Legislative Standing for Environmental Organisations Sample Clauses

Legislative Standing for Environmental Organisations. The PT IIU decision was significant in that it helped surmount the procedural obstacle of environmental standing, thus paving the way for future legal actions protecting “environmental interests”. The judicial precedent on this issue furthermore acted as an impetus for subsequent legislative reform through the EMA 1997. Article 38 (1) of that Act grants environmental organisations the right to bring a legal action “in the interest of preserving environmental functions”. This provision thus marks the legislative adoption of the liberalised approach to standing taken by Indonesian courts in the cases discussed in the previous section. The Elucidation confirms that standing according to the stipulated criteria is available in respect of actions in both the general courts and the administrative courts.209 206 In the Samidun Xxxxxxx et al v. PT Inti Indorayon case a number of local families also sought compensation for environmental damage attributed to PT IIU through a case in the Medan District Court. This case is discussed at page 81 000 Xxx Xxxxx justified its view in this respect by reference to the 1973 Broad Outline of the Nation’s Direction (GBHN) and statements made in front of the national parliament ( Dewan Perwakilan Rakyat ) on 23 January 1982 prior to the enactment of the Environmental Management Xxx 0000. 208 Art. 6(1) of the EMA 1982 209 An “Elucidation” in Indonesian law is an explanatory appendix commonly included in Indonesian legislation. Whilst not formally a part of the Law, it is nonetheless a primary reference point for its interpretation. As defined in art. 38(3), environmental organisations must be a legal body or foundation, the articles of association of which clearly state environmental preservation to be one of the founding goals of the organisation. The organisation must also have undertaken activities in pursuit of this aim. The requirements stipulated in art. 38(3) were largely an adoption of criteria enunciated in the IPTN (Reafforestation Funds) Case (1994), where the Jakarta State Administrative Court granted standing to 4 of 6 environmental organisations who challenged Presidential Decree No.42 of 1994, concerning a transfer of funds from a reafforestation fund to PT Industri Pesawat Terbang Nusantara (IPTN).210 The Court justified its decision stating, …the contended decision afflicted the interest that could be induced from the well-defined goals they pursued according to their statutes. Moreover, they had a clear organisa...