Understanding Citizen Lawsuit: Demanding Government’s Action to Address the 2026 Forest Fires

Under Indonesian Environmental Law, the government bears the responsibility to protect and manage the environment, including preventing and addressing forest fires. The recurrence of such environmental disasters in 2026 highlights the importance of the citizen lawsuit mechanism as a legal avenue for Indonesian citizens to hold the government accountable for failing to fulfil its environmental obligations and safeguard the public’s right to a clean and healthy environment.

Citizen Lawsuit

In light of the recent forest fires, there has been considerable discussion in the media regarding the Indonesian people demanding that the Indonesian government take drastic action to address and combat the forest fires and reduce the environmental damage that harms the citizens. One of the methods to demand action from the government is through a procedure known as citizen lawsuit.

According to Article 11 of Supreme Court Regulation No. 1 of 2023 regarding Guide to Judge Environmental Case (“SCR No. 1/2023”), Indonesian citizens may submit a citizen lawsuit against the government in the name of the public interest when the government has neglected its responsibility related to the protection of environment. Article 1 number 9 of SCR No. 1/2023 explains that a citizen lawsuit is the procedure for filing a lawsuit for the public interest by any Indonesian citizen against an unlawful act arising negligence or failure to fulfil legal obligations by the government, state institutions, and/or private parties.

Read Also: The Role of an Individuals in Environmental Litigation: Legal Standing in State Administrative Court Jurisprudence

In this context, public interest means the interests of the nation and the state or the wider community related to the protection and management of the environment and/or environmental interests that have the potential to be or have been impacted by environmental pollution and/or destruction.

Article 11 SCR No. 1/2023 further stipulates that a citizen lawsuit shall be submitted to with the state administrative court and must fulfil the following conditions:

1. the plaintiff consists of one or more Indonesian citizens;
2. the defendant consists of the government, state institutions, or private parties carrying out government affairs;
3. the lawsuit is filed in the public interest;
4. the object of the lawsuit is the neglect or non-fulfilment of the legal obligations of the government, state institutions, and/or private parties carrying out government affairs; and
5. the lawsuit is preceded by the submission of notification to the government, state institutions, or private parties carrying out government affairs in accordance with their authority.

Claims against the Government in Citizen Lawsuit

Prior to the issuance of SCR No. 1/2023, a citizen lawsuit could be filed to the district court as an unlawful act lawsuit. SCR No. 1/2023 specifically states that a citizen lawsuit must be filed in the state administrative court. This means that the claim that can be demanded through a citizen lawsuit is limited to what could be requested in state administrative court. Article 16 paragraph (1) of SCR No. 1/2023 regulates that the claim that may be filed through a citizen lawsuit in the state administrative court may be in the form of:

1. revocation and/or issuance of Government Administrative Decisions;
2. implementation or non-implementation of certain Government Administrative Actions;
3. implementation of certain law enforcement; or
4. formation of certain policies.

Furthermore, paragraph 2 of the same article explains that the plaintiffs of a citizen lawsuit may not file claims in the form of financial compensation, except for actual costs or expenses, such as laboratory fees and court costs. Hence, SCR No. 1/2023 limits the claim of citizen lawsuit to demanding government action and not financial compensation, unlike the previous legal framework, under which the door to direct compensation was still open to interpretation.

Procedures of Citizen Lawsuit

Since a citizen lawsuit is filed to the state administrative court, most of the procedures is governed by the procedural law of the state administrative court as stipulated in Law No. 5 of 1986 regarding State Administrative Court as amended from time to time (“State Administrative Court Law”). However, SCR No. 1/2023 stipulates additional regulations regarding the procedural law of an environmental citizen lawsuit at the state administrative court. Below are the main additions introduced in SCR No. 1/2023:

Notification

As previously mentioned, a citizen lawsuit must be preceded by the submission of a written notification to the institutions carrying out government affairs that failed, neglected or violated its obligation. Such a letter shall at least contain the following information:

1. legal obligations that have not been or are not being fulfilled by the government;
2. statutory regulations and/or general principles of good governance that form the basis for the legal obligations that are being violated by the government; and
3. a request that the government carry out the legal obligations within its authority.

A citizen lawsuit can only be filed if the government continues to violate or has not remedied their obligation 60 (sixty) days after the notification letter has been sent. It is also worth noting that the deadline for filing the citizen lawsuit is 90 (ninety) days after the end of the 60 (sixty days) notification period.

Evidences

In terms of evidence, Article 19 of SCR No. 1/2023 stipulates that the evidence in state administrative court in an environmental citizen lawsuit are as follows:

1. letter or written evidence;
2. expert statement;
3. witness statement;
4. admission of the parties;
5. knowledge of the judge; and
6. electronic evidence.

This list is a little different from the State Administrative Court Law as Article 100 of the State Administrative Court Law does not list electronic evidence. However, Article 5 of Law No. 11 of 2008 regarding Information and Electronic Transaction as amended from time to time, already stipulates electronic evidence as admissible evidence before court. SCR No. 1/2023 adopts this understanding to explicitly stipulates electronic evidence as evidence in the case of an environmental lawsuit.

Read Also: Environmental Liability and Dispute in Indonesia

Letter/written evidence is also further regulated in SCR No. 1/2023. The State Administrative Court Law explains letter/written evidence as including authentic deeds, privately executed documents and other documents. However, Article 19 of SCR No. 1/2023 further explains that letter/written evidence may include:

• the government decision that is the object of the case;
• strategic environmental study;
• Amdal;
• UKL-UPL;
• statement of commitment to environmental management and monitoring;
• Environmental Quality Standards or environmental damage criteria;
• minutes of sampling in accordance with Indonesian national standards;
• documents on environmental supportive and assimilative capacity;
• independent monitoring and supervision reports;
• environmental audit report;
• satellite imagery photos; and/or
• scientific evidence in the form of letters or writings.

In examining the scientific evidence mentioned above, the examining judge shall consider the accuracy of the scientific method used and the validity of the sampling procedure by taking into account the laboratory accreditation and expert opinions from both parties. Moreover, SCR No. 1/2023 also explains that proof of environmental pollution and/or damage in administrative state cases can be carried out based on the results of studies or expert statements if environmental quality standards, environmental damage standard criteria, and/or the relevant parameters have not been determined.

Previous Cases of Citizen Lawsuit

Palangkaraya District Court Decision No 118/Pdt.G/LH/2016/PN Plk jo. Palangkaraya High Court Decision No. 36/PDT/2017/PT PLK jo. Supreme Court Decision No. 3555 K/Pdt/2018 jo. Supreme Court Decision No. 980 PK/Pdt/2022

Summary of the Lawsuit

In 2015, a forest fires occurred on peat land covering an area of 196,987 (one hundred ninety-six thousand nine hundred eighty-seven) Ha and non-peat land covering an area of 133,876 (one hundred thirty-three thousand eight hundred seventy-six) Ha. Ari Rompa and other citizens of Palangkaraya who had been affected by the fires subsequently filed a citizen lawsuit against the state, alleging negligence in addressing the forest fires.

Read Also: Market Share Liability as a Framework for Determining Liability for Forest Degradation and Flooding in Sumatra

The lawsuit was filed against the Republic of Indonesia cq. President of the Republic of Indonesia, Minister of Environment and Forestry of the Republic of Indonesia, Minister of Agriculture of the Republic of Indonesia, Minister of Agrarian Affairs and Spatial Planning/Head of the National Land Agency of the Republic of Indonesia, Minister of Health of the Republic of Indonesia, Minister of Home Affairs of the Republic of Indonesia, Governor of Central Kalimantan and Regional Representative Council of Central Kalimantan Province.

The Plaintiffs claim that the Defendants as the rulers of the state have the obligation to carry out legal actions to protect and guarantee the fulfilment of the community’s rights to a clean and healthy environment as regulated in Article 28 H of the 1945 Constitution jo. Article 2 and 9 paragraph (3) of Law Number 39 of 1999 concerning Human Rights jo. Article 65 paragraph (1) of Law Number 39 of 2009 concerning Environmental Protection and Management as amended from time to time (“Environmental Law”).

The Consideration of the Judges of the District Court

The judges of the District Court of Palangkaraya view that the Defendants have not carried out their duties and obligations optimally, particularly those related to the prevention and handling of the occurrence of haze incidents, especially in the Central Kalimantan Region, as mandated by the Law. The judges also explain that even though there are evidence of the Defendants making efforts to prevent and handle the haze caused by the forest fires, those efforts were deemed inadequate. The Defendants also failed to anticipate the spread of forest fires in the Central Kalimantan Region which caused disruption to the activities of the citizens there and even allowed disease related to haze to spread among the citizens.

Thus, the judges of the District Court of Palangkaraya ruled that the government was negligent in carrying out its obligations under applicable law. On the basis of negligence by the Defendants, the judges then also declared the Defendants had committed an unlawful act.

The decision of the Judges of the District Court was then strengthened by the judges of Palangkaraya High Court during the appeal and the Supreme Court during the cassation stage.

The Fate of the Case at the Review stage

The decision was overturned in the review stage by the Supreme Court after the Defendants submitted new evidences (novum). The novum submitted by the Defendants includes, among others, as follows:

1. articles and reports of the El Niño weather conditions;
2. photographs of a banner displaying a ban on burning forests, land, and yards;
3. photographs of a direct warning to the community;
4. photographs of drilling 10 wells in locations considered fire-prone;
5. photographs of ground-based firefighting efforts undertaken between 26 June 2015 and 20 November 2015, during the operation of the Emergency Preparedness and Emergency Response Post for Forest, Land, and Yard Fires.;
6. photographs of aerial fires extinguishing efforts using three aircraft;
7. photographs of the establishment of an Oxygen Shelter as a temporary evacuation site for vulnerable health groups (toddlers, pregnant women, and the elderly);
8. Memorandum of Understanding Number 165/BNPB/XII/2015 dated 23 December 2015 between the BPBD of Pulang Pisau Regency and the Army Headquarters, Directorate of Engineering;
9. photographs of Canal Blocking Construction Activities in Pulang Pisau Regency which have been carried out by the Army Headquarters, Directorate of Engineering, which were directly ordered the President of the Republic of Indonesia following the forest fires in Pulang Pisau Regency on 24 September 2015; and
10. court decisions of private individuals being found guilty of the 2015 forest fires.

After evaluating the novum presented by the Defendants, the judges essentially provided three main considerations:

1. the forest fires were worsened by the weather conditions at that time;
2. the Defendants have made considerable efforts to prevent and combat the forest fires; and
3. the forest fires is mainly caused by private individuals not related to the government as evidences by the court decisions.

Based on the above considerations, the judges then decided to overturn the decisions of the previous stages and declares the Citizen Lawsuit to be rejected.

Central Jakarta Decision No. 374/Pdt.G/LH/2019/PN Jkt.Pst jo. Jakarta High Court Decision No. 549/PDT.G-LH/2022/PT DKI jo. Supreme Court Decision No. 2560 K/Pdt/2023

Lawsuit Summary

First and foremost, this case sample does not concern forest fires but is still relevant as it deals with filing a suit against the government for neglecting their responsibilities in handling environmental issues.

This citizen lawsuit was submitted by the citizens of Jakarta who felt they have suffered due to the pollution of the city. They filed the lawsuit against the Republic of Indonesia Cq. President of the Republic of Indonesia, Minister of Environment and Forestry of the Republic of Indonesia, Minister of Home Affairs of the Republic of Indonesia, Minister of Health of the Republic of Indonesia, Governor of the Special Capital Region of Jakarta Province, Governor of Banten Province and Governor of West Java Province.

In their lawsuit, the Plaintiffs argued that the quality of air in Jakarta has deteriorated drastically due to air pollution. Such deterioration is caused by pollution in the air that has exceeded the National Air Quality Standards, as stipulated by Government Regulation No. 41 of 1999 regarding Control of Air Pollution (“GR on Air Pollution”), and the Regional Air Quality Standards of DKI Jakarta Province, as stipulated in the Decree of the Governor of DKI Jakarta Province No. 551 of 2001 regarding the Determination of Ambient Air Quality Standards and Noise Level Standards in DKI Jakarta Province.

Argument of the Defendants

As their response to the citizen lawsuit, the Defendants essentially argued that they had made their best efforts to combat and address the air pollution by, among others, performing the following actions:

1. the Defendants had issued various rules and regulations to stipulate the combat and prevention of pollution and the handling of environmental damages caused by pollution;
2. as of the time of the lawsuit, the Defendants are drafting and discussing the revision of GR on Air Pollution which was intended become the government regulation that regulates air quality management;
3. the Defendants have implemented the Urban Air Quality Evaluation Program;
4. the Defendants have regulated the level of emission quality standards (private gasoline-fuelled vehicles) and the level of emission quality standards that private vehicles have to complied with; and
5. to reduce air pollution from private vehicles, the Defendants have: (i) provided public transportation in the form of LRT, MRT and Transjakarta; (ii) widened sidewalks along various roads; and (iii) implemented an odd/even plate policy on heavily congested roads.

The Defendants also argued that the air pollution is mainly caused by the effect of the weather. To support this argument, the Defendants provided a report from the Meteorology, Climatology, and Geophysics Agency (“BMKG”) which stated thatthe lack of rain and subsequent drought has resulted in very poor air quality due to the deposition of pollutant particles. However, the same report also blames the Defendants’ construction of the elevated toll road, the Light Rail Transit (LRT), and sidewalk construction for the air pollution in Jakarta.

Considerations of the Judges

In their consideration, the judge deems that DKI Jakarta had not optimally met the National and Regional Ambient Air Quality Standards for the annual average ozone (O3) parameter, which threatens the health and the livelihoods of the citizens of Jakarta.

Regarding the conditions of air pollution, the judges viewed that the Defendants should have had enough awareness regarding Jakarta’s air pollution for years before this lawsuit was filed. The judges gave this view after examining various evidence. Firstly, a witness testified that air pollution data was available 2 (two) years prior to the lawsuit. Next, there were also written evidence indicating that Jakarta’s air would become increasingly polluted if appropriate interventions were not immediately implemented.

Additionally, there were also other written evidences that showed various recommendations regarding policies to improve Jakarta’s air quality.  Based on the evidence presented, the judges considered that the Defendants should have reasonable knowledge of the projected worsening of Jakarta’s air quality, its health impacts, and recommended actions since 1997.

Read Also: Environmental Law in Indonesia 101

In terms of the effort made by the Defendants to prevent and combat the pollution, the judges explained that for approximately 10 (ten) years the Defendants had neglected to fulfil the requirement of Environmental Law, one of which is to make Government Regulations regarding air pollution control, even though such a regulation could be vital in improving the air quality management policies in Indonesia. The judge also notes that while the Defendants ended up issuing Government Regulation No. 22 of 2021 regarding the Implementation of Environmental Protection and Management, the regulation was issued after the citizen lawsuit was filed, thus not considered relevant to the court’s assessment.

Moreover, in terms of the argument of the Defendants regarding motor vehicle emission testing and emissions from stationary sources, the Defendants did not publish the results of emission testing on motor vehicles in the DKI Jakarta Region prior to the lawsuit, and only enacted the Governor’s Regulation No. 66 of 2020 regarding Motor Vehicle Exhaust Emission Testing in the Jakarta Area after the lawsuit was filed. Thus, the judges considered that the efforts made by the Defendants were insufficient to prevent and combat the air pollution of Jakarta.

Therefore, the Judges of the case ruled that the Defendants have committed an unlawful act by violating human rights, specifically by neglecting to fulfil the right to a good and healthy environment.

Reasons for the Different Outcomes in the Two Cases

In both cases the Indonesian government argued similar points, namely, that they have made substantial effort to combat the environmental disaster and that the environmental disaster was caused by weather conditions and factors outside of their control.

The panel of judges in the first instance of the Palangkaraya case deemed that the government had failed to prevent the forest fires. However, the novum at the review stage led the panel of judges to conclude that the fires were not due to the government’s failure to prevent the fires, but rather due to:

1. the actions of private individuals who had been found guilty through court decisions; and
2. the weather factor of that year.

Therefore, the judges then placed greater emphasis on considering the Defendants’ efforts to mitigate the fires. On the other hand, in the Jakarta case, the government could not deny that the pollution was caused by factors beyond its control. No individual was proven to have caused the pollution, and although reports indicated that pollution was influenced by the weather, BMKG also assessed that the city construction projects equally influenced the air pollution.

The Supreme Court Judges on the Palangkaraya case also highlighted two key actions taken by the Defendants of the case that demonstrated that they have maximized their effort in combating the forest fires. The two actions are as follows:

1. mobilization of regional resources, related vertical government agencies and law enforcement officers, as well as funding from Regional Revenue and Expenditure Budget (“APBD”) to carry out prevention, mitigation and law enforcement related to the fires and its subsequent impacts;
2. direct action through the Central Kalimantan Provincial Health Office and Regional Public Hospital including visits to ISPA patients, provision of mask assistance, provision of air purifiers, establishment of an Oxygenation Recovery Room Team, and Establishment of an Emergency Smoke Response Team.

In the Jakarta case, the government has also taken certain actions to combat the pollution. However, many of the most significant actions was taken after the suit as explained by the judge of the case.

Additionally, the judges of the Palangkaraya case also noted that the forest fire in the Kalimantan area that occurred in 2015, is not an event that recurred annually. By contrast, in the Jakarta case, the air pollution has been a reoccurring event.

Key Points to be Highlighted for a Citizen Lawsuit in the Case of the 2026 Forest Fires

On 7 October 2026, the West Kalimantan Provincial Forestry Office reported that it had received the 60-day notification of a citizen lawsuit concerning the fires in the West Kalimantan Area. Here are a few key points that need to be highlighted for a citizen lawsuit concerning the case of the 2026 forest fires:

Regulation that the Government may have Violated by not Preventing and Properly Addressing the Forest fires

First, the government has to be negligent in fulfilling its obligation under the law to be liable to citizen lawsuit. In the case of forest fires of 2026, the government has an obligation to prevent and combat them effectively based on the following regulations:

1. Article 2 of the Environmental Law which states that environmental protection and management are implemented based on the principle of state responsibility;
2. Article 9 paragraph (3) of Law No. 39 of 1999 regarding Human Rights which states that everyone has the right to a good and healthy living environment;
3. Article 48 of Law No. 41 of 1999 regarding Forestry which states that forest protection in State Forests is implemented by the Central Government and Regional Governments in accordance with their authority based on norms, standards, procedures and criteria established by the Central Government;
4. Article 27 of Government Regulation No. 4 of 2001 regarding Control of Environmental Damage and/or Pollution Related to Forest and/or Land Fires (“GR No. 4/2001”) which states that the Governor is responsible for controlling environmental damage and/or pollution related to forest and/or land fires whose impacts span across districts/cities; and/or
5. Article 30 GR No. 4/2001 which states that Regent/Mayor is responsible for controlling environmental damage and/or pollution related to forest and/or land fires in his/her area.

For the citizen lawsuit to succeed, among others, it needs to prove that the government has failed to fulfil these obligations and the evidences related to those violations.

Relief Sought in Citizen Lawsuit

As previously mentioned, a citizen lawsuit is submitted before state administrative court. This means that any demand made through it can only be in regards to:

1. revocation and/or issuance of Government Administrative Decisions;
2. implementation or non-implementation of certain Government Administrative Actions;
3. implementation of certain law enforcement; or
4. formation of certain policies.

In this case, the appropriate relief would be to seek that the government issues policies that would directly order relevant bodies and agencies to take concrete action to immediately combat and address the fires as well mitigate further harm. It is equally important to provide additional funds from APBD to the region most effected by the fires. Lastly, the lawsuit should also demand that the government issues new policies to prevent similar environmental disaster from occurring in the future.

Currently, a civil class-action lawsuit related to the 2026 fires and the resulting haze crisis has already been filed at the Pontianak District Court with Case No. 292/Pdt.G/2026/PN PTK.

The Substance of the Citizen Lawsuit Based on the Cases Above

Based on the key takeaways from the previously mentioned sample cases of citizen lawsuit, the following points should be analyzed carefully before the lawsuit is filed.

Firstly, the plaintiffs must analyze whether the 2026 fires were actually caused by government negligence or if there are other factors at play. In the case of the 2015 fires, there were evidence showing that there were private parties who had been found guilty of causing the fires. Currently, there is media report alleging that the fires were caused by private companies. If that is the case, then the plaintiff must either:

1. emphasize that the government has neglected their obligation in preventing those private parties to cause the fires; or
2. focus the citizen lawsuit on the failure of the government to combat and address the effect of the fires instead of the negligence in preventing the parties to cause the fire.

As outlined above, the judge of the Palangkaraya case in 2015 also viewed that the government was not at fault because weather conditions also contributed to the fires and that the fires were not a reoccurring event. The citizen lawsuit should pay attention to that point of the Palangkaraya case to argue that a fire caused by weather is not something new anymore and following the 2015 fires, the government should have anticipated that another fire may occur and act accordingly against the 2026 fire, which has happened for more than 3 (three) months.

---

Author

---

Editor

---

---

Reference:

Legal References

1. Supreme Court Regulation No. 1 of 2023 concerning Guidelines for Adjudicating Environmental Cases.
2. Law No. 5 of 1986 concerning State Administrative Courts.
3. Law No. 32 of 2009 concerning Environmental Protection and Management.
4. Government Regulation No. 41 of 1999 concerning Air Pollution Control.
5. Jakarta Governor’s Decree No. 551 of 2001 concerning Ambient Air Quality Standards and Noise Level Standards in the Province of DKI Jakarta.
6. Jakarta Governor Regulation No. 66 of 2020 concerning Motor Vehicle Exhaust Emission Testing in the Jakarta Area.
7. Law No. 39 of 1999 concerning Human Rights.
8. Law No. 41 of 1999 concerning Forestry.
9. Government Regulation No. 4 of 2001 concerning the Control of Environmental Damage and/or Pollution Related to Forest and/or Land Fires.

Court Decisions

1. Supreme Court Decision No. 2560 K/Pdt/2023.
2. Supreme Court Decision No. 980 PK/Pdt/2022.