indonesian Ministry for the Environment and Forestry has initiated legal actions against several timber and oil palm plantations for fires occurring within their concession areas.These governmental lawsuits hold significant importance in reducing the incidence of fires in Indonesia and fostering a substantial evolution of the nation's civil liability laws for environmental damage.The government's legal actions aim to establish liability based on two principles: liability for an unlawful act and strict liability.The application of strict liability commences with determining whether the defendant's activities can be categorized as abnormally dangerous [21].Wibisana contends that activities related to peatland clearing and drainage fall under the category of abnormally dangerous due to their substantial escalation of fire risk and the unconventional use of land.Applying strict liability to wildfires is justifiable, especially if evidence can substantiate that the defendant had previously engaged in peatland clearing and drainage activities [21].
Alberini and Austin stated that liability is crucial in deterring uncontrolled releases of toxins into the environment [22].However, in many cases in Indonesia, despite numerous court decisions imposing penalties based on strict liability for forest fires, companies still conduct recurring instances of forest burning in converting forests into oil palm plantations.
The series of court decisions, such as the Central Jakarta District Court Decision Number 445/Pdt.G/2019/PN Jkt.Pst, Jakarta High Court Decision Number 398/PDT/2021/PT DKI, and Supreme Court Decision Number 2196 K/PDT/2022, represents a commendable legal effort to hold companies accountable for environmental damage caused by forest fires in Indonesia.While these decisions embody the application of strict liability principles as outlined in Article 88 of Law No. 32 of 2009, the recurrent nature of similar incidents raises critical questions about the overall effectiveness of these legal measures.
First, one notable aspect of these court decisions is the imposition of substantial financial penalties on companies found responsible for environmental harm.These penalties, covering ecological damage, economic loss, and recovery costs, are intended to compensate for the immediate losses and as a deterrent against future transgressions.However, the persistence of forest fire cases despite such penalties prompts critical inquiry into whether the financial repercussions are a sufficient deterrent.
Second, the recurrent nature of forest fires raises concerns about enforcing and implementing court decisions.While strict liability is established in principle, the efficacy of enforcement mechanisms, including the daily penalties for delayed compliance, needs critical examination.Are penalties enough to ensure prompt and complete compliance, or are there challenges in enforcing these court orders effectively?Third, the continuous occurrence of forest fires despite legal actions suggests that the current legal deterrence might not effectively discourage companies from engaging in practices leading to environmental harm.A critical analysis is needed to assess whether the financial penalties, restrictions on activities, and legal obligations imposed by the courts are significant enough to outweigh the economic gains companies may achieve through activities like land conversion.
Fourth, the court decisions underscore the application of strict liability within the existing legal framework.However, a critical examination should explore potential gaps in regulatory oversight that might contribute to the recurrence of forest fires.Are there shortcomings in the monitoring and enforcement of environmental regulations that allow companies to engage in practices leading to ecological damage with impunity?
Fifth, while legal decisions play a crucial role, a critical analysis should also consider the broader context of environmental governance.Are there comprehensive and integrated approaches involving governmental, regulatory, and community efforts that could enhance the effectiveness of legal measures?Addressing the root causes of forest fires, such as land-use practices and agricultural methods, may require a more holistic and multi-stakeholder approach.
Sixth, the effectiveness of legal measures should be assessed in terms of immediate compliance and their contribution to long-term environmental sustainability.A critical analysis should consider whether these legal actions foster a shift in corporate behavior towards more environmentally responsible practices and contribute to broader ecological conservation efforts.
While applying strict liability in court decisions is a positive step, a critical analysis is crucial to evaluate the effectiveness of these measures in addressing the persistent challenge of forest fires in Indonesia.The assessment should encompass the enforcement of penalties, regulatory oversight, the comprehensiveness of solutions, and the long-term impact on environmental sustainability.This critical perspective is essential for refining legal mechanisms and ensuring a more robust and sustained approach to environmental protection.The Central Jakarta District Court's verdict, issued on January 26, 2021, marked a pivotal moment in environmental jurisprudence.The court invoked the principle of strict liability, imposing substantial financial penalties on the defendant for ecological damage, economic loss, and recovery costs.The decision's nuanced approach, including detailed obligations for ecological restoration, signifies a commitment to comprehensive environmental rehabilitation.

Conclusion
Likewise, the Jakarta High Court Decision Number 398/PDT/2021/PT DKI, in September 2021, reinforced the principle of strict liability, holding the defendant accountable for ecological and economic consequences.The ordered payments for material damages and recovery costs, amounting to IDR 199,568,330,900.00,demonstrate the court's recognition of the need for substantial resources to mitigate the long-term ecological impacts of the forest fire.This decision sets a precedent for stringent accountability in environmental degradation cases, emphasizing financial responsibility and ecological conservation.
The Supreme Court's decision on July 26, 2022, upheld strict liability, declaring the defendant responsible for environmental damages and imposing significant financial penalties.The detailed allocation of funds for various environmental restitution components reflects a nuanced understanding of environmental damage, setting a precedent for comprehensive restitution measures in environmental litigation.
IOP Publishing doi:10.1088/1755-1315/1317/1/0120057 While these legal strides are commendable, the recurrence of incidents in other cases raises questions about the overall effectiveness of strict liability enforcement in preventing forest and land fires.The continuous evaluation and enhancement of legal mechanisms are crucial to ensuring a sustained deterrent effect on companies and promoting responsible conduct in environmental protection.Further research and monitoring are needed to assess the long-term impact of these legal measures on ecological sustainability.
As exemplified by these court decisions, Indonesia's legal framework marks a significant step toward fostering environmental accountability.However, the journey toward sustainable environmental practices requires ongoing scrutiny, adaptation, and an unwavering commitment to balancing economic activities with ecological preservation.
Number 2196 K/PDT/2022 The Supreme Court Decision Number 2196 K/PDT/2022, dated July 26, 2022, involving PT.Rambang Agro Jaya and the Ministry of Environment and Forestry of the Republic of Indonesia, signifies a crucial legal development in environmental litigation.The court, in rejecting the cassation request from PT. Rambang Agro Jaya, reinforced and amended the High Court Decision Number 398/PDT/2021/PT DKI, dated September 9, 2021, which itself had corrected the Central Jakarta District Court Decision Number 445/Pdt.G/2019/PN Jkt.Pst, dated January 26, 2021 Several legal provisions in Indonesia that incorporate the concept of strict liability include Law No. 32 of 2009 on Environmental Protection and Management, Law Number 5 of 1983 on Exclusive Economic Zones of Indonesia, Law Number 10 of 1997 on Nuclear Power, and Presidential Decree Number 18 of 1978 on the Ratification of the International Convention on Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage The analyzed court decisions, exemplified by the Central Jakarta District Court Decision Number 445/Pdt.G/2019/PN Jkt.Pst, Jakarta High Court Decision Number 398/PDT/2021/PT DKI, and Supreme Court Decision Number 2196 K/PDT/2022, underscore Indonesia's progressive legal stance in addressing environmental violations.These decisions, rooted in strict liability as outlined in Article 88 of Law No. 32 of 2009, have significant implications for environmental sustainability and corporate responsibility.