On April 3, 2009, the Indonesian Ministry of Environment (MoE) filed a tort-based lawsuit against two corporations, PT Selatnasik Indokwarsa and PT Simpang Pesak, for damage caused by illegal mining activities. These activities include clearing of protected forests for road access to mining locations, conducting open-pit mining, building infrastructure within a natural reserve area, and constructing an illegal port by landfilling the coastal area around 1.7 km seaward. The MoE sought compensation for the climate damage caused, i.e., the GHG emissions from the destruction of forest areas, and asked for restoration costs amounting to IDR 11.8 billion (approximately US$824,000).
On February 3, 2010, the district court granted the plaintiff's entire claim against the defendant, including the compensation of climate damages. On April 18, 2011, the Court of Appeal upheld the lower court decision. On March 28, 2013, the Supreme Court overturned the lower courts’ decisions after the defendant filed a cassation. The Supreme Court was of the opinion that the plaintiff failed to prove that the defendants had acted in concert as affiliated companies under the same management. In addition, the Court also argued that the lawsuit was premature since there was no complaint from the public.
As a last effort, the plaintiff filed a request for extraordinary review (peninjauan kembali) and provided new evidence that the defendants conducted illegal actions. On May 23, 2014, the Supreme Court reviewed its earlier decision and awarded the plaintiff all the restoration costs, including the compensation for GHGs released in the full amount requested by the plaintiff.
|03/28/2013||Decision||Download||The Supreme Court overturned the lower courts’ decisions on the grounds that the plaintiff failed to prove the defendants had jointly conducted illegal mining activities.|
|05/24/2014||Decision||Download||The Plaintiff provided new evidence that the defendants conducted illegal actions. The Supreme Court in the extraordinary review (peninjauan kembali) reviewed its earlier decision and awarded the plaintiff all the restoration costs, including the compensation for GHGs released.|