Press conference
WALHI Riau – List – Jikalahari – ICEL
Pekanbaru, 24 November 2022 —Monday 07 November 2022, the Supreme Court (MA) announced the result of decision Number 4991 K/Pid.Sus-LH/2022 concerning the criminal case of forest and land fires (karhutla) with the defendant PT Gandaerah Hendana (PT GH). The decision taken on September 13 2022 stated the rejection of the cassation request from the cassation applicant/public prosecutor. This means that the Supreme Court upheld the decision at the Pekanbaru High Court level which stated that PT GH was not guilty of the land fire that occurred in its HGU location. Responding to this, WALHI Riau, Senarai, Jikalahari, and ICEL held a public discussion entitled “Questioning the Free Verdict on PT Gandaerah Hendana’s Karhutla Case”.
Jeffri Sianturi, General Coordinator of Senarai, reviewed the facts of the trial at the Rengat District Court (PN). Based on the decision of the Rengat District Court Number 256/Pid.Sus/PN Rgt, the fire occurred in September 2019 in PT GH’s HGU concession covering an area of 580 hectares. The decision stated that the company deliberately did not carry out supervision and protection of its business land so that the criteria for environmental damage occurred.
“The fire that occurred for 21 days was known to the company from the start, but they did not take any action. Because the company only extinguished it ten days after the fire started, and even then it was not serious. So it is appropriate for GH to be subject to the first Alternative Article, namely Article 98 Law on Environmental Protection and Management. And subject to a fine and repairs as a result of the fire of Rp. 216 billion,” said Jeffri.
Unfortunately, the decision of the Rengat District Court was later annulled by the Riau High Court and reaffirmed by the Supreme Court with a ruling that GH was not guilty. “This is a step backwards towards law enforcement in the environmental sector in Riau. Companies that deliberately do not protect land and clash with the community under the pretext that they own the land and must be held accountable,” he said.
The burned land was included in the HGU and from 2005 to 2020 they are still trying to take it with various reports to the land office, regents, sub-district heads and village heads. Why doesn’t the company do a compensation pattern or partnership with the community so that the land can be re-occupied? Or since long ago the company released it from the HGU. Why during the investigation process suddenly released the HGU. “What is the company’s motivation?” said Jeffrey.
Furthermore, Okto Yugo Setiyo, Deputy Coordinator of Jikalahari, explained about the public review of the Corporate SP3 that stumbled on the 2015 Riau karhutla case. He also reviewed some of the impacts of the 2019 Riau karhutla where one of the biggest contributions was from PT GH. “Apart from causing a large environmental impact and causing fatalities, PT GH is also alleged to have harmed the state from the tax sector. The 2015 Licensing Monitoring and Evaluation Committee of the DPRD Riau found that PT GH’s activities outside of permits resulted in state losses, from potential P3 taxes (PPn, PPh, and PBB) of more than Rp. 50 billion each year,” said Okto.
Okto also mentioned allegations of land corruption by PT GH. After the fires from 3 to 24 September 2019, PT GH proposed reducing some of the HGU, including those that were burned, to BPN Inhu. The proposed reduced land area is 2,791.49 hectares. According to Okto, the attempt to reduce part of the HGU, which includes burnt land and is being processed by law, is suspected of being an attempt to escape responsibility and legal bondage.
The third presentation was delivered by Umi Ma’rufah, WALHI Riau Coordinator of Research and Policy Studies. Umi stated that the reasons for PT GH’s acquittal from being charged with forest and land fires conflicted with field findings obtained by WALHI Riau.
“ Field monitoring conducted by the WALHI Riau team at PT GH in May 2022 found one of the landowners who said the land was purchased from Seluti Village officials, Lirik District, Indragiri Hulu Regency in the form of a Compensation Certificate (SKGR) a year ago with a price of IDR 33 million/hectare. The estimated number of people who own burnt oil palm land in PT GH’s HGU is around 30 households with a total area of ±50 hectares with a length of ownership of 1-3 years. This shows that the claim that the land that was burnt has been controlled by the community for a long time is not entirely true,” said Umi.
Umi also mentioned PT GH’s violations in the forest area which will be resolved through the continuation scheme of Articles 110A and 110B of the Job Creation Law. “Earlier this year, Jokowi announced a Decree on the revocation of forestry permits, which stated that the Decree on the release of PT GH’s forest area No. 806/KPTS-II/1993 covering an area of 14,000 hectares is included in the evaluation category. However, on the other hand PT GH is also included in the advanced scheme which will obtain an Approval Permit for the Use of Forest Areas (IPPKH). Unfortunately, information regarding the implementation process of 110A and 110B is very closed, so that civil society cannot carry out supervision and monitoring, moreover provide input,” explained Umi.
Furthermore, Difa Shafira from ICEL explained the relevance of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court Number 36 of 2013 concerning Guidelines for Handling Environmental Cases (KKMA 36/2013) and Certification of Environmental Judges in this case . Difa explained that in the PT GH case, the judges at the appellate and cassation levels did not examine and try cases based on KKMA 36/2013.
“Articles 98 and 99 of the PPLH Law are material offenses and this is also clearly described in the KKMA 36/2013, so the judge needs to see how PT GH has caused its HGU land to burn. The judges also ignored the relevance of the licensing documents and the obligations attached to PT GH in adjudicating the case. This decision on appeal and cassation level is very unfortunate. Even though the Rengat District Court Decision which was annulled has shown that environmental law enforcement is oriented towards recovery through additional punishment in accordance with the provisions of Article 119 of Law no. 32 of 2009 concerning Environmental Protection and Management. Unfortunately, the appeal and cassation decisions actually freed PT GH from all legal responsibility. This of course raises the question again, what will happen to the recovery of the burnt land?” Difa said.
In response to the acquittal of the PT GH forest and land fire case, WALHI Riau, Senarai, Jikalahari, ICEL, and the discussion participants who attended agreed to encourage the prosecutor’s office to conduct a judicial review (PK). Okto added that there is a need to encourage prosecutors to find loopholes to report to the Judicial Commission, then there are also allegations of corruption at the BPN and the Supreme Court. “Then a public examination or public review can also be carried out. We also have to continue voicing this issue, even if we need to demonstrate,” said Okto. Difa also stressed the importance of providing input to the Supreme Court regarding system evaluation and monitoring to prevent decisions like PT GH from happening again.
contact person:
Jeffri (085365250049)
Umi (085225977379)
