Climate change is wreaking havoc around the world. Therefore, many countries have started to solve it. Indonesia is one of them.
Indonesia has set a target of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 31.89% without international funding and 43.20% with international support by 2030. This commitment is legally binding. This makes the judiciary play a key role in achieving this goal. Climate litigation is “an increasingly pervasive and citizen-accessible area of environmental law”. Citizens are increasingly using this form of litigation to hold states and public corporations accountable “for their climate mitigation efforts and historic contributions to climate change.”
In Indonesia, all climate-related cases are referred to ordinary courts and are led by certified environmental law judges. The future will face more and more ecological challenges due to climate change, making it imperative for the Indonesian government to strengthen its jurisdiction in order to consciously regulate environmental law.
In 2019, Jakarta citizens and activists sued the government in Jakarta Central Court over poor air quality. This case is significant in the history of human rights in Indonesia because it expresses citizens’ demands to improve the overall environment. The case comes to judgment in 2021 after two long years. The judgment imposes appropriate penalties on the president, three ministers and the governor to take appropriate action on air pollution. This case has contributed to the progress and trend of Indonesian climate litigation.
Principles and Practice
This case incorporates some principles related to environmental law mentioned in Article 2 of Law No. 32 of 2009. These principles include the Pollution Pays Principle, the Sustainable Development Principle and the Precautionary Principle. According to the pollution pay principle, Jakarta’s governor should penalize drivers more severely for drivers who do not meet the allowable pollution levels for vehicles, businesses or activities that do not meet emission quality standards. In view of this, the governor issued Regulation No. 66, regarding the inspection of motorcycle exhaust emissions in 2020, adding more than 15 air quality monitoring stations, and sorting out the emission inventory.
Air pollution negatively impacts the health of generations. This pollution is unsustainable and violates the principles of sustainable health. The judge argued the Ministry of Health violated the law by refusing to share any information about the polluted areas and the impact of air pollution on public health. The Ministry of Health also has no statistics on the decline in public health due to air pollution. pollute. This is a violation of article 14 of Presidential Decree No. 41 of 1999. Therefore, Indonesia needs to increase transparency among stakeholders.
Following the precautionary principle, the panel of judges asked the President to amend Article 41 of the 1999 Presidential Decree following the Kalimantan forest fires in 2017. Although the validity of the bill has been questioned for 21 years, it has not been reviewed by the president, who said it failed to prioritize regulations. Still, there is a silver lining to Jakarta’s citizens’ lawsuit over air pollution.These lawsuits led to a government redesign Baku Mutuadala Ambien (BMUA), which translates to ambient air quality standards, may be the reason for encouraging the prioritization of pollution risks.
Strengthening climate commitments
This lawsuit sets an example for all Indonesians that if their right to a healthy environment is violated, they can take it to court through a civil suit. The right to a healthy environment is a human right and as such, courts will take this into account in any environmental case.Court decision considers human rights as supporting element Perbuatan Melawan Hukum (PMH), Their choice to bring a human rights expert to court was a deliberate move.
Beyond this case, the media also plays a vital role in raising awareness of climate litigation in Indonesia. Making more cases and initiating discussions will increase citizens’ critical thinking and optimism about the environment and its human rights.
The Indonesian President and various ministries need to be held accountable for any violation of BMUA rules. Air pollution in Jakarta is getting worse. Along with Hanoi and Mandalay, Jakarta is the most polluted city in Southeast Asia. The average life expectancy of their citizens has been reduced by three to four years. The judgment also requires the Department of Environment and Forestry to strengthen the governor’s oversight role. The governor’s oversight role extends to the development of policy areas for provincial emission limits, management plans (RPPMUs), power plant units and other operating industries. To foster public engagement and their trust in government, mechanisms are needed to punish governors who are found to be ineffective. This will demonstrate the commitment of the country and its judiciary to reversing climate change.
Indonesia continues to face the challenge of addressing air pollution in Jakarta. For example, the country has a limited number of judges specializing in environmental law, who could address a possible increase in climate-related cases. Due to its direct impact on air pollution, Indonesia also needs to stop relying on coal-fired power plants for its economic resilience. Furthermore, the public remains largely unaware of the urgency of the climate crisis.
Indonesia must train young judges in environmental law as climate-related cases rise. Cases alone won’t work, and neither will judicial activism. Indonesian citizens must play an active role in having their representatives draft laws to tackle climate change. They must also put pressure on the government to pass sensible policies to enforce these laws. These policies must have objectives that can be measured, monitored and evaluated. Only then can Indonesia play its part in fighting climate change.
[Throvnica Chandrasekar and Harshitha Gadde edited this piece.]
The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Fair Observer.
The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Fair Observer.
