Article Sidebar

Download
PDF
Statistic
Read Counter : 2792 Download : 10298

Main Article Content

Abstract

ABSTRAK
Meskipun hak gugat pemerintah atas kerusakan dan/atau pencemaran lingkungan hidup telah menjadi hal yang lazim dewasa ini, namun di Indonesia landasan doktriner gugatan pemerintah tersebut masih jarang diperbincangkan. Dengan menggunakan metode penelitian hukum doktrinal, penelitian ini dimaksudkan untuk menganalisis landasan teoretis hak gugat pemerintah. Berdasarkan kajian analisis atas peraturan dan putusan pengadilan yang berlaku, serta melakukan perbandingan dengan doktrin-doktrin yang berlaku dalam tradisi common law, tulisan ini menemukan bahwa gugatan pemerintah telah diajukan dalam beberapa dasar teoretis yang berbeda, antara lain: i) pemerintah sebagai wali lingkungan hidup; ii) kerugian negara; dan iii) konsekuensi tanggung jawab negara terkait lingkungan hidup. Selain itu, hak gugat pemerintah di Indonesia memiliki karakteristik yang serupa dengan yang ditemukan dalam doktrin public trust dan doktrin parens patriae. Kemiripan ini membawa pada konsekuensi hukum bahwa gugatan pemerintah atas pencemaran harus ditujukan semata-mata untuk memulihkan lingkungan hidup yang mengalami kerusakan/pencemaran.
Kata kunci: doktrin; hak gugat pemerintah; kerugian lingkungan hidup.


ABSTRACT
Despite the government’s right to sue for environmental damage is a common practice in various countries nowadays, in Indonesia the theoretical basis of it is rare to be discussed. Using a doctrinal-research, this article analyzes the government’s right to sue with prevailing laws and court rulings and compares it to several common law doctrines. This article finds the government’s right to sue in Indonesia is based to three different theories, including: i) the government as a trustee of public natural resources; ii) state’s damage; and iii) the tail of state’s responsibility. In addition, the government’s right to sue also shares similar characteristics found in the public trust doctrine and parens patriae doctrine. The similarities bring about the legal basis that the government’s suit against pollution should primarily aim at restoration.
Keywords: doctrine; environmental damage; government’s right to sue.

Keywords

doktrin hak gugat pemerintah kerugian lingkungan hidup

Article Details

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

How to Cite
Jonaidi, D. P., & Wibisana, A. G. (2020). LANDASAN DOKTRINER HAK GUGAT PEMERINTAH TERHADAP KERUGIAN LINGKUNGAN HIDUP DI INDONESIA. Jurnal Bina Mulia Hukum, 5(1), 156-175. Retrieved from https://jurnal.fh.unpad.ac.id/index.php/jbmh/article/view/9
Download Citation
Endnote/Zotero/Mendeley (RIS)
BibTeX

References

  1. A. Buku
  2. Andri G. Wibisana, Penegakan Hukum Lingkungan Melalui Pertanggungjawaban Perdata, BP-FHUI, Depok: 2017.
  3. Edward H.P. Brans, Liability for Damage to Public Natural Resources: Standing, Damage and Damage Assessment, Kluwer Law International, The Hague: 2001.
  4. Jing Liu, Compensating Ecological Damage: Comparative and Economic Observations, Intersentia, Cambridge-Antwerp-Portland: 2013.
  5. Jimly Asshiddiqie, Green Constitution: Nuansa Hijau Undang-Undang Dasar Negara Republik Indonesia Tahun 1945, Rajawali Pers, Jakarta: 2009.
  6. Mas Ahmad Santosa, Good Governance dan Hukum Lingkungan, ICEL, Jakarta: 2001.
  7. Muhammad Akib, Politik Hukum Lingkungan: Dinamika dan Refleksinya dalam Produk Hukum Otonomi Daerah, Rajawali Pers, Jakarta: 2012.
  8. NHT. Siahaan, Ekologi Pembangunan dan Hukum Tata Lingkungan, Erlangga, Jakarta: 1987.
  9. Paulus Effendi Lotulung, Penegakan Hukum Lingkungan Oleh Hakim Perdata, PT. Citra Aditya Bakti, Bandung, 1993.
  10. B. Jurnal
  11. Allan Kanner dan Mary E. Ziegler, “Understanding and Protecting Natural Resources,” Duke Environmental Law & Policy Forum, No. 119, Vol. 17, 2006.
  12. Allan Kanner, “The Public Trust Doctrine, Parens Patriae, and the Attorney General as the Guardian of the State’ s Natural Resources,” Duke Environmental Law and Policy Forum, No. 57, Vol. 16, 2005.
  13. Christopher D. Stone, “Should Trees Have Standing? - Toward Legal Rights for Natural Objects,” Southern California Law Review, Vol. 45, 1972.
  14. Daniel R. Coquillette, “Mosses from an Old Manse: Another Look at Some Historic Property Cases About the Environment,” Cornell Law Review, No. 5, Vol. 64, 1979.
  15. George P. Smith dan David M. Steenburg, “Environmental Hedonism or, Securing the Environment through the Common Law,” William and Mary Environmental Law and Policy Review, No. 1, Vol. 40, 2015.
  16. Kevin T. Grady, “State Actions for Damage to Non-Commercial Living Natural Resources,” Boston College Environmental Affairs Law Review, No. 2, Vol. 9, 1980.
  17. Lisa Moscati Hawkes, “Parens Patriae and the Union Carbide Case: The Disaster at Bhopal Continues,” Cornell International Law Journal, No. 1, Vol. 21, 1988.
  18. Margaret S. Thomas, “Parens Patriae and The States’ Historic Police Power,” SMU Law Review, No. 4, Vol. 69, 2016.
  19. Mary Christina Wood, “Advancing the sovereign trust of government to safeguard the environment for present and future generations (part I): Ecological realism and the need for a paradigm shift,” Environmental Law, No. 1, Vol. 39, 2009.
  20. Michael C. Blumm dan Aurora Paulsen, “The Public Trust in Wildlfe,” Utah Law Review, No. 6, 2013.
  21. Raymond H. Brescia, “On Objects and Sovereigns: The Emerging Frontiers of State Standing,” Oregon Law Review, No. 2, Vol. 96, 2018.
  22. Richard W. Silverthorn, “An Equitable Extension of the Parens Patriae Doctrine - Puerto Rico v. Snapp,” DePaul Law Review Article, No. 4, Vol. 30, 1981.
  23. Seth Davis, “Federal Courts, Practice and Procedure: State Spending: The Private Rights of Public Governments”, No. 1, Vol. 94, 2019
  24. Thomas H. Koenig dan Michael L. Rustad, “Reconceptualizing the BP Oil Spill as Parens Patriae Products Liability,” Houston Law Review, No. 2, Vol. 49, 2012.
  25. C. Putusan Pengadilan
  26. Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 001-021-022/PUU-I/2003 perihal Uji Materiil Undang-Undang Nomor 20 Tahun 2002 tentang Ketenagalistrikan terhadap UUD NRI Tahun 1945, tanggal 15 Desember 2004.
  27. Putusan Pengadilan Negeri Palangkaraya Nomor 213/Pdt.G/LH/2018/PN.Plk perihal Kementerian Lingkungan Hidup dan Kehutanan melawan PT. Arjuna Utama Sawit, tanggal 21 Oktober 2019.
  28. Putusan Pengadilan Negeri Palembang Nomor 24/Pdt.G/2015/PN.Plg perihal Kementerian Lingkungan Hidup dan Kehutanan melawan PT. Bumi Mekar Hijau, tanggal 30 Desember 2015.
  29. Putusan Pengadilan Negeri Jakarta Selatan Nomor 456/Pdt.G-LH/2016/PN.Jkt.Sel perihal Kementerian Lingkungan Hidup dan Kehutanan melawan PT. Waringin Agro Jaya, tanggal 7 Februari 2017.
  30. Putusan Pengadilan Negeri Jakarta Selatan Nomor 700/Pdt.G/2013/PN.Jkt.Sel perihal Menteri Lingkungan Hidup melawan PT. Surya Panen Subur, tanggal 25 September 2014.
  31. Putusan Pengadilan Negeri Meulaboh Nomor 12/PDT.G/2012/PN.MBO perihal Menteri Lingkungan Hidup melawan PT. Kallista Alam, tanggal 28 November 2013.
  32. Putusan Pengadilan Negeri Banjarmasin Nomor 125/Pdt.G/2016/PN.Bjm perihal Kementerian Lingkungan Hidup dan Kehutanan melawan PT. Palmina Utama, tanggal 21 Februari 2018.
  33. Putusan Pengadilan Negeri Jambi Nomor 107/Pdt.G/LH/2019/PN.Jmb perihal Kementerian Lingkungan Hidup dan Kehutanan melawan PT. Agro Tumbuh Gemilang Abadi, tanggal 13 April 2020.
  34. Geer v. Connecticut, 161 U.S. 519 (1896).
  35. State of Ohio v. City of Bowling Green, 38 Ohio St. 2d 281 (Ohio 197, 313 N.E.2d 409).
  36. Dep't of Fisheries v. Gillette, 27 Wn. App. 815, (Wash. Ct. App. 1980).
  37. State ex rel. Bacich v. Huse, 187 Wn. 75, (Wash. 1936).
  38. Judd v. Bernard, 49 Wn. 2d 619, (Wash. 1956).
  39. State ex Rel. Campbell v. Case, 182 Wn. 334, (Wash. 1935).
  40. Toomer v. Witsell, 334 U.S. 385 (1948).
  41. Maryland v. Amerada Hess Corp., 350 F. Supp. 1060 (D. Md. 1972).
  42. Hughes v. Oklahoma, 441 U.S. 332 (1976).
  43. Louisiana v. Texas, 176 U.S. 1 (1900).
  44. Georgia v. Tennessee Copper Co., 206 U.S. 230 (1907).
  45. Snapp & Son, Inc. v. Puerto Rico ex rel. Barez, 458 U.S. 592 (1982).
  46. Commonwealth of Puerto Rico v. SS Zoe Colocotroni, 628 F.2d 652 (1st Cir. 1980).
  47. Maryland v. Amerada Hess Corp., 350 F. Supp. 1060 (D. Md. 1972).
  48. California v. S.S. Bournemouth, 307 F. Supp. 922 and 318 F. Supp. 839 (C.D. Cal. 1970).
  49. Maine v. M/V Tamano, 357 F. Supp. 1097, 1102 (D. Me. 1973).
  50. Illinois Central Railroad v. Illinois, 146 U.S. 387.
  51. State v. Jersey Central Power Light Co., 125 N.J. Super. 97, 103 (N.J. Super. App. Div. 1973).
  52. Sierra Club v. Morton, 405 U.S. 727 (1972).