PT Into Indorayon Utama Case. (1989) 57
PT Into Indorayon Utama Case. (1989) A more liberalised approach to standing in relation to environmental matters was first adopted by an Indonesian court in the now well known PT Into Indorayon Utama case. The Indorayon factory, located on the Asahan river near Lake Toba in North Sumatra, commenced operations within a 150 000 ha concession area at the beginning of 1984. Severe environmental damage has been attributed to the factory’s operations ever since by local residents and environmental organisations, including deforestation of the surrounding area identified as a contributing factor to floods and a landslide that claimed the lives of nine villagers. The factory has also caused heavy pollution of the Asahan River, which local people had previously relied on for their day-to-day living needs.204 Pollution of the river reached a height when an artificial lagoon built by the company to hold toxic waste burst, releasing some 400,000 cubic metres of toxic waste into the Asahan River near Lake Toba.205 In the case before the Central Jakarta District Court was brought by WALHI, a national environmental organisation. XXXXX argued that it should be 200 see Xxx Xxxxxx Xxxxxxx, "Standing Atau Locus Standi: Persoalan Pokok Dalam Gugatan Lingkungan," Forum Xeadilan 6 (1988): p100. 201 For example, standing was an obstacle in a celebrated public interest action concerning cigarette advertising and its impact on youth by R.O. Tambunan against the cigarette company P.T. Bentoel - see.Ibid. Note, however, in the case of persons directly and materially affected by environmentally damaging activities the requirement of standing would be fulfilled. 202 Liberalised approaches to environmental standing have been adopted in many jurisdictions around the world. For example, in the Netherlands a liberalised approach to standing was judicially adopted in the Nieuwe Meer and Xuunders cases. In Australia the traditional doctrine of standing was modified in Onus v Alcoa (1981) 36 ALR 425, and further modified by legislation. 203 Decision No. 820/Pdt./G/1988/PN. Jkt.Pst. 000 Xxxxxxxxxxx ,Xxx.0 Xx.0 ,Xxx0000 p1 205 Arimbi, "Unrevealed Things in the Indorayon Case," (Jakarta: Walhi, 1994), p1. allowed to represent the public “environmental interest” and contended that issuance of operating permits to PT IIU was contrary to environmental law.206 In its decision, the Court granted WALHI standing to bring its suit against 5 government agencies as well as the Indorayon Company. The court justified its decision, not...
