Representative Actions in Indonesia. (Pre-EMA 1997) 60
Representative Actions in Indonesia. (Pre-EMA 1997) Unlike common law jurisdictions such as England or America, there was no specific legal basis in the Indonesian Civil Codes for a representative action. Yet, whilst class actions in the common law sense were unknown, it was not uncommon for multiple plaintiffs or defendants to be joined in a single action.213 Traditional civil procedure thus provided some scope for common claims to be grouped together, although the practicality of this approach was limited by the requirement of each plaintiff to individually issue an authority for representation (surat kuasa).214 Whilst the matter of class actions was not specifically regulated in the first EMA of 1982, a number of more general principles enunciated within that Act held considerable relevance to the issue of class or representative actions. For instance, art. 5 (1) confirmed the right of every person to “... a good and healthy living environment.”. The Elucidation defined “person” as “an individual person, a group of persons, or a legal body”. Thus the Act explicitly recognised the possibility that the right referred to in art. 5 be vested in, and hence was exercisable by, a group of persons. Similarly, the Act envisaged both an individual and collective vesting of the obligation contained within clause 2 of article 5, which recognises the obligation on every person “... to maintain the living environment and to prevent and abate environmental damage and pollution.” The Elucidation to the Act stipulated that this obligation “...is not separated from…[a person’s] position as a member of the community, which reflects the value of man as an individual and as a social being.” Thus the EMA 1982, whilst failing to make explicit provision in relation to class actions, did nonetheless provide statutory grounds for at least the consideration of group compensation claims due to pollution or environmental damage. 213 see for instance the Xxxx Xxxxxx case where 260 individual plaintiffs in a common claim sued PT Xxxx Xxxxxx for pollution of the Belumai River. Whilst the claim was rejected on substantive grounds, the joinder of the individual claims was allowed by the court. See further discussion of the case, page 86 214 Individual authorities for representation are not required in a representative action.
