Implications of Citizen Lawsuits for Forest and Land Fires in Central

Kalimantan Province from the Perspective of Environmental Justice

F. X. ARY SETIAWAN1, ABSORI ABSORI1, KELIK WARDIONO1, ARIEF BUDIONO1*,

ACHMADI ACHMADI2, WARDAH YUSPIN1

1Department of Doctoral Law, Faculty of Law

Universitas Muhammadiyah Surakarta,

Ahmad Yani Street, Mendungan, Pabelan, Kec. Kartasura, Kab. Sukoharjo, Central Java,

INDONESIA

2Faculty of Law

Universitas Muhammadiyah Palangkaraya

RTA Milono Street, Langkai, Kec. Pahandut, Kota Palangka Raya, Kalimantan Tengah,

INDONESIA

*Corresponding Author

Abstract: - Forest and land fires in Central Kalimantan Province in 2015 caused a lot of losses in the aspects of

health and the economy. Therefore, the community filed a citizen lawsuit at the Palangkaraya District Court in

2016, suing the Indonesian President, various Ministers, the Governor, and the Legislative House of Central

Kalimantan. From the first level to the cassation level, the plaintiffs won the case. But then, a judicial review

was carried out and the Supreme Court granted it. So, the Government was free from any charges. This

research used a socio-legal research method with a case study approach. Decision No. 980 PK/PDT/2022 which

granted the Substantial Government Review had not created justice for the community and the environment,

even though it aimed to maximize benefits for the community. The lawsuit filed by civil society in the case of

forest fires in Central Kalimantan in 2015 against the government was a citizen lawsuit. The community’s

demands through the lawsuit aimed to uphold and protect the environment and ecocracy principles. Thus, the

Supreme Court decision is considered to fail in representing the principle of substantive justice.

Key-Words: - Lawsuit, citizen, forest fires, Central Kalimantan, environmental justice

Received: May 17, 2023. Revised: July 29, 2023. Accepted: September 25, 2023. Published: October 12, 2023.

1 Introduction

The quality of natural resources in the world is

currently decreasing. This greatly affects humans

who still depend on natural resources to live, [1]. On

one hand, humans will use more than 50 percent of

the natural resources on Earth. On the other hand, it

takes 1.5 years for the earth to produce and

replenish the resources that have been used in the

previous year. Humans’ increased demand for

natural resources can place tremendous pressure on

biodiversity, which will certainly threaten the

aspects of security, health, equity, and prosperity,

[2]. The Republic of Indonesia is currently

experiencing serious problems regarding increased

pollution and environmental damage. Furthermore,

environmental issues are a great responsibility as

they will affect the life quality of the future

generations. The exploitation of natural resources

and the environment caused their quality to worsen.

The destruction of nature such as sea and forest

ecosystems has led to disasters such as floods and

landslides occurring in many places. A disaster that

annually happens in Indonesia is forest fires.

Forest destruction due to the clearing of forests

for settlements, agricultural fields, and other

economic activities can be a factor that causes

global warming. According to a report released by

the World Bank, currently, 100,000 to 200,000

million m2 of tropical forests are destroyed every

year. Meanwhile, in Indonesia, around 6,000 million

to 2,500 million m2 of tropical forests are destroyed

annually. This is highly concerning as tropical

forests are considered the lungs of the earth which

can circulate and transform carbon dioxide into

oxygen, [3].

WSEAS TRANSACTIONS on ENVIRONMENT and DEVELOPMENT

DOI: 10.37394/232015.2023.19.97

F. X. Ary Setiawan, Absori Absori,

Kelik Wardiono, Arief Budiono,

Achmadi Achmadi, Wardah Yuspin

E-ISSN: 2224-3496

1026

Volume 19, 2023

In the context of Indonesia, forest and land fires

are still occurring, especially in Sumatra, Riau, and

Kalimantan Islands. Severe forest and land fires

occurred in Riau and Kalimantan in 1997/1998 and

had very serious impacts, including health problems,

land accidents, and plane crashes. The smoke

generated from this disaster affected neighboring

countries. During that year, Indonesia experienced

the most severe forest fires in the world. Images of

cities engulfed in smog, forests on fire, and the

suffering of humans and other living creatures were

featured on the front pages of newspapers and

television, attracting public attention. Neighboring

countries such as Singapore and Malaysia as well as

agencies for development aid were involved in

trying to put out the forest fires. This incident was

declared one of the worst environmental disasters of

the century, [4], [5].

According to the Ministry of Environment and

Forestry, the area of forest and land fires in

Indonesia reached 3,287,220,000 m2 in 2019.

Central Kalimantan Province recorded an area of

447,690,000 m2, West Kalimantan 259,000,000 m2,

South Kalimantan 194,900,000 m2, South Sumatra

118,260,000 m2, Jambi 110,220,000 m2, and Riau

492,660,000 m2, [6].

The condition indicates that the same rate of

forest fires struck across all arable land. In addition,

illegal forest fires are linked to a range of

commercial and livelihood activities. Various

activities that have contributed to the subsequent

occurrence of forest fires need to be explored. The

burned area in the protected forests was quite

significant, reaching more than 23,477,170,000 m2,

[7]. According to the data from the Ministry of

Environment and Forestry, in 2021, the area of

forest and land fires in Indonesia has increased

compared to that of 2020. Based on the data from

the Ministry of Environment and Forestry, burned

forests and land in Indonesia reached 3,545,820,000

m2, or an increase of 19.4% compared to

2,969,420,000 m2 in 2020.

It was found that Central Kalimantan became

one of the provinces with the highest rate of forest

fires in Indonesia. The latest report released by the

Ministry of Environment and Forestry showed that

in 2021, the forest and land fires reached 2,994,300

m2. Forest and land fires occur almost every year in

the Central Kalimantan Province as well as other

regions or provinces in Indonesia, especially during

the dry season. Hot weather causes forests and land

to dry up, [8]. This condition can trigger fires. In

addition, land clearing by fire conducted by local

communities and corporations is suspected to trigger

the fires. Theoretically, forest and land fires will

occur only if the three causing elements are met,

namely: heat, oxygen, and fuel. These three

elements are known as the Triangle of Fire,

In 2019, all regencies/cities in Central

Kalimantan Province were affected by the fires. The

largest burned area was in Palangkaraya City

(38,969,000 m2), while the city/regency that was

least affected by the fires was Gunung Mas Regency

(120,000 m2 of burned area). Detailed information

on the forest and land fires in Central Kalimantan is

shown in Table 1.

Table 1. Forest and Land Fires in Central

Kalimantan, 2019

Regency/City

Width (m2)

South Barito

2,318,000

East Barito

1,220,000

North Barito

1,600,000

Gunung Mas

120,000

Kapuas

9,027,000

Katingan

4,530,000

West Kotawaringin

13,930,000

East Kotawaringin

237,180,000

Lamandau

2,477,000

10.

Murung Raya

7,810,000

11.

Palangkaraya

38,969,000

12.

Pulang Pisau

134,990,000

13.

Seruyan

167,590,000

14.

Sukamara

20,440,000

Source: The report from the Task Force of Forest and

Land Fires in Central Kalimantan, 2019

Several natural events cause forest fires to

occur. Forest fires caused by natural factors usually

do cause impacts as great as those caused by human

negligence. In addition, several natural events can

trigger forest fires, such as the prolonged dry season

that can raise temperatures in various areas,

including forests. Such high temperatures can

trigger forest fires. Besides, lightning strikes can

also potentially cause forest fires. In addition,

climate change that occurs as a result of global

warming can also cause frequent lightning strikes to

occur, [9].

In addition to natural causes, forest fires can

occur due to intentional actions of human or human

activity. Uncontrolled land burning may result in

deforestation because the fires may spread to

forests, causing forest fires. Furthermore, land

clearing for plantations usually causes land burning.

On small scales, these forest fires can still be

overcome. Unfortunately, if the fires are the work of

a large company and on a large scale, it will be very

difficult to extinguish the fires. Such fires are

WSEAS TRANSACTIONS on ENVIRONMENT and DEVELOPMENT

DOI: 10.37394/232015.2023.19.97

F. X. Ary Setiawan, Absori Absori,

Kelik Wardiono, Arief Budiono,

Achmadi Achmadi, Wardah Yuspin

E-ISSN: 2224-3496

1027

Volume 19, 2023

especially dangerous when they burn peatlands or

swamp areas, [10].

The issue discussed in this research is that forest

fires always happen. It is somewhat like a routine

phenomenon in Indonesia. The plaintiff of the

citizen lawsuit against forest and land fires believed

that the government did not carry out enough efforts

to prevent forest fires. They also deemed that the

government did not impose enough punishments for

perpetrators of forest fires.

According to the plaintiffs, the common lawsuit

method was inadequate. They deemed that the civil

lawsuit and the method of reporting criminal cases

were not sufficient. As other lawsuit models were

not enough, the plaintiff chose to file this case

through the citizen lawsuit method.

The citizen lawsuit is a new classification that is

not yet acknowledged in Indonesia. However, the

stipulations of the Indonesian law oblige judges to

never reject cases under the reason that the law for

that case does not exist yet. In the end, the citizen

lawsuit became an unknown lawsuit but its case can

be filed in the Indonesian court.

The lawsuit filed by the plaintiffs was

considered an unlawful act by the authorities

(onrechmatige overheidsdaad), while the acts

against the law committed by the defendants were:

as administrators of the government, governmental

officials were negligent in carrying out their

functions and duties to seriously take preventive

countermeasures, [11]. Comparatively, the citizen

lawsuit does not demand or ask for money or

compensation. This lawsuit was filed specially for

governmental negligence.

This lawsuit was one of the lawsuit models that

was suitable for this case. If granted, this lawsuit

will bring consequences to policies. This means that

it demands the government through the court to

carry out the policies in the lawsuit.

One of the cases that occurred in the civil realm

was the case of forest and land fires. A coalition of

civil society members of the Central Kalimantan

Anti-Smog Movement filed a civil lawsuit at the

Palangkaraya District Court on August 16, 2016.

The lawsuit was addressed to several state officials.

Among them were President Joko Widodo, the

Minister of Environment and Forestry, the Minister

of Agriculture, the Minister of Agrarian Affairs and

Spatial Planning, the Minister of Health, the

Governor, and the Regional Legislative House of

Central Kalimantan Province, [12].

The Palangkaraya District Court granted the

lawsuit. This case reached cassation by the

defendants, in this case, the Government of

Indonesia. The appeal in 2019 filed by the

Government of Indonesia against the lawsuit of

forest fire-induced smog disaster that occurred in

Central Kalimantan in 2015 did not change the

results of the decision handed down by the

Palangkaraya District Court. The Supreme Court

rejected the appeal and stated that the defendants

had committed unlawful acts. There were 10

demands granted by the panel of judges in the case

of the forest fire lawsuit in Central Kalimantan. In

essence, they asked the Government of Indonesia,

namely the President, relevant ministries, and local

governments to implement the orders of Law No. 32

of 2009 on Environmental Protection and

Management. Furthermore, the defendant filed a

judicial review in the Supreme Court. There has

been no decision on the legal action thus far.

This research aimed to analyze the case of

citizen lawsuits for forest and land fires in Central

Kalimantan Province, Indonesia, considering that

the decision made was an anomaly. This decision

was categorized as the first decision which is

interesting to discuss, especially in the aspect of

legal development and its perspective of justice.

This research has a strong novelty compared to

the previous research. A previous research, [6],

discussed the citizen lawsuit on forest and land fires

based on the ecocracy concept (a review of the

Supreme Court Decision No. 3555 k/pdt/2018). But

their research only focused on the review of the

Indonesian Supreme Court, It lacked a discussion on

the socio-legal and philosophical aspects of the

decision on this citizen lawsuit.

Another research, [13], discussed the citizen

lawsuit in handling the disaster of forest fires in

Kalimantan. This research showed that the citizen

lawsuit can become an interesting choice for

citizens to file a lawsuit and demand the court to

force the government to carry out the various

necessary policies. This research, [13], discussed

the aspect of the juridical effect of the decision and

its benefits without discussing its social aspect as

what is carried out in this research.

Instead of carrying out Decision No.

3555K/PDT/2018 which was decided on July 16,

2019, the government submitted a judicial review.

The Supreme Court granted the judicial review

through decision No. 980PK/PDT/2022. The

decision freed the government as the defendant from

all lawsuits in the previous decision. Based on the

aforementioned problems, the author will analyze

this legal case from the perspective of

environmental justice philosophy.

WSEAS TRANSACTIONS on ENVIRONMENT and DEVELOPMENT

DOI: 10.37394/232015.2023.19.97

F. X. Ary Setiawan, Absori Absori,

Kelik Wardiono, Arief Budiono,

Achmadi Achmadi, Wardah Yuspin

E-ISSN: 2224-3496

1028

Volume 19, 2023

2 Methodology

In this paper, the author used the socio-legal

research method, [14]. The socio-legal method was

usually used as an umbrella method. This method

referred to the research method in legal research that

was linked to the methodological part of social

studies. One of the important characteristics of the

socio-legal method was that it was multi-

disciplinary or social interdisciplinary, [15]. This

meant that the theoretical and methodological

perspectives in the socio-legal method were

arranged based on social research that was

conducted using various disciplines of social

studies, [16].

The disciplines of social studies used were highly

varied. The strength of such a multi-disciplinary or

interdisciplinary approach is that researchers can

produce various new research findings. Meanwhile,

the challenge was that the researchers had to master

multiple competencies that were required to produce

the socio-legal research that was according to the

methodological and theoretical standard from the

core of the scientific discipline they used, namely

legal and social studies.

Socio-legal research first explored and resolved

the issue of the normative framework of a problem,

[16]. Normative studies needed to be conducted first

because it was practical to be used to understand a

complex situation. This was so that it became easier

to uncover the contents of texts, norms, and legal

doctrinal works, [17]. Next, it was found that studies

with a doctrinal approach were deemed to be

unsatisfactory, especially in responding to the

context of justice which was more substantive and

more acceptable to the public, [18]. Siddharta stated

that in socio-legal research many variants of

research methods can be labeled as socio-legal

methods, such as hermeneutics, ethnography,

discourse analysis, and case studies, [19].

A hermeneutic approach is needed to

understand the law because the law is not only in the

form of written text. But the law also displays many

symbols, pictures, signs, colors, and movements,

[15]. This is because the law is always in the realm

of human life and humans are inseparable from the

elements of language, speech, historical actions,

experiences, culture, society, and politics, [20]. This

situation makes the law full of values whose

meaning can be understood when explored by

considering the contexts based on the conditions,

social settings, and objectives during the creation of

the texts, [21].

3 Results

Forest and land fires in Central Kalimantan

Province have occurred for a long time. It started

massively in 1997 and the last occurred in 2015,

[22]. The area of forest and land fires in 2015 in

Central Kalimantan Province was approximately

1,228,829,000 m2. Based on the data from the

National Disaster Management Agency in 2015,

fires occurred on peat lands covering an area of

1,969,870,000 m2 and non-peat lands covering an

area of 1,338,760,000 m2, [6].

The impacts of forest and land fires were worse

than before. Many residents experienced shortness

of breath. They had difficulties obtaining medicine

as no adequate health centers were available. So, the

victims had to be evacuated to South Kalimantan

province where the smog was not too thick, [23].

Therefore, the surrounding community filed

lawsuits at the Palangkaraya District Court. The

lawsuit registered in 2016 was filed against the

President, the Minister of Environment and

Forestry, the Minister of Agriculture, the Minister of

Agrarian Affairs and Spatial Planning/National

Land Agency, the Minister of Health, the Governor

of Central Kalimantan, and the Regional Legislative

House of Central Kalimantan. The contents of the

posita (a written argument that forms the basis of a

lawsuit) were that forest and land fires originating

from forestry and plantation investments resulted in

losses in many sectors such as health, education, and

economy, [24].

After going through eighteen trials, in March

2017, the Palangkaraya District Court granted some

parts of the plaintiff's claim and stated that the

defendant had violated the law. Therefore, the

defendant had to fulfill the plaintiff's ten demands.

In September 2017, the Palangkaraya High Court

strengthened the decision by rejecting the

defendant's appeal. Furthermore, in July 2019, the

panel of cassation judges also strengthened the

decision with case No. 555K/PDT/2018, [25].

The plaintiffs in this case were environmental

activists who were members of the Central

Kalimantan Anti-Smog Movement, [26]. They are

Arie Rompas, the Executive Director of Walhi

(Wahana Lingkungan Hidup

Indonesia/Environmental Facility of Indonesia) of

Central Kalimantan; Afandy, the Deputy Director of

Walhi Central Kalimantan; Nordin, the Director of

Save Our Borneo; Mariaty A Niun, the Director of

JARI; Faturokhman, the Coordinator of Fire Watch

Central Kalimantan; Herlina, the Treasurer of Walhi

Central Kalimantan; and Kartika Sari, a resident of

Palangkaraya City. They sued the government after

WSEAS TRANSACTIONS on ENVIRONMENT and DEVELOPMENT

DOI: 10.37394/232015.2023.19.97

F. X. Ary Setiawan, Absori Absori,

Kelik Wardiono, Arief Budiono,

Achmadi Achmadi, Wardah Yuspin

E-ISSN: 2224-3496

1029

Volume 19, 2023

the devastating fires that hit the Kalimantan forests

in 2015 through the citizen lawsuit mechanism.

According to the law, the citizen lawsuit is for

negligence in carrying out the responsibilities and

obligations as stipulated in the 1945 Constitution of

the Republic of Indonesia. The defendants allowed

forest fires to occur from August to October 2015,

which resulted in many losses. As a result, the

constitutional rights regulated in Article 28 H of the

1945 Constitution in conjunction with Articles 2 and

9 paragraph 3 of Law No. 39 of 1999 concerning

Human Rights in conjunction with Article 65

paragraph 1 of Law No. 39 of 2009 concerning

Environmental Protection and Management were

violated. The unlawful acts committed by defendant

I have implications for the unlawful acts of

defendants II to VII.

Forest fires in Central Kalimantan have

occurred frequently since 1997. In 2015, the impact

became worse. Many residents even experienced

shortness of breath. On October 30, 1999, Law No.

41 of 1999 concerning Forestry was stipulated and

enforced. Then, on June 24, 2003, Central

Kalimantan Regional Regulation No. 5/2003

concerning Forest and/or Land Fire Control was

enacted and came into effect on June 25, 2003. On

August 11, 2004, Law No. 18/2004 concerning

Plantations was enacted and enforced, [27]. On

October 3, 2009, Law Number 32 of 2009

concerning Environmental Protection and

Management was passed. On June 8, 2010,

Governor Regulation No. 15 of 2010 was stipulated.

It concerned amendments to the Central Kalimantan

Governor Regulation No. 52 of 2008 concerning

Guidelines for Land and Plantation Clearing for

Communities in Central Kalimantan and was

implemented on June 9, 2010. On September 12,

2014, a Government Regulation concerning the

Protection and Management of Ecosystems was

stipulated and affected on September 15, 2014. On

January 6, 2016, a Presidential Regulation

(PERPRES) regarding the Peatland Restoration

Agency was enacted and enforced. On December 2,

2016, Government Regulation No. 57 of 2016 was

stipulated. It concerned an Amendment to

Government Regulation Number 71 of 2014

concerning the Protection and Management of

Peatland Ecosystems and was enforced on

December 6, 2016. All of these laws and regulations

regulate forest management and efforts to enforce

the law against incidents of forest fires.

Furthermore, in this paper, the author explores

other legal facts regarding the community's lawsuit

against the government over the forest fire incidents

in Central Kalimantan. It started on March 22, 2017,

when the Palangkaraya District Court granted some

of the plaintiff's claims and stated that the

defendant, in this case, the government, had violated

the law. Then on September 19, 2017, the

Palangkaraya High Court rejected the appeal of

President Joko Widodo, his ministers, and the

Regional Government of Central Kalimantan. In

July 2019, the cassation decision was rejected with

case decision No. 3555 K/PDT/2018. However, in

the final legal action on November 3, 2022, the

Supreme Court granted the Judicial Review

submitted by the government with Decision No. 980

PK/PDT/2022.

4 Discussion

4.1 Citizen Lawsuit Rights

A citizen's right to sue or citizen lawsuit is a lawsuit

filed by citizens on behalf of the public interest to

sue state administrators for their failure to carry out

their legal obligations. This submission was based

on the unlawful acts of state administrators that

harmed citizens. The compensation demanded is not

in the form of money but in the form of immaterial

benefits, namely the issuance of a decision by the

government, [13]

In the process of a citizen lawsuit, the plaintiff

needs to provide a notification in the form of a

subpoena which contains at least an explanation that

a citizen lawsuit will be filed against state

administrators for their failure or negligence in

fulfilling the rights of their citizens. It provides an

opportunity for the state administrators to fulfill

their obligations if they do not want the plaintiffs to

continue the lawsuit. The notification period in the

United States legal system is no later than 60 days

before filing a lawsuit, [28]. However, in Indonesia,

this type of lawsuit has not been regulated in detail,

The citizen lawsuit is a lawsuit for public

interests that depart from the awareness to protect

human rights. The citizen lawsuit is a mechanism

for filing a case as a manifestation of citizens' access

to the interests of all citizens or the public interests.

It functions to demand the responsibility of the state

establishers for their negligence in fulfilling citizen

rights. Such negligence is argued as law-violating

actions in fulfilling citizen rights. Citizen lawsuit is

proposed in the scope of general court and is

categorized into the civil case group, [26].

So far, the form of a lawsuit by citizens under

the name of public interest has not specifically been

regulated in Indonesian legal regulations. Citizen

lawsuit to sue state establishers is a lawsuit

mechanism that is acknowledged in the common

WSEAS TRANSACTIONS on ENVIRONMENT and DEVELOPMENT

DOI: 10.37394/232015.2023.19.97

F. X. Ary Setiawan, Absori Absori,

Kelik Wardiono, Arief Budiono,

Achmadi Achmadi, Wardah Yuspin

E-ISSN: 2224-3496

1030

Volume 19, 2023

law system. In the United States, Australia, and

India, citizen lawsuits rampantly developed

especially concerning environmental law, [29].

Some citizen lawsuits that have been filed into

court are Decision No. 28/Pdt.G/2003/PN.Jkt.Pst on

the neglect of migrant workers in Nunukan;

Decision No. 228/Pdt.G/2006/PN.Jkt.Pst on the

lawsuit of victims of national examination

organization; and Decision No.

55/PDT.G/2013/PN.SMDA on the issuing of the

coal mining permit in Samarinda as a trigger of

global warming which worsened the impacts of

climate change in Samarinda City, East Kalimantan,

[28].

The acceptance of the citizen lawsuit model in

Indonesia is an adaptation to answer the various

phenomena that develop in society. It is not only

limited to the material law context, but it also

encompasses the procedural law as formal law that

functions to enforce the material law. In its journey,

law enforcement must be dynamic and follow the

latest social development, [30].

The Supreme Court issued Regulation No. 1 of

2002 regarding Class Action Lawsuits, namely a

procedure to file a lawsuit by a person or persons

who represent the group to file a lawsuit. This

lawsuit is intended for himself. Besides, it can also

be used to represent a group of people. Both group

representatives and or other members of the group

have a uniformity or similarity of legal basis.

Referring to citizen lawsuits through the citizen

lawsuit mechanism in cases of forest and land fires

as well as the people’s victory up to the Supreme

Court level, it appears that access to justice through

the citizen lawsuit mechanism can be realized in

Indonesia. Four things related to citizen lawsuit

submissions need special attention, [31]. The first

focus is the scope of citizen lawsuits in Indonesia.

The existing cases still focus on the government's

absence in enacting and making certain policies to

fulfill the plaintiff's constitutional rights.

Thus far, no single case regarding permits has

been filed to force the government to ensure that

permit holders carry out their obligations. This is

because the government neglects to do so. Apart

from that, it is also important to observe that the

government's obligations in terms of legislation are

not limited to the government's obligations in

issuing regulations or policy products, [32].

In this case, many spaces need to be explored

by citizen plaintiffs to test and refine the idea of

citizen lawsuits in the context of the Indonesian

environment. With the plaintiff's argumentation of

legal substance based on legal analysis and strong

reasoning, the judge's decision will be more likely to

be directed at an important landmark decision for

the development of a citizen lawsuit. Second, citizen

lawsuits concerning the occurrence of a violation

and omission can be filed. None of the lawsuits

presupposes, and thus none of the judge's decisions

has carefully considered whether a citizen plaintiff

can sue for an offense that had entirely occurred in

the past. Third, it is regarding the effect of the

government's lawsuit/indictment on the matter being

sued in the citizen lawsuit, which the government

had filed before the citizen lawsuit was filed.

Fourth, the obligation to reimburse attorney fees if

the plaintiff wins, [33].

4.2 Environmental Law Enforcement in

Cases of Forest Fires in Central Kalimantan

Province

The Supreme Court’s Decision No. 3555

K/PDT/2018 stated that the government had

committed an unlawful act in the case of forest and

land fires in Central Kalimantan Province.

Regarding this unlawful act, Sidhartha said that the

basis for determining the unlawful act was Article

1365 of the Civil Code which states, "Every

unlawful act that causes harm to another person

obliges the person who is guilty of causing the

losses to compensate for those losses.”

As a result, the perpetrator must provide

compensation to the party affected by the act.

Sidhartha, citing the views of a legal expert from the

common law system, A. J. Pannett, stated, "In

principle, the law will not impose an obligation to

compensate for all forms of violations. The types of

losses that are called damnum sine injuria are

examples of exceptions, namely if the loss is caused

by an offense committed because the perpetrator

carries out a statutory order. It means that even

though there is a loss, the perpetrator is not obliged

to compensate for that loss if he or she acted based

on a statutory order. On the other hand, there is also

the doctrine of injuria sine damno, which states that

even though there is no loss, the perpetrator is still

obliged to compensate for the loss. The application

of this last doctrine is the act of entering someone

else's land (trespassing). This doctrine is also called

injuria absque damno, [31], which was interpreted

as "injury without damage”. It is wrong doing, but

from which no loss or damage results, and which,

therefore, will not sustain an action. This doctrine is

indeed commonly applied in civil lawsuits, but that

does not mean it cannot be applied to causes that

tend to be public, such as humiliation, fraud, and

sentencing errors, [19].

WSEAS TRANSACTIONS on ENVIRONMENT and DEVELOPMENT

DOI: 10.37394/232015.2023.19.97

F. X. Ary Setiawan, Absori Absori,

Kelik Wardiono, Arief Budiono,

Achmadi Achmadi, Wardah Yuspin

E-ISSN: 2224-3496

1031

Volume 19, 2023

Based on this doctrine, the state is obliged to be

accountable for actions that are deemed to violate

the law as stipulated in Article 87 Law No. 32 of

2009. This article is the realization of the principle

“polluter pays.” In addition to being required to pay

compensation, environmental polluters and/or

destroyers are burdened by judges to take certain

legal actions. The Palangkaraya District Court Panel

of Judges sentenced the defendant and burdened

them with legal action as ordered in the court

decision and strengthened with the Supreme Court

decision.

The Supreme Court decision No. 3555

K/PDT/2018 stated that the government committed

an unlawful act and was asked to compensate for the

losses due to the unlawful acts. This, according to

the author, was realized due to the judge’s

understanding of the essence of the environment.

The purpose of environmental protection and

management is suitable with Article 3 of the

Environmental Protection and Management Act. In

its decision, the Supreme Court stated that the

government must be responsible. Absolute

responsibility (strict liability) is conducted as

stipulated in Article 88 of the Environmental

Protection and Management Act. In this case,

absolute responsibility is an element of error that

does not need to be proven by the plaintiff as a basis

for compensation payments. In implementing the

absolute responsibility principle, the burden of proof

no longer lies with the plaintiff, but the defendant is

burdened to prove that there was no unlawful act,

[34].

In the elucidation of the Environmental

Protection and Management Act Article 34, it is

explained that any unlawful acts in the form of

environmental pollution or destruction of harm to

other people or the environment require those

responsible for a business and/or activity to pay

compensation and/or perform certain actions. In the

explanation, the law states that apart from paying

compensation, polluters can also be burdened with

the obligation to take certain actions such as issuing

implementing regulations of the Environmental

Protection and Management Act and the

construction of other infrastructure to prevent the

future reoccurrence of unlawful acts against the

environment.

Before the review, Decision No. 3555

K/PDT/2018 stated that the defendants as authorities

who were obliged to protect and fulfill the people’s

right to a clean and healthy environment had not

carried out their duty properly. The lack of

anticipation and quick action against the spread of

forest fires caused environmental pollution and

damage. The government from the central level to

the regional governments failed to coordinate

properly. Thus, the forest and land fires were not

handled well. The government was declared guilty

and committed an unlawful act.

But after the Supreme Court granted the Judicial

Review which was carried out by the government,

Decision No. 980 PK/PDT/2022 freed the

government from the previous penalty. Then, it

became a polemic that caused problems in many

sectors. In examining the aspect of substantive

justice, Roscoe Pound argued that justice is related

to human effort and control. Efforts are interpreted

as the orientation of maximizing benefits to the

greatest benefit of the people. According to this

view, justice is also interpreted as a harmonious and

balanced distribution. In addition, the aspect of

justice as human control, according to Pound, is also

relevant to efforts to limit human personal egoism

which then reduces the rights of others. Egoism

must be limited so that everyone in a community

obtains the same benefits. Furthermore, the idea of

justice was also proposed by John Rawls. He argued

that for the sake of fairness, justice should be easily

understood by society. It should be realized in real

life, and not only be aspirational and unreachable,

[35].

The benefit of the analysis in this research is the

finding that the implementation of justice must be

manifested in various aspects of human life. In

addition, according to John Rawls' view, justice is

determined by the system that regulates and

implements it and it is not solely determined by the

results, [36]. An outcome that is considered fair may

be unfair because it is not balanced by a system that

creates injustice. By conducting this analysis, the

researcher obtained information on the demands

addressed to the government. In this case, the

government must increase its motivation in

protecting the environment and preventing forest

fires. Therefore, in the analysis of substantive

justice, the Supreme Court granted the government's

efforts to take legal action in the form of a review.

1. Issuing regulations of Law No. 32 of 2009

concerning Environmental Protection and

Management, which are important for the

prevention and control of forest and land fires,

by involving community participation, namely:

a. Government Regulation regarding

procedures for determining the buffering

capacity of the environment;

b. Government regulations regarding

environmental quality standards, which

include: water quality standards, seawater

quality standards, ambient air quality

WSEAS TRANSACTIONS on ENVIRONMENT and DEVELOPMENT

DOI: 10.37394/232015.2023.19.97

F. X. Ary Setiawan, Absori Absori,

Kelik Wardiono, Arief Budiono,

Achmadi Achmadi, Wardah Yuspin

E-ISSN: 2224-3496

1032

Volume 19, 2023

standards, and other quality standards that

are in line with the developments in science

and technology;

c. Government regulations regarding standard

criteria for environmental damage related to

forest and/or land fires;

d. Government regulations regarding

environmental economic instruments;

e. Government regulations regarding

environmental risk analysis;

f. Government regulations regarding

procedures for overcoming environmental

pollution and/or damage; and

g. Government regulations regarding

procedures for restoring environmental

functions;

2. Forming a joint team whose functions are as

follows:

a. Conducting a review and revising business

permits for managing forests and

plantations, either those that have been

burned or those that have not been burned

based on the required criteria for issuing

permits. It must also consider the buffering

capacity of the environment in the Central

Kalimantan Province;

b. Enforcing civil, criminal, and administrative

environmental laws on companies whose

land has caught fire;

c. Making a roadmap for early prevention,

response, and recovery for victims of forest

and land fires as well as environmental

restoration;

3. Taking immediate actions, such as:

a. Establishing a special hospital for lungs and

other diseases which can be accessed free of

charge for smog victims due to air pollution

in Central Kalimantan Province;

b. Ordering all regional hospitals in the

Central Kalimantan province area to waive

medical expenses for people affected by the

smog in the Central Kalimantan province;

c. Providing an evacuation area in the form of

pollution-free spaces to anticipate forest and

land fires that cause air pollution;

d. Preparing evacuation technical instructions

and cooperating with other agencies to

ensure that the evacuation runs smoothly;

4. Providing the following:

a. A map of vulnerability to forest, land, and

plantation fires in Central Kalimantan

Province;

b. A policy concerning standard equipment for

controlling forest and plantation fires in

Central Kalimantan Province;

5. Conducting the following:

a. Announcing the burned land and the

company holding the permit publicly;

b. Developing an information disclosure

system for forest, land, and plantation fires

in Central Kalimantan Province;

c. Announcing environmental guarantee funds

and countermeasure funds originating from

companies whose land was burned;

d. Announcing forest conservation investment

funds from companies holding forestry

licenses.

5 Conclusion

The lawsuit filed by civil society in the case of

forest fires in Central Kalimantan in 2015 which

was against the government was a citizen lawsuit. It

was on behalf of the public interest to sue state

administrators for not carrying out their legal

obligations. The final result of the case at the first

level through the Decision of the Palangka Raya

District Court No. 118/Pdt.G/LH/2016/PN Plk

declared that the government lost the case. Even, at

the appeal and cassation levels the Supreme Court

decision No. 3555 K/Pdt/2018 and the Palangka

Raya High Court Decision No. 36/PDT/2017/PT

PLK declared the government as guilty. However,

the government continued to take legal action in

terms of a Judicial Review level which was granted

by the Supreme Court through Decision No. 980

PK/PDT/2022 and finally freed the government

from all previous charges. Meanwhile, the demands

made by the community through the lawsuit were

conducted to uphold and protect the environment

and ecocracy principles. Thus, the Supreme Court

decision is considered not to represent the principle

of substantive justice. The limitation of this study

was that this research perceived the citizen lawsuit

for the case of forest fires from the perspective of

environmental justice using the sociolegal method.

Future researchers may analyze the side effects of

this decision on the condition of the forest and

society as future research.

Acknowledgement:

The authors would like to thank Universitas

Muhammadiyah Surakarta.

References:

[1] A. Absori, S. S. Nugroho, A. Budiono, E.

Ellyani, S. S. Nurani, and M. Fadlillah,

Indonesia as an ecocracic country: The state’s

WSEAS TRANSACTIONS on ENVIRONMENT and DEVELOPMENT

DOI: 10.37394/232015.2023.19.97

F. X. Ary Setiawan, Absori Absori,

Kelik Wardiono, Arief Budiono,

Achmadi Achmadi, Wardah Yuspin

E-ISSN: 2224-3496

1033

Volume 19, 2023

responsibility and the people’s participation in

preserving and in managing the environment

quality, Qual. Access To Success, Vol. 21, No.

179, 2020, pp.140–143.

[2] A. Absori, S. S. Nugroho, A. T. Haryani,

Sarjiyati, A. Budiono, H. S. W. Nugroho, R. J.

Nuarto, The Prospect of Environmental Law

to Achieve Healthy Environmental

Development in Indonesia, Med. Leg., Vol.

20, No. 1, 2020, pp. 204–208.

[3] A. K. Dermawan, S. Suseno, A. E. Rompis,

and D. E. Sukarsa, Reconstruction of the

Legal Policy Model Using the Multidoor

Approach to Prevent Land Burning, Pertanika

J. Trop. Agric. Sci., Vol. 31, No. 3, 2023,

DOI: 10.47836/pjssh.31.3.10.

[4] D. Glover, Indonesia’s fires and haze: the

cost of catastrophe, Ottawa: IDRC, 2006.

[5] M. Ali and M. A. Setiawan, Penal

proportionality in environmental legislation of

Indonesia, Cogent Soc. Sci., Vol. 8, No. 1,

2022, pp. 2–11,

DOI: 10.1080/23311886.2021.2009167.

[6] W. S. Nugroho, R. Harjiyatni, and S.

Rahardja, "Citizen lawsuit on forest and land

fires in the ecocracic concept: Review of the

Supreme Court Decision No. 3555

k/pdt/20/2018" (Gugatan warga melalui

citizen lawsuit pada kebakaran hutan dan

lahan dalam konsep ekokarsi (Tinjauan

putusan MA no. 3555 k/pdt/2018)), Review of

Results of Legal Research (Kajian Hasil

Penelitian Hukum), Vol. 4, No. 1, 2020,

pp.713-735, DOI: 10.37159/jmih.v4i1.1230.

[7] B. G. Spaltani, A. Sulistiyono, and A. S.

Sudarwanto, "Potential environmental damage

as a legal standing qualification of

environmental organizations in realizing

environmental justice (a preliminary study)",

AIP Conf. Proc., Vol. 27068, No. 020059,

2023.

[8] Hafrida, R. Kusniati, and Y. Monita,

Imprisonment as a Criminal Sanction against

Corporations in Forestry Crimes : How Is It

Possible?, Hasanuddin Law Rev., Vol. 8, No.

2, 2022, p. 167,

DOI: 10.20956/halrev.v8i2.3187.

[9] J. Setiyono and A. Natalis, Ecocides as a

Serious Human Rights Violation: A Study on

the Case of River Pollution by the Palm Oil

Industry in Indonesia, Int. J. Sustain. Dev.

Plan., Vol. 16, No. 8, 2021, p. 1465,

DOI: 10.18280/ijsdp.160807.

[10] K. A. Sudiarawan, A. Y. Karunian, D. G. S.

Mangku, and B. Hermanto, Discourses On

Citizen Lawsuit As Administrative Dispute

Object: Government Administration Law Vs.

Administrative Court Law, J. Indones. Leg.

Stud., Vol. 7, No. 2, 2022, pp.449-486,

DOI: 10.15294/jils.v7i2.60166.

[11] H. Amrani, Criminal Policy on Environmental

Crimes: Indonesia’s Perspective, Acad. J.

Interdiscip. Stud., Vol. 11, No. 3, 2022, p.364,

DOI: 10.36941/ajis-2022-0088.

[12] A. Fatah, Citizen Lawsuit in Environmental

Cases, Lentera Huk., Vol. 6, No. 2, 2019, pp.

289–308, DOI: 10.19184/ejlh.v6i2.9675.

[13] M. Zulaeha, "Handling Smog through the

Citizen Lawsuit Mechanism" (Mengatasi

kabut asap melalui mekanisme citizen

lawsuit), J. Indonesian Environmental Law

(Hukum Lingkungan Indonesia), Vol. 3, No.

1, 2016, pp. 7-106.

[14] K. Dimyati and K. Wardiono, "Legal

Research Method" (Metode Penelitian

Hukum), Surakarta: Universitas

Muhammadiyah Surakarta, 2004.

[15] A. Budiono, W. Yuspin, S. S. Nurani, F.

Fairuzzaman, S. W. A. Pradnyawan, and S. D.

Sari, "The Anglo-Saxon System of Common

Law and the Development of the Legal

System in Indonesia", WSEAS Transaction on

Systems, Vol. 22, 2023, pp.207-213,

DOI: 10.37394/23202.2023.22.21.

[16] N. S. Utami, N. Prasetyoningsih, A. Hidayat,

N. Huda, Suteki, R. Saraswati, A. Budiono,

"Equality Equality of the Political Rights of

People with Mental Disorders (PWMD) in

General Elections", Indian J. Forensic Med.

Toxicol., Vol. 13, No. 4, 2019, pp.1571-1575.

[17] S. A. Purnamawati and S. Sunaryo, "Legal

Politics of Pancasila Ideology against

Radicalism in the State of Law Enforcement",

J. Jurisprud., Vol. 11, No. 2, 2021, pp.141-14,

DOI: 10.23917/jurisprudence.v11i2.14742.

[18] S. Hermawan, M. Rizal, F. Haryumeinanda,

and Y. H. C. Oktiviasti, "Constitutionality of

Indigenous Law Communities in the

Perspective of Sociological Jurisprudence",

Jurnal Jurisprudence, Vol. 11, No. 2, 2021,

pp.282-296.

[19] A. Budiono, Y. Prasetyo, K. Wardiono, W.

Yuspin, K. Dimyati, and D. Iriani, "Legal

Conscience and the Pressure of the Formal

Law System", Wisdom, Vol. 22, No. 2, 2022,

pp.223-233.

https://doi.org/10.24234/wisdom.v22i2.790

[20] W. V. Izziyana, Harun, Absori, K. Wardiono,

H. S. W. Nugroho, and A. Budiono, Health

insurance for Indonesian migrant workers,

WSEAS TRANSACTIONS on ENVIRONMENT and DEVELOPMENT

DOI: 10.37394/232015.2023.19.97

F. X. Ary Setiawan, Absori Absori,

Kelik Wardiono, Arief Budiono,

Achmadi Achmadi, Wardah Yuspin

E-ISSN: 2224-3496

1034

Volume 19, 2023

Medico-Legal Updat., Vol. 19, No. 1, 2019,

pp.188–192, DOI: 10.5958/0974-

1283.2019.00038.0.

[21] S. Tripa, "Method Discourse in Legal

Research" (Diskursus Metode dalam

Penelitian Hukum), Banda Aceh: Bandar

Publishing, 2019.

[22] H. Varkkey, "Patronage politics, plantation

fires and transboundary haze", Environ.

Hazards, Vol. 12, No. 3-4, 2013, pp.200-217,

DOI: 10.1080/17477891.2012.759524.

[23] H. Purnomo, B. Shantiko, S. Sitorus, H.

Gunawan, R. Achdiawan, H. Kartodiharjo, A.

A., Dewayani, "Fire economy and actor

network of forest and land fires in Indonesia",

For. Policy Econ., Vol. 78, 2017, pp.21-31,

DOI:

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2017.01.001

1389-9341/.

[24] E. K. Purwendah, Rusito, A. Awaludin, and I.

D. S. Triana, "Public Participation in

Environmental Protection: Citizen Law Suits

in the Indonesian Civil Justice System", IOP

Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci., Vol. 1030, No.

12022, 2022, DOI: 10.1088/1755-

1315/1030/1/012022.

[25] Muhtadi, N. Kurniati, I. Prawira, and

Somawijaya, "Public Interest Development in

Indonesia: Considerations Regarding Land

Acquisition and Its Impact on the

Environment", Int. J. Sustain. Dev. Plan., Vol.

17, No. 8, 2022, pp.2585-2591,

DOI: 10.18280/ijsdp.170827.

[26] Isrok and R. E. Birham, "Citizen Lawsuit: The

Fulfillment of Alternative Law for Citizens"

(Citizen Lawsuit: Penegakan Hukum

Alternatif bagi Warga Negara). Malang: UB

Press, 2010.

[27] E. K. Purwendah, "The shift of the point

d’interset point d’action principle in the

citizen lawsuit and actio popularis as the

fulfilment of the principle of benefit in the civil

court" (Pergeseran Asas point d’interset point

d’action Dalam Gugatan Citizen Lawsuit Dan

Actio Popularis Sebagai Pemenuhan Asas

Manfaat Dalam Peradilan Perdata),

Cakrawala Hukum, vol. 15, no. 41, 2013.

[28] I. Sugianto, "Case of Nunukan: Citizen

Lawsuit against the State (Kasus Nunukan:

Hak Gugat Warga Negara" (Citizen Lawsuit)

Terhadap Negara), 2nd ed, Jakarta: Lembaga

Independensi Peradilan, 2004.

[29] A. Maryudi, "Choosing timber legality

verification as a policy instrument to combat

illegal logging in Indonesia", For. Policy

Econ., Vol. 68, 2016, pp.99-104.

[30] E. L. Fakhriah, "Citizen Lawsuit in the

Perspective of the Civil Legal Procedures"

(Actio Popularis (Citizen Lawsuit) Dalam

Perspektif Hukum Acara Perdata), Jakarta:

Unpad Press, 2008.

[31] M. A. Santosa, "Even the Nature Needs the

Law and Justice" (Alam Pun Butuh Hukum

dan Keadilan), Jakarta: Prima Pustaka, 2016.

[32] M. Iksan, N. Surbakti, M. Kurnianingsih, A.

Budiono, S. al Fatih, and T. M. Ramon,

"Fulfilling the Restitution Rights of Crime

Victims: The Legal Practice in Indonesia",

Acad. J. Interdiscip. Stud., Vol. 12, No. 4,

2023, pp.152-160, DOI: 10.36941/ajis-2023-

0101.

[33] E. Sundari, "The Indonesian model of the

citizen lawsuit: Learning how to adopt and

how to adapt", Int. Trade Bus. Law Rev., Vol.

21, 2018, p.323.

[34] J. J. Matthews, "Clean Water Act Citizen Suit

Requests for Municipal Moratoria: Anatomy

of a Sewer Hookup Moratorium Law Suit", J.

Environ. Law Litig., Vol. 14, 1999, p. 25.

[35] K. A. Emina, "John Rawls Concept of Person

and Society: A Critique", Pinisi, Vol. 1, No.

3, 2021, p. 7.

[36] M. Y. Said and A. Nurhayati, "A review on

Rawls Theory of Justice", Int. J. Law,

Environ. Nat. Resour., Vol. 1, No. 1, 2021,

pp.29-36.

WSEAS TRANSACTIONS on ENVIRONMENT and DEVELOPMENT

DOI: 10.37394/232015.2023.19.97

F. X. Ary Setiawan, Absori Absori,

Kelik Wardiono, Arief Budiono,

Achmadi Achmadi, Wardah Yuspin

E-ISSN: 2224-3496

1035

Volume 19, 2023

Contribution of Individual Authors to the

Creation of a Scientific Article (Ghostwriting

Policy)

- F. X. Ary Setiawan: Conceived the research,

provided an original idea of the study, and

provided materials and data for the research.

- Absori Absori: Designed the methods, selected

research data, analyzed and interpreted the data,

and wrote the paper.

- Kelik Wardiono: Analyzed the data, provided a

description, wrote the paper, reviewed the paper,

and validated the data.

- Arief Budiono: Provided materials and data for

the research, reviewed the paper, submitted the

article, and finished the revisions.

- Achmadi Achmadi: Provided materials and data

for the research and reviewed the paper.

- Wardah Yuspin: Validation and verivication

research data, wrote the paper, reviewed revisions

paper.

Sources of Funding for Research Presented in a

Scientific Article or Scientific Article Itself

This research was funded by the research grant

funding of Universitas Muhammadiyah Surakarta,

Indonesia.

Conflict of Interest

The authors have no conflict of interest to declare.

Creative Commons Attribution License 4.0

(Attribution 4.0 International, CC BY 4.0)

This article is published under the terms of the

Creative Commons Attribution License 4.0

https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/deed.en

_US

WSEAS TRANSACTIONS on ENVIRONMENT and DEVELOPMENT

DOI: 10.37394/232015.2023.19.97

F. X. Ary Setiawan, Absori Absori,

Kelik Wardiono, Arief Budiono,

Achmadi Achmadi, Wardah Yuspin

E-ISSN: 2224-3496

1036

Volume 19, 2023