By Linda Yanti Sulistiawati, Associate Professor of Law, Gadjah Mada University, Indonesia, and Senior Research Fellow, Asia-Pacific Centre for Environmental Law (APCEL), National University of Singapore, Singapore.
SLAPP cases are not unfamiliar in Indonesia, where we have witnessed a surge in recent incidents. For example, in 2024, the prosecutors accused Haris Azhbar and Fatia Maulidiyanti of defaming the former Coordinating Minister for Maritime Affairs and Investment over comments made in a YouTube video alleging his involvement in extractive mining activities in the resource-rich but volatile Papua region. In 2025, a police report was filed against Bambang Hero, a senior forestry professor, accusing him of lacking the competence to assess environmental damages tied to a complex corruption case involving illegal mining operations in the Bangka-Belitung Islands. These cases illustrate just a few examples of SLAPP actions emerging in Indonesia. According to data collected from 2014 to 2023 by Auriga Nusantara NGO, there were 133 SLAPP criminal cases. Meanwhile, WALHI (the Indonesian Friends of the Environment) reported that between 2014 and 2024, there were 1,131 individuals criminalized for advocating for environmental rights. Shortly, SLAPP is when the defenders became defendants.
Identifying SLAPP cases requires a deep understanding, as the concept of SLAPP is broad and can be difficult to recognize without trained eyes. However, in Indonesian cases, several key indicators can help identify when a SLAPP is occurring: (1) Prior public participation or advocacy must have taken place. This advocacy can be undertaken by environmental defenders, activists, lawyers, NGOs, or any member of the public, and must be acknowledged as significant; (2) A strategic lawsuit is filed with the intent to obstruct this public participation and/or advocacy. SLAPP initiators deliberately choose their targets, leaving them with little chance to avoid the lawsuit’s disruptive impact; (3) Those targeted are often forced to divert their focus from their advocacy work, abandoning their efforts to promote the public interest; and (4) SLAPPs undermine public trust in the judicial system, ultimately eroding the role of civil society in democracy.
Indonesia already has a legal protection for SLAPP (we call this ‘Anti-SLAPP’), but the implementation is yet to be sufficient. Article 66 of Law No. 32 of 2009 on Environmental Protection and Management Law affirms that individuals advocating for the right to a safe, clean, and healthy environment cannot be subject to civil or criminal lawsuits. Similarly, Article 78, paragraph (1) of Law No. 18 of 2013 on the Prevention and Eradication of Forest Destruction provides that whistle-blowers and informants who report acts of forest destruction are granted immunity from both civil and criminal liability. There are also implementing regulations which are overlapping each other such as Attorney General Guideline 8/2022, Guidelines for Adjudicating Environmental Cases (Perma 1/2023); and Minister of Environment and Forestry Regulation No. 10 of 2024 on Legal Protection for Persons Advocating for the Right to a Safe, Clean, and Healthy Environment (Permenlhk 10/2024).
However, Indonesia’s Anti-SLAPP framework suffers from significant substantive weaknesses, which hinder its effectiveness as a mechanism to combat SLAPPs. Key shortcomings include: (a) the lack of a clear definition of SLAPP; (b) the absence of provisions specifying who is entitled to protection; (c) no delineation of which actions are safeguarded; (d) the absence of criteria or guidelines to determine whether a legal claim qualifies as a SLAPP; (e) no procedural framework for granting protection; (f) the lack of measures to impose deterrent sanctions on parties who initiate SLAPPs; and (g) problematic implementation due to the overlapping regulations.
What do we need to do to protect people from SLAPP? We need to have judicial accessibility for all elements to get protection from SLAPP. Indonesia already have Anti-SLAPP regulations which supposed to protect us from SLAPP. However, these regulations impose certain limitations on the Defendants/Accused in SLAPP cases. The restrictions relate to who can participate in Anti-SLAPP defences and require that the actions subject to SLAPP be legally grounded. Moreover, regardless of whether Anti-SLAPP efforts succeed or fail in litigation to protect environmental defenders, the lack of financial support mechanisms for legal fees, travel expenses, or guarantees for the suspension of detention remain a significant issue. These burdens fall entirely on the shoulders of environmental defenders. Furthermore, one of the fundamental rights for SLAPP targets is the right to information. Access to environmental information is crucial, as many SLAPP cases involve allegations of defamation and spreading false information, often stemming from the absence of accurate information when SLAPP targets criticise government or corporate actions or policies.
Aside from that, we need to strengthen judicial interpretation. Judicial institutions play a strategic role in implementing Anti-SLAPP measures. Judges, in this context, hold the authority to revoke or modify legal rights, including the status and freedom of individuals. Judges cannot simply act as the “mouthpiece of the law” but must be able to interpret national laws in light of current events and societal realities. Moreover, we need to highlight the roles of political and corporate roles. It is undeniable that political attitudes and corporate interests significantly impact efforts to regulate and implement Anti-SLAPP measures. Political stances, in particular, shape how SLAPP is addressed in legislation and applied in practice.
Most importantly, we need to address institutional and procedural weaknesses. While rigid institutional and procedural structures in the practical application of Anti-SLAPP may aim to ensure consistency, they do not always lead to positive outcomes. On the one hand, strict procedural regulations can provide clarity and predictability, making it easier for law enforcement to handle cases. On the other hand, overly rigid mechanisms can result in inflexibility and an excessive focus on formalities, making them ill-suited to the unique circumstances of individual cases. These limitations can ultimately prevent courts from adjudicating SLAPP cases in a way that prioritizes justice, as the emphasis shifts to adhering to procedural requirements rather than addressing the substantive issues at hand.
Lastly, In ASEAN, the ASEAN member states (AMS) are among the signatories of the United Nations Charter and the 2015 Paris Agreement, where states are obligated to respect, protect, and fulfil environmental rights as human rights. The “respective obligations” referred to in the Paris Agreement potentially include those relating to the rights to life, health, development, an adequate standard of living (including food, water and sanitation, and housing) and self-determination. However, efforts to include environmental defender protection as one of the rights under the in-progress ASEAN declaration on the rights of safe, clean, healthy, and sustainable environment are still unknown.
It is crucial to establish an Anti-SLAPP protection mechanism for those advocating for a safe, clean, healthy, and sustainable environment. Their efforts serve the public interest, and it is essential for the state to integrate their aspirations into policy-making. Retaliatory actions against environmental defenders are still likely to persist as a means to halt their activities. Thus, robust and enforceable regulations are necessary to anticipate such actions and to affirm the state’s commitment to protect both its citizens, the region, and the environment.
*) DISCLAIMER
Articles published in the “Your Views & Stories” section of en.tempo.co website are personal opinions written by third parties, and cannot be related or attributed to en.tempo.co’s official stance.
Prabowo Voices Concern Over Indonesia's Legal System Following Bribery Scandal
22 hari lalu
MPR Speaker Ahmad Muzani reveals President Prabowo Subianto's concerns about the legal system in Indonesia.
Survey Shows 56% People Rate Law Enforcement in Prabowo's First 100 Days as Poor, Mediocre
10 Februari 2025
A total of 50.6 percent of respondents from the survey rated the anti-corruption efforts in Prabowo's first 100 days as poor and mediocre.
Continuing to Bend the Law
5 Februari 2025
The Prabowo administration is continuing the tradition of crooked law enforcement inherited from its predecessor. This needs to be corrected.
Minister Hanif Stops Unauthorized Sea Sand Dredging on Pari Island
24 Januari 2025
The sea sand dredging activity was allegedly carried out for the reclamation of a tourist resort on Pari Island.
Data Leaks Won't be Eradicated 100% in Indonesia, Stronger Law Enforcement Needed
8 November 2024
Data leaks that often occur in Indonesia cannot be fully eradicated, the chair of Aspiluki, Djarot Subiantoro, said on Thursday, November 7, 2024.
Prabowo Says Online Gambling, Drugs, and Corruption Among Major Threats to Indonesia
24 Oktober 2024
Prabowo's assertion about major threats to Indonesia has been previously voiced during his inaugural speech.
Students Report Law Enforcers to Komnas HAM for Abuse During Demonstration
29 Agustus 2024
Two students have filed a report with the National Human Rights Commission (Komnas HAM) alleging abuse by law enforcement officers during protests.
High Literacy Does Not Mean Scam-Free; OJK Pushes for Law Enforcement Cooperation in Financial Sector
6 Agustus 2024
Financial Services Authority (OJK) says that people's high level of financial literacy does not guarantee they will be safe from the traps of fraud.
Law Enforcement Authority in Military Bill Must Be Removed: Amnesty International Indonesia
18 Juli 2024
Military Bill will potentially have some troubling consequences if issued.
Stopping Animal Torture Video from Indonesia
26 April 2024
Indonesia is the world's largest producer of animal torture video content. This is a result of weak law enforcement.
