Petitioners Jovan Gregorius Naibaho and ⁠Leonardo Petersen Agustinus Turnip (left to right) at the preliminary hearing for the judicial review of Law No. 32 of 2009 on Environmental Protection and Management as amended by the Job Creation Law, Thursday (7/31/2025). Photo by MKRI/Panji.

---

JAKARTA (MKRI) — Two law students of the University of North Sumatra (USU) have filed a petition for judicial review of the Elucidation to Article 66 of Law No. 32 of 2009 on Environmental Protection and Management (PPLH Law), as amended by Law No. 6 of 2023 on the Stipulation of the Government Regulation in Lieu of Law No. 2 of 2022 on Job Creation into Law. They argue that the elucidation to article limits the definition of the phrase “every person” only to reporters and/or victims who pursue legal remedies.

“The formulation of the first and second paragraphs derogates both every person’s substantive right to a good and healthy environment and procedural right to obtain legal protection when advocating for those environmental rights,” stated Petitioner Leonardo Petersen Agustinus Turnip alongside the other Petitioner Jovan Gregorius Naibaho at the preliminary hearing for case No. 119/PUU-XXIII/2025 on Thursday, July 31, 2025.

The Petitioners argued that such a restriction effectively limits the right of every individual to advocate for a good and healthy environment as guaranteed under Article 65 of the PPLH Law. The phrase “every person” in Article 66 should be interpreted as “individuals or business entities, whether legal or non-legal, who advocate for the right to a good and healthy environment.”

Victims and/or reporters who seek legal actions driven by environmental pollution or destruction are in principle addressed under Part XV on Criminal Provisions. The current restriction thus undermines the right of every person to advocate for a good and healthy environment as enshrined in Article 65 of the PPLH Law.

From a legislative drafting perspective, any article should refer to preceding articles. On that basis, the Elucidation to Article 66 of the PPLH Law effectively confines legal protection only to those persons engaged in legal proceedings, as contemplated under Part XV on Criminal Provisions.

Due to the paradigm reflected in the Elucidation to Article 66, those considered to be advocating for environmental protection are limited solely to victims and/or reporters who seek legal remedies, i.e. those pursuing litigation. In fact, the fight for environmental protection and access to legal safeguards should be accommodated through both litigation and non-litigation means.

Article 66 of the PPLH Law reads, “Every person who advocates for the right to a good and healthy environment shall not be subject to criminal prosecution or civil litigation.” Meanwhile, the Elucidation to Article 66 reads, “This provision is intended to protect victims and/or claimants who seek legal remedies in response to environmental pollution and/or destruction.”

In their petitums, the Petitioners request that the Court declare the Elucidation to Article 66 unconstitutional and not legally binding. They further request that the it be revised to read, “Every person referred to in this provision, as defined in the general provisions, who advocates for the right to a good and healthy environment shall not be subject to criminal prosecution and/or civil litigation, whether within or outside of court proceedings.”

Additionally, they seek a ruling that Article 66 of the PPLH Law be interpreted to mean that legal protection for every person advocating for a good and healthy environment includes not only protection from criminal prosecution or civil lawsuits, but also includes government protection prior to and during acts of silencing, such as intimidation or threats. Therefore, they request the Court to order the Government to issue a government regulation to comprehensively implement legal protections for environmental defenders.

The case was heard by a panel chaired by Deputy Chief Justice Saldi Isra, alongside Constitutional Justices Ridwan Mansyur and Arsul Sani. Justice Arsul noted that the Petitioners must further elaborate the formulation of their petitums requesting the reinterpretation of the Elucidation to Article 66, to avoid legal uncertainty.

“Does the term ‘every person’ become strictly limited by such an elucidation, especially considering that ‘victims’ can be broadly interpreted? These are matters you need to reflect on, you might want to do some additional reading,” he said.

Meanwhile, Justice Ridwan emphasized that the Petitioners must clearly outline the constitutional harm they have suffered as a result of the contested provision. He advised that the contradiction between the provision under review and the constitutional norms they are reviewed against be fully and coherently argued.

Before adjourning the hearing, Deputy Chief Justice Saldi Isra gave the Petitioners 14 days to revise the petition, which must be resubmitted by Wednesday, August 13, 2025.

Author       : Mimi Kartika
Editor        : Nur R.
PR            : Andhini S.F.
Translator  : Yuniar Widiastuti (NL)

Disclaimer: The original version of the news is in Indonesian. In case of any differences between the English and the Indonesian versions, the Indonesian version will prevail.

Watch the hearing on https://www.youtube.com/live/8_MSLorZSqU

---