The Crucial Guide to Indonesia Spatial Planning and Green Open Space Law (Final Part)

As rapid urbanization transforms our cities, maintaining green spaces like parks and urban forests is essential to keeping communities livable, safe from environmental hazards, and ecologically balanced. While mandatory green space targets are designed to protect our quality of life, the growing gap between these urban goals and actual city conditions has turned green space management into a crucial test of local government accountability.

Part III: Legal Implications if the 30% RTH Provision is not Achieved

The first part of this article series examined the legal framework for the provision of Green Open Space/Ruang Terbuka Hijau (“RTH”) in Indonesia. The discussion demonstrated that Indonesia has established a relatively comprehensive regulatory framework requiring that at least 30% of a city’s total area be allocated to RTH, with 20% for public RTH and 10% for private RTH, and recognizing RTH as an important instrument for environmental sustainability and sustainable development.

The second part then examined the implementation of this obligation in practice. Although various regulations have allocated responsibilities and provided mechanisms for the provision of RTH, the level of compliance remains uneven across regions. Several cities continue to fall significantly below the 30% target, including Jakarta, which, despite having a relatively comprehensive regulatory framework, has yet to achieve the statutory RTH requirement.

These findings raise an important legal question. If the 30% RTH requirement is not fulfilled, what legal consequences may arise for the responsible authorities? Does the requirement constitute a legally enforceable obligation, or is it merely a policy target within the spatial planning framework? Accordingly, this final part of the article series examines the legal implications arising from the failure to fulfil the 30% RTH requirement and discusses it through the case study of the Palembang State Administrative Court Decision No. 10/G/TF/2022/PTUN PLG.

Read More: Polluter Pays: Understanding Critical Environmental Compensation Cost and Regulatory Compliance

Legal Implications of Failure to Fulfill the Green Open Space Requirement

The Gap Between Legal Requirements and Implementation

Article 29 paragraph (2) of the Law Number 26 of 2007 on Spatial Planning (“Spatial Planning Law”) requires that at least 30% of a city’s total area be allocated to RTH. However, data from several cities indicate that this target has not yet been fully achieved. Even Jakarta, the capital city of Indonesia, recorded RTH coverage of only 5.59% in 2026, significantly below the threshold mandated by law.

This situation raises an important legal question: whether the obligation to provide at least 30% RTH constitutes a legally enforceable obligation or merely a policy target intended to serve as a guideline for spatial planning.

Potential Spatial Planning Disputes

Failure to meet the RTH target may also increase the potential for spatial planning disputes. For example, communities or environmental organizations may challenge government decisions that permit development on land originally designated as RTH. In this context, disputes may arise in the form of challenges against administrative decisions issued by government authorities, environmental litigation, and citizen lawsuits alleging the government’s failure to safeguard environmental quality. Dispute resolution may initially be pursued through deliberation to reach consensus, and if such an agreement is not reached, the parties may seek resolution through court proceedings.

In the context of spatial planning disputes, the resolution of a dispute depends on the parties involved and the subject matter of the dispute. Disputes arising from Government Decisions and/or Government Actions undertaken by government agencies or officials fall, in principle, within the jurisdiction of the Administrative Court. Meanwhile, disputes between individuals or members of the public, particularly those concerning civil rights and interests, fall, in principle, within the jurisdiction of the public courts. This article specifically examines spatial planning disputes involving the government and the public in relation to Government Decisions and/or Government Actions.

Read More: Application of precautionary principle in environmental cases

Regional Government Liability Issues

One of the most compelling legal issues is the absence of any provision that expressly imposes sanctions on regional governments for failing to achieve the 30% RTH target.

The Spatial Planning Law provides for various enforcement mechanisms, including administrative, civil, and criminal sanctions for violations of spatial utilization requirements. However, these provisions are generally directed at parties that violate spatial plans, rather than at regional governments that have failed to achieve the required proportion of RTH. Parties that violate spatial planning regulations by failing to comply with an established Spatial Plan or by utilising space inconsistently with the Spatial Plan, thereby resulting in a change in the function of the space, may be subject to criminal sanctions as provided under Articles 69 and 70 of the Spatial Planning Law as amended by Law Number 6 of 2023 on the Stipulation of Government Regulation in Lieu of Law Number 2 of 2022 on Job Creation as a Law and subsequently adjusted through Law Number 1 of 2026 on Criminal Penalty Adjustments.

As a result, a gap exists between the normative obligation to provide at least 30% RTH and the legal enforcement mechanisms available against the parties responsible for meeting that requirement.

From a spatial planning law perspective, the principal issue concerning the 30% RTH requirement in Indonesia does not lie in the lack of legal regulation. The Spatial Planning Law, Government Regulation Number 21 of 2021 on the Implementation of Spatial Planning, Minister of Agrarian Affairs and Spatial Planning/Head of the National Land Agency Regulation Number 14 of 2022 on the Provision and Utilization of Green Open Space, and other implementating regulations have established a regulatory framework. Nevertheless, there is still no enforcement mechanism specifically directed at regional governments or public officer that fail to achieve the 30% RTH target. As a result, in practice, this requirement often functions more as a spatial planning instrument that is not yet supported by administrative sanction mechanisms specifically aimed at regional governments. However, as demonstrated by the Palembang State Administrative Court Decision 10/G/TF/2022/PTUN PLG, failure to fulfill the obligation to provide RTH may still give rise to legal consequences through legal actions challenging governmental acts or omissions.

Case Discussion: Palembang State Administrative Court Decision Number 10/G/TF/2022/PTUN PLG

Although the failure to achieve the 30% RTH requirement does not give rise to direct legal consequences, compliance with this obligation may nonetheless be encouraged through litigation against the relevant government authorities.

Background

This case originated from a lawsuit filed by three residents of Palembang City together with the South Sumatra chapter of the Indonesian Forum for the Environment/Wahana Lingkungan Hidup Indonesia (“WALHI”) against the Mayor of Palembang before the Palembang State Administrative Court (“PTUN”). The lawsuit arose from the severe flooding that struck Palembang on 25–26 December 2021, which resulted in material losses, environmental damage, and loss of life.

The plaintiffs argued that the flooding was not solely caused by heavy rainfall, but was also attributable to the failure of the Palembang City Government to fulfill its obligations under RTRW. These obligations included:

1. the provision of RTH;
2. the restoration of conservation wetland areas;
3. the provision of retention ponds;
4. the development and maintenance of drainage systems; and
5. waste management

Subject Matter of the Lawsuit

The subject matter of the lawsuit in this dispute is the defendant’s actual conduct, namely:

1. Failure to implement the RTRW in accordance with Palembang City Regulation No. 15 of 2012 on the Palembang City Spatial Plan for 2012–2030, specifically by failing to provide green open spaces, failing to restore the function of conservation wetlands, failing to provide retention ponds, failing to provide adequate drainage channels, and failing to provide proper waste disposal facilities in each urban village, as well as inadequate waste management, resulting in flooding in the city of Palembang on 25-26 December 2021; and
2. Failure to implement flood disaster mitigation measures in a situation where there was a potential for disaster, as required by Law No. 24 of 2007 on Disaster Management, resulting in flood victims being left stranded and leading to loss of life on 25 December 2021.

According to the plaintiffs, the Palembang City Government’s failure to fulfill these obligations had reduced the area’s environmental carrying capacity and increased the risk of flooding within the City of Palembang.

Legal Issue

The Panel of Judges primarily considered whether the Mayor of Palembang’s failure to fulfill the obligations relating to the provision of RTH and flood control infrastructure, as stipulated under the Palembang Regional RTRW, constituted an Unlawful Act by a Government Body and/or Officials (onrechtmatige overheidsdaad).

Panel of Judges Consideration

Administrative Remedy

The Panel of Judges held that, in cases involving unlawful acts by government agencies and/or officials (Onrechtmatige Overheidsdaad), an administrative remedy is not required for a lawsuit challenging an unlawful act by a government official in the form of an omission. Furthermore, the Panel of Judges held that both subject matters of the claim constituted governmental actions in the form of a failure to perform a concrete act (by omission), which falls within the meaning of a “government administrative action.” Accordingly, the Court concluded that no administrative remedy was required before filing the present claim with the Administrative Court.

Failure to Fulfill Spatial Planning Obligations

The Panel of Judges first assessed whether the disputed conduct fell within the category of governmental actions subject to judicial review.

In this case, the subject matter of the dispute was not an administrative decision, but rather a factual omission in the form of the regional government’s failure to carry out its obligation to provide the facilities and infrastructure prescribed under the Palembang Regional RTRW.

The Panel of Judges held that the omission to undertake a concrete act, namely the failure to discharge the aforesaid obligation, nonetheless constitutes a governmental action that is reviewable pursuant to Supreme Court Regulation No. 2 of 2019 on Guidelines for the Resolution of Governmental Action Disputes and the Jurisdiction to Adjudicate Unlawful Acts by Government Agencies and/or Officials.

Failure to Provide Green Open Space

The Panel of Judges subsequently examined the obligation of the Palembang City Government to provide RTH as stipulated in RTRW.

Based on the facts established during the proceedings, the Panel of Judges found that the Palembang City Government had failed to adequately fulfill its obligation to provide RTH as planned in the spatial planning documents. Such non-compliance with the RTH requirements was regarded as a breach of the government’s obligations in environmental management and spatial planning. Accordingly, the Panel of Judges concluded that the failure to provide RTH constitutes an Unlawful Act by a Government Agency and/or Official.

Court Decision

In its judgment, the Palembang PTUN granted the plaintiffs’ claims in their entirety and declared that the Mayor of Palembang had committed an Unlawful Act by a Government Agency and/or Official. Although the Panel of Judges’ decision does not specify a time limit for the implementation of the operative part of the judgment, in its reasoning, the Panel of Judges ordered the Palembang City Government to implement the operative part of the judgment within 21 business days after the judgment has obtained final and binding legal force.

The Court further ordered the Palembang City Government to:

1. provide RTH covering at least 30% of the total area of Palembang City and restore the conservation swamp area of 2,106.13 hectares within Palembang City for its flood control function;
2. provide adequate retention ponds for flood control purposes and and an adequate drainage systems including primary, secondary, and tertiary channels, all connected to retention ponds and each river basin, where the water is treated to meet clean water quality standards, so that the river water contaminated by household waste such as soap, detergent, and other substances can be treated as part of flood control efforts in Palembang City;
3. provide waste management facilities that do not cause air or water pollution as part of flood control efforts in Palembang City; and
4. establish “Flood Disaster Response Posts” in flood-affected areas and undertake disaster preparedness, early warning, and disaster mitigation measures for the residents of Palembang City as part of the emergency disaster response in accordance with Law No. 24 of 2007 on Disaster Management, which resulted in flood victims being left stranded and even caused loss of life on 25 December 2021.

Should the Mayor of Palembang, as the defendant, fail to implement the terms of this judgment, he shall be subject to a medium-level sanction in the form of temporary suspension without entitlement to the rights and privileges of the office, with said sanction to be imposed by the Governor.

Since the first-instance decision was admitted by the parties and the Mayor of Palembang did not file any legal appeal, after 14 days, the decision was deemed final and binding.

This judgment is significant in the context of spatial planning and environmental law in Indonesia.

To date, the requirement to provide RTH amounting to 30% of a region’s total area has often been regarded as a spatial planning target without a clear enforcement mechanism or explicit sanctions against regional governments that fail to achieve it. However, through this judgment, the Court demonstrated that a regional government’s failure to fulfill its obligation to provide RTH may constitute grounds for a claim of an Unlawful Act by a Government Agency and/or Official, particularly where such failure results in an environmental harm and losses suffered by the public.

Accordingly, this case demonstrates that although the Spatial Planning Law does not explicitly prescribe sanctions for regional governments that fail to meet the 30% RTH target, such an obligation may nevertheless give rise to legal consequences through judicial claims challenging governmental acts or omissions.

In 2026, the spatial development of Palembang City recorded significant progress in the provision of RTH. Based on available data, the proportion of RTH in Palembang City reached 36%. This increase occurred following the lawsuit filed by WALHI. In his statement, the Mayor of Palembang also linked the 36% RTH coverage achievement to the lawsuit and stated that the obligations in question had been met.

The development of Palembang City following this judgment further demonstrates that litigation can serve as an effective mechanism for promoting compliance by regional governments with their spatial planning obligations.

Series of Article Conclusion

Part I of this series of articles examined the obligation to provide RTH, which constitutes an important component of Indonesia’s spatial planning framework and serves to maintain environmental sustainability within urban areas. Indonesian law requires that at least 30% of a city’s total area be allocated to RTH. Although the regulatory framework governing RTH is relatively comprehensive, ranging from the Spatial Planning Law to implementing regulations at both central and regional levels, this legal framework demonstrates that RTH is not merely a spatial planning instrument, but also an essential element in achieving sustainable development.

Nevertheless, the discussion in Part II demonstrated that the existence of a comprehensive regulatory framework does not necessarily correspond to the effectiveness of its implementation. The level of RTH fulfilment across various cities in Indonesia continues to show significant variations. Some regions have demonstrated progress in providing RTH, while metropolitan cities such as Jakarta remain significantly below the target mandated by laws and regulations. This condition indicates that the primary challenges in providing RTH are not limited to the establishment of legal norms, but also involve the capacity of local governments, land availability, urbanisation levels, and the effectiveness of spatial planning policy implementation and supervision.

Furthermore, the discussion in this final part shows that the challenges in providing RTH are also related to law enforcement aspects. Although the Spatial Planning Law does not explicitly regulate sanctions against local governments that fail to fulfil the 30% RTH provision target, the Palembang PTUN Decision Number 10/G/TF/2022/PTUN PLG demonstrates that such obligation still carries legal consequences. The Court acknowledged that the failure of a local government to fulfil its obligation to provide RTH may be qualified as an Unlawful Act Committed by a Government Agency and/or Government Official, particularly where such failure contributes to environmental damage and losses suffered by the public.

The development of Palembang City following the decision also demonstrates that judicial mechanisms may serve as an effective instrument to encourage government compliance with spatial planning obligations. Accordingly, the obligation to provide RTH should not only be understood as a policy target or a spatial planning instrument, but also as a legal obligation that may give rise to government accountability. Ultimately, the achievement of the 30% RTH target does not solely depend on the existence of adequate regulations, but also on the effectiveness of implementation, and accountability mechanisms capable of ensuring that the objectives of environmental protection and sustainable development can be realised in practice.

See the other part of articles:

• The Crucial Guide to Indonesia Spatial Planning and Green Open Space Law (First Part)
• The Crucial Guide to Indonesia Spatial Planning and Green Open Space Law (Second Part)

---

Author

---

Editor

---

---

Sources:

• Law Number 26 of 2007 on Spatial Planning (“Spatial Planning Law”)
• Law No. 5 of 1986 on State Administrative Court
• Government Regulation Number 21 of 2021 on the Implementation of Spatial Planning (“GR 21/2021”)
• Minister of Agrarian Affairs and Spatial Planning/Head of the National Land Agency Regulation Number 14 of 2022 on the Provision and Utilization of Green Open Space (“ATR/BPN Reg. on the Provision and Utilization of RTH”).
• Supreme Court Circular Letter Number 5 of 2021 concerning the Implementation of the Formulations Resulting from the 2021 Supreme Court Chamber Plenary Meeting as Guidelines for the Performance of Duties by Courts.
• Putusan Pengadilan Tata Usaha Negara Palembang No. 10/G/TF/2022/PTUN PLG
• ANTARA, Luas RTH di Jakarta kini mencapai 3.700 hektare
• CO.ID, Wali Kota Klaim RTH sudah 36 Persen dari Luas Kota Palembang
• Sumsel Tribun News, OPINI: Atasi Banjir di Kota Palembang, Saatnya Pak Walikota Jalankan Putusan Hukum
• Indonesian Landmark Environmental Decision Portal (I-LEAD), Mohammad Ali, dkk v. Walikota Palembang (Gugatan Banjir Palembang)