Strengthening Anti-SLAPP Procedural Provisions in Indonesia: A Normative-Comparative Study and Its Implementation in the Decision of PT Bangka Belitung No. 21/Pid/2021/PT BBL

Muhammad Kurnia; Rendy Rendy; Arief Hidayat

doi:10.55227/ijhess.v5i6.2311

Authors

Muhammad Kurnia Department of Law, Faculty of Law, University of Bangka Belitung
Rendy Rendy Department of Political Science, FISIP, University of Bangka Belitung
Arief Hidayat Cultural and Media Studies, Graduate School, Gadjah Mada University

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.55227/ijhess.v5i6.2311

Abstract

Public participation is a foundational pillar of democratic governance, particularly in protecting and sustainably managing the environment. Within this framework, every citizen has the right to engage in environmental advocacy without fear of criminal prosecution or civil lawsuits. This legal protection, as stipulated in Article 66 of Law No. 32 of 2009 on Environmental Protection and Management (UU PPLH), embodies the concept of Anti-Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation (Anti-SLAPP). However, the Indonesian Anti-SLAPP provision continues to face substantial procedural and substantive weaknesses, resulting in persistent criminalization and judicial harassment against environmental human rights defenders. This study aims to critically analyze procedural deficiencies in the Anti-SLAPP mechanism in Indonesia by comparing it with California (United States) and the Philippines, two jurisdictions that have developed advanced procedural safeguards to ensure public participation. Employing a normative juridical method and comparative legal analysis, this paper explores both international and domestic frameworks governing Anti-SLAPP principles. In addition, this article contextualizes the landmark Decision of the Bangka Belitung High Court No. 21/Pid/2021/PT BBL, delivered on May 10, 2021, which, for the first time, recognized Anti-SLAPP reasoning in a criminal case and acquitted the defendants, Robandi, Muhammad Yusuf, Syamsul Effendi, Heti Rukmana, and Aditama, who had been criminalized for their environmental advocacy. This judicial precedent demonstrates the transformative potential of Article 66 UU PPLH as a progressive legal safeguard. It underscores the urgent need for a coherent procedural framework to operationalize Anti-SLAPP protections in Indonesia

References

Anti-SLAPP Statute (1992).

Aulia, N. Z. , Z. A. , & M. R. (2021). Anti-SLAPP: Meninjau Kembali Mekanisme Perlindungan Pejuang Lingkungan Hidup. Jurnal Legislatif, 4(2), 215–230.

Boyd, D. R. (2020). The Transformative Potential of Recognizing the Human Right to a Healthy Environment. Environmental Science & Policy, 114, 23–30.

Canan, P. , & P. G. W. (1988). SLAPPs: Getting Sued for Speaking Out. Temple University Press.

Canan, P. , & P. G. W. (2021). Anti-SLAPP Laws: Twenty-Five Years of Protecting Democratic Participation. . Environmental Law Review, 23(2), 134–152.

Deklarasi Rio Tentang Lingkungan Dan Pembangunan , 1992.

Dworkin, R. (1986). Law’s Empire. . Harvard University Press.

ELSAM. (2021). Laporan Situasi Pembela HAM Lingkungan di Indonesia 2019–2021. .

Fisher, E. , L. B. , & S. E. (2019). Environmental Law: Text, Cases and Materials (3rd ed.). Oxford University Press.

Handayani, M. M. , A. J. C. , & A. P. K. (2022). Berbagai Wajah Fenomena SLAPP di Indonesia. Jurnal Hukum Lingkungan Indonesia, 8(1).

Indrawati, N. (2022). Indrawati, N. (2022). Perlindungan Hukum Terhadap Partisipasi Masyarakat (Anti SLAPP) Dalam Penegakan Hukum Lingkungan Hidup di Indonesia. Media Juris, 5(1).

Kamal, U. , K. J. H. (2018). Framework Principles on Human Rights and the Environment: Report of the Special Rapporteur on Human Rights and the Environment.

KontraS & FORUM-ASIA. (2021). Menyoal Kriminalisasi Pembela HAM Lingkungan di Indonesia.

Marzuki, P. M. (2017). Penelitian Hukum. Kencana.

Merrills, J. G. , & B. A. (2022). Human Rights and the Environment: The Changing Interface. . Oxford University Press.

Newell, P. , & T. O. (2022). Environmental Defenders and the Global Politics of Protection. Global Environmental Change, 73(102).

Peñas, F. J. (2020). ACL volume 15 issue 1 Cover and Front matter. Asian Journal of Comparative Law, 15(1), f1–f5. https://doi.org/10.1017/asjcl.2020.12

Pradipta, R. A. , & A. F. (2022). Analisis Yuridis terhadap Putusan Pengadilan Tinggi Bangka Belitung Nomor 21/Pid/2021/PT BBL sebagai Preseden Anti-SLAPP. Jurnal Hukum Dan Peradilan, 11(4), 433–455.

Rahardjo, S. (2009). Hukum Progresif: Hukum yang Membebaskan. Kompas.

Richardson, B. J. (2023). Ecological Constitutionalism and the Rights of Nature. . Transnational Environmental Law, 12(1), 35–56.

Sands, P. , P. J. , F. A. , & M. R. (2018). Principles of International Environmental Law (4th ed. Cambridge University Press.

Schlosberg, D. (2007). Defining Environmental Justice: Theories, Movements, and Nature. Oxford University Press.

Shelton, D. (2019). Environmental Rights in Theory and Practice. Cambridge University Press.

Soekanto, S. , & M. S. (2015). Penelitian Hukum Normatif: Suatu Tinjauan Singkat. Rajawali Pers.

Uzelac, A. (2021). Access to Justice and Environmental Protection: A Procedural Perspective. International Journal of Procedural Law, 11(2), 145–167.

Wardana, I. G. A. (2020). Reframing SLAPP Cases and the Future of Anti-SLAPP Mechanisms in Indonesia. Jurnal Hukum Lingkungan Indonesia, 7(2), 85–106.

Yusran, M. , & H. L. (2022). Evaluasi Implementasi Pasal 66 UU PPLH: Analisis Kelemahan Prosedural dan Upaya Reformasi. Jurnal Legislasi Indonesia, 19(2), 87–103.

 Surat Keputusan Ketua Mahkamah Agung Republik Indonesia Nomor 36/KMA/SK/II/2013 Tentang Pedoman Penanganan Perkara Lingkungan Hidup (2013).

 Undang-Undang Dasar Negara Republik Indonesia Tahun 1945.

 Undang-Undang Nomor 32 Tahun 2009 Tentang Perlindungan Dan Pengelolaan Lingkungan Hidup.

 Undang-Undang Nomor 39 Tahun 1999 Tentang Hak Asasi Manusia.