Electronic Theses and Dissertation

Putusan No. 591/Pdt.G-LH/2015/PN Jkt. Sel dan Putusan No. 213/Pdt.G/LH/2018/PN Plk, menunjukkan perbedaan pertimbangan pembuktian dalam penerapan prinsip tanggung jawab mutlak. Meskipun hukum di Indonesia telah mengatur mekanisme pertanggungjawaban perdata melalui Pasal 88 Undang-Undang No. 32 Tahun 2009 tentang Perlindungan dan Pengelolaan Lingkungan Hidup (UU PPLH) serta Pasal 1365 Kitab Undang-Undang Hukum Perdata, namun dalam praktik proses pembuktian di pengadilan masih terdapat ketidakkonsistenan hakim dalam penerapan prinsip tanggung jawab mutlak .

Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk menjelaskan penyelesaian sengketa lingkungan hidup melalui pendekatan perdata pada Putusan Nomor 591/Pdt.G-LH/2015/PN. Jkt. Sel dan Putusan Nomor 213/Pdt.G/LH/2018/PN Plk dan untuk menjelaskan dasar pertimbangan hakim pada Putusan Nomor 591/Pdt.G-LH/2015/PN. Jkt. Sel dan Putusan Nomor 213/Pdt.G/LH/2018/PN Plk.

Metode penelitian yang digunakan adalah yuridis normatif dengan pendekatan perundang-undangan dan pendekatan kasus (case approach). Analisis dilakukan secara kualitatif terhadap pertimbangan hukum hakim melalui pendekatan perdata dalam kedua perkara tersebut.

Hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwa dalam kedua putusan, majelis hakim menyatakan tergugat telah melakukan perbuatan melawan hukum dan menghukum untuk membayar ganti kerugian serta melaksanakan pemulihan lingkungan. Pada. Putusan PN Jakarta Selatan hakim menggunakan prinsip strict liability dengan merujuk pada UU PPLH dan peraturan perundang-undangan lainnya, namun tidak disebukan secara eksplisit dalam amar putusan. Sebaliknya, dalam Putusan PN Palangkaraya, prinsip tersebut dinyatakan secara tegas dalam petitum dan dipertimbangkan oleh majelis hakim bersama dengan prinsip iktikad baik. Terlihat adanya perbedaan dasar pertimbangan penerapan prinsip tanggung jawab mutlak, yang menunjukkan perlunya kejelasan dalam penerapan pembuktian dan peran aktif hakim dalam mempertimbangkannya. Hal ini penting untuk memperkuat kepastian dan keadilan hukum, serta perlindungan terhadap hak lingkungan hidup.

Disarankan kepada majelis hakim agar secara tegas mencantumkan penerapan prinsip strict liability dalam amar putusan. Selain itu, hakim juga perlu lebih konsisten dan progresif dalam menerapkan prinsip strict liability dalam penyelesaian lingkungan hidup melalui pendekatan perdata guna mewujudkan kepastian hukum dan perlindungan lingkungan hidup yang berkelanjutan.

Decision No. 591/Pdt.G-LH/2015/PN Jkt. Sel and Decision No. 213/Pdt.G/LH/2018/PN Plk show differences in the consideration of evidence in the application of the principle of strict liability. Although Indonesian law has regulated civil liability mechanisms through Article 88 of Law No. 32 of 2009 concerning Environmental Protection and Management (PPLH Law) and Article 1365 of the Civil Code, in practice, there is still inconsistency among judges in applying the principle of strict liability during the evidentiary process in court. This study aims to explain the resolution of environmental disputes through a civil approach in Decision No. 591/Pdt.G-LH/2015/PN. Jkt. Sel and Decision Number 213/Pdt.G/LH/2018/PN Plk and to explain the basis for the judges' considerations in Decision Number 591/Pdt.G-LH/2015/PN. Jkt. Sel and Decision Number 213/Pdt.G/LH/2018/PN Plk. The research method used was normative juridical with a legislative approach and a case approach. Qualitative analysis was conducted on the judge's legal considerations through a civil approach in both cases. The results of the study show that in both decisions, the panel of judges declared that the defendant had committed an unlawful act and ordered them to pay compensation and carry out environmental restoration. In the South Jakarta District Court decision, the judge used the principle of strict liability with reference to the Environmental Protection and Management Law and other laws and regulations, but this was not explicitly mentioned in the verdict. Conversely, in the Palangkaraya District Court decision, this principle was explicitly stated in the petition and considered by the panel of judges together with the principle of good faith. There appears to be a fundamental difference in the consideration of the application of the principle of strict liability, which indicates the need for clarity in the application of evidence and the active role of judges in considering it. This is important to strengthen legal certainty and justice, as well as the protection of environmental rights. It is recommended that the panel of judges explicitly include the application of the principle of strict liability in the verdict. In addition, judges also need to be more consistent and progressive in applying the principle of strict liability in environmental dispute resolution through a civil approach in order to achieve legal certainty and sustainable environmental protection.