The Constitutional Court held a ruling session on the judicial review of Law Number 32 of 2009 on Environmental Protection and Management, Thursday (08/28/2025) at the Court’s Plenary Chamber. Photo by MKRI/Ifa.

---

JAKARTA, (MKRI) – The Constitutional Court (MK) partially granted the judicial review of Law Number 32 of 2009 on Environmental Protection and Management (PPLH Law). The ruling, Decision Number 119/PUU-XXIII/2025, was delivered in a plenary session at the Constitutional Court chamber on Thursday (08/28/2025). The petition was filed by two students, Leonardo Petersen Agustinus Turnip and Jovan Gregorius Naibaho.

In its ruling, the Court declared that the Explanation of Article 66 of the PPLH Law is unconstitutional and conditionally void insofar as it is not interpreted to mean: “this provision is intended to protect every person, including victims, whistleblowers, witnesses, experts, and environmental activists who participate in environmental protection and management efforts and/or pursue legal remedies as a result of environmental pollution and/or destruction. Such protection is aimed at preventing retaliatory actions through criminal prosecution, civil lawsuits, and/or other legal measures, while safeguarding judicial independence.”

The Court emphasized that the definition of “every person” as set out in Article 1 paragraph 32 of the PPLH Law reflects the constitutional right to a healthy environment. Therefore, the scope of Article 66 must be understood as protecting all individuals engaged in defending environmental rights, not merely victims or whistleblowers of pollution or environmental damage.

“This interpretation covers all individuals who fight for the right to a good and healthy environment and/or advocate for the restoration of polluted or damaged environments. This interpretation is crucial because the right to a good and healthy environment is a fundamental human right guaranteed by the Constitution under Article 28H paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution,” explained Constitutional Justice Arsul Sani in reading the Court’s legal considerations.

The Court further highlighted that the PPLH Law itself recognizes these constitutional rights by granting every person the right to environmental education, access to information, public participation, and justice in ensuring a healthy environment. Accordingly, everyone has the right to voice suggestions or objections to business plans or activities that may impact the environment.

Arsul emphasized that, in line with the purpose of Article 66, legal protection must extend not only to victims or whistleblowers but also to individuals and groups—whether part of legal entities, institutions, or non-governmental organizations—that continuously engage in environmental advocacy. This protection must also explicitly cover witnesses or experts involved in legal or administrative processes arising from environmental harm.

“If the meaning of ‘every person’ is narrowed as in the current Explanation of Article 66, then the aim of environmental protection and management—ensuring fulfillment and safeguarding of environmental rights as part of human rights—would be undermined,” Arsul stated.

The Court concluded that the Explanation of Article 66 improperly restricted the scope of protection by limiting it only to “victims and/or whistleblowers pursuing legal action.” Such a restriction diminishes public participation and narrows legal safeguards for environmental rights guaranteed by the Constitution. The Court reaffirmed that legal explanations in laws cannot contradict, restrict, or expand the substantive provisions in the main text of the law. Therefore, the Explanation of Article 66 must be declared unconstitutional insofar as it is not interpreted as formulated in the Court’s decision.

Read also:

Students Question Protection for Activists Against Criminalization

Two Students Revise Petition on Activists Protection

Author : Utami Argawati.
Editor  : N. Rosi.

PR       : Andhini SF.
Translator: Agusweka Poltak Siregar

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 prevails.

---