Procedural Access Sample Clauses

Procedural Access. As discussed in chapter 1, procedural access to justice is a key prerequisite for effective environmental litigation. In chapter 2 we learnt that environmental standing was first introduced in Indonesia in the IMdOVŒßOM case in 1989. Whilst the plaintiff in that case, WALHI, failed on substantive grounds the court did recognise its procedural right to undertake legal action on behalf of environmental interests. The IMdOVŒßOM case was followed in several subsequent cases until the principle of environmental standing received explicit legislative endorsement in article 38(1) of the EMA 1997. Whilst the introduction of environmental standing in Indonesia has certainly facilitated environmental public interest litigation, it has hardly opened the “floodgates” of environmental litigation as some critics feared. Over the twenty year period reviewed there have been only ten environmental public interest cases, amounting to only one case every two years. Despite the 3 see page 310 flexibility of “environmental standing”, the right to bring environmental public interest claims appears to have been utilised by only a small number of well-resourced environmental organisations. Amongst environmental public interest litigants WALHI, the National Forum for the Environment, has been the most active litigant, acting as a plaintiff in eight of the ten cases to date. The Legal Aid Foundation, and its various associated offices, have also played an integral role in the majority of public interest actions providing legal representation and in some cases acting as co-plaintiff. In several other cases, public interest suits have been initiated by coalitions of environmental organisations for instance in the R9ŒffOV9FtŒtUOM FYMd (IPTN) case (5 NGOs), the R9ŒffOV9FtŒtUOM FYMd (XUŒMU X9VtŒF) case (3 NGOs), the TVŒMFg9MUC XXxxXX CŒF9 (6 NGOs) and the XkFþOM9M 66 case (13 NGOs). Whilst the majority of public interest litigants have been larger, Jakarta based organisations, some recent actions have been initiated by regional community or environmental organisations as in the XkFþOM9M 66 case and the TVŒMFg9MUC XXxxXX case. Whilst traditional rules of standing did not preclude private litigants who had suffered some ‘material’ loss due to environmental pollution or damage, procedural obstacles did exist for litigants attempting to undertake a ‘representative’ or ‘class’ action. As discussed in chapter 2, representative actions were not regulated in the EMA 1982, although that Act did ...