Hasil Pencarian  ::  Simpan CSV :: Kembali

"ABSTRAKGugatan Perwakilan Kelompok adalah salah satu hak gugat untuk menyelesaikan sengketa lingkungan di Indonesia, sesuai dengan ketentuan Undang-Undang Perlindungan dan Pengelolaan Lingkungan Hidup Nomor 32 Tahun 2009. Gugatan Perwakilan Kelompok di Indonesia memiliki mekanisme penentuan anggota kelompok yaitu Pernyataan Keluar, yang nantinya berimbas pada proses pendistribusian ganti rugi setelah gugatan dikabulkan. Berdasarkan hubungan tersebut, Penulis mencoba mengkaji masalah yang ada di Indonesia, baik dalam peraturan maupun pelaksanaannya. Kemudian dilakukan perbandingan dengan negara lain yang telah menerapkan Gugatan Perwakilan Kelompok sejak lama. Penelitian ini bersifat yuridis normatif, melalui wawancara kepada narasumber dan studi dokumen untuk dapat memberikan gambaran terhadap permasalahan yang diteliti.

---

ABSTRAKClass Actions is one of the legal standing stipulated in Law of Environmental Protection and Management No. 32 of 2009 to settle environmental disputes. Class Actions in Indonesia has opt out mechanism to determine its members, which in turn affects the process of settlement distribution after the verdict. Based on that connection, the Author tries to analyze the problems in Indonesia, in its regulations as well as the implementation. Then a comparison is made with other countries which has implemented Class Actions for longer period. This research is juridical normative, conducted through interview with a source and document study to depict the problems researched therein."

"Gugatan Class Actions pertama kali hanya dikenal dalam sistem hukum Anglo Saxon sejak abad ke 18, dan kemudian bekembang penerapannya di negaranegara common law lainnya, di Indonesia pemahaman konsep ini masih tergolong baru. Namun disisi lain terdapat keinginan yang sangat besar dari masyarakat untuk menggunakan prosedur ini dalam kasus-kasus publik.Gugatan Class Actions merupakan salah satu prosedur pengajuan perkara perdata ke pengadilan, dengan jumlah pihak yang banyak dan dirasakan lebih efektif dan efisien jika dibandingkan dengan prosedur lainnya.Class Actions mulai masuk dalam sistem hukum kita melalui UU No. 23 tahun 1997 tentang Pengelolaan Lingkungan Hidup, UU No. 8 Tahun 1999 tentang Perlindungan Konsumen, UU No. 41 Tahun 1999 Tentang Kehutanan, dan UU No. 18 Tahun 1999 tentang Jasa Konstruksi, serta UU No. 28 Tahun 2002 Tentang Bangunan.Hasil penelitiannya, menunjukkan bahwa dari beberapa kasus yang diajukan ke Pengadilan semuanya telah memenuhi persyaratan gugatan perwakilan kelompok Namun demikian khusus mengenai mekanisme/prosedur sertifikasi dan Pemberitahuan/notifikasi yang ditetapkan oleh hakim kepada anggota kelas untuk keluar atau masuk anggota kelas melalui mas media atau langsung kepada anggota kelas sebelum keluarnya PERMA No.l/ 2002, ternyata tidak dilakukan, dan ketentuan ini baru dilakukan setelah adanya PERMA No.l/ 2002. Adapun tuntutantuntutan yang diajukan penggugat terhadap tergugat pada umumya tuntutan ganti rugi,baik materiil maupun immaterial, disamping itu juga ada tuntutan pencabutan izin dan tuntutan pemulihan, namun tuntutan tersebut belum dapat direalisasikan, karena semua putusan hakim yang telah berkekuatan hukum yang tetap tidak ada yang dimenangkan oleh para penggugat.Dalam pelaksanaan pengajuan gugatan Class Actions telah terjadi kesimpangsiuran pemahaman dikalangan penggugat, karena ada beberapa kasus gugatan yang diajukan penggugat ke Pengadilan (seperti masalah HAM dan Hukum Administrasi Negara) di luar sengketa Lingkungan, Konsumen, dan Kehutanan Sedangkan kehadiran PERMA No. 1/2002, menjamin agar peradilan yang lebih sederhana,cepat dan biaya ringan dibandingkan dengan prosedur gugatan kumulasi. Dan PERMA tersebut substansinya masih sumir, dan perlu dilanjutkan sosialisaasi/memberikan pemahaman tentang isu prosedural dalam penerapan Class Actions bagi para Hakim, dan Pengacara serta masyarakat. Dan disarankan kepada pemerintah dan DPR untuk memasukan materi Class Actions ke dalam RUU Acara Perdata."

"Ada beberapa perundang-undangan yang memberikan kesempatan kepada masyarakat untuk mengajukan permohonan gugatan perwakilan antara lain UU no. 23 tahun 1997 tentang pengelolaan lingkungan hidup, UU no 8 tahun 1999 tentang perlindungan konsumen.."

"ABSTRAKPeraturan Menteri Lingkungan Hidup Republik Indonesia nomor 7 tahun 2014 tentang Kerugian Lingkungan Hidup Akibat Pencemaran dan/atau Kerusakan Lingkungan Hidup merupakan satu-satunya wadah hukum yang mengatur mengenai mekanisme perhitungan ganti rugi kerusakan dan/atau pencemaran lingkungan secara komprehensif dan menyeluruh di Indonesia. Sayangnya, peraturan menteri ini masih memiliki banyak kelemahan yang dapat menghambat proses pemulihan lingkungan hidup dan pelaksanaan sistem kompensasi bagi korban-korban. Beberapa kesalahan konsep yang terdapat dalam peraturan menteri ini adalah penuntutan secara bersamaan antara biaya pemulihan lingkungan hidup dan biaya kerusakan lingkungan hidup, metode perhitungan biaya pemulihan lingkungan hidup yang tidak berdasarkan biaya riil, dan kemungkinan terjadinya perhitungan ganda double counting . Skripsi ini akan menganalisis kesalahan-kesalahan tersebut dan memberikan solusi yang tepat melalui studi kepustakaan, perbandingan dengan The International Convention on Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage, wawancara, dan analisis Kasus Montara. The International Convention on Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage adalah konvensi internasional yang menyediakan sistem kompensasi bagi korban-korban pencemaran minyak di laut. Secara garis besar, dalam The International Convention on Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage, biaya pemulihan lingkungan hidup dituntut berdasarkan biaya riil dengan menyertakan rencana restorasi. Rencana restorasi akan mencegah terjadinya perhitungan ganda. Sistem perhitungan ganti rugi yang diatur dalam The International Convention on Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage diharapkan dapat menjadi pedoman bagi Indonesia untuk memperbaiki kelemahan-kelemahan sistem perhitungannya.

---

ABSTRACTRegulation of the Minister of Environment Number 7 Year 2014 Regarding Environmental Damage as A Consequence of Pollution and or Damage to the Environment is the only comprehensive law in Indonesia that regulates the mechanism of valuation environmental damage. Unfortunately, this ministerial regulation has several weaknesses which can hamper the environmental recovery and execution of compensation system for the victims. For instances, environmental recovery and environmental damage are compensated jointly, environmental recovery valuation is not based on actual cost, and a possibility of double counting. This thesis discusses about those weaknesses and provides an appropriate solutions through literature studies, comparative approach with the International Convention on Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage, interviews, and an analysis of Montara Incident. The International Convention on Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage is an international convention that provides compensation for victims of oil spill in the ocean. Basically in the International Convention on Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage, environmental recovery cost valuation is based on actual cost through a restoration plan. This restoration plan helps to prevent double counting. Hopefully Indonesia may improve and rectify all those weaknesses with the International Convention on Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage as its guidance. "

"Tesis ini membahas gugatan administratif terhadap izin lingkungan terkait dengan upaya penyelesaian sengketa lingkungan hidup melalui peradilan administrasi. Rezim hukum lingkungan hidup di Indonesia pada saat ini diatur dengan Undang-undang Nomor 32 Tahun 2009 tentang Perlindungan dan Pengelolaan Lingkungan Hidup (UU PPLH) serta peraturan-peraturan pelaksananya. Dalam Pasal 38 UU PPLH disebutkan bahwa izin lingkungan dapat dibatalkan melalui keputusan pengadilan tata usaha negara. Pengujian izin lingkungan tersebut diajukan dengan gugatan melalui pengadilan tata usaha negara dengan mendasarkan pada alasan-alasan pembatalan sebagaimana diatur dalam Pasal 37 ayat (2) UU PPLH serta mengacu pada alasan-alasan pembatalan yang diatur dalam Undang-undang Peradilan Tata Usaha Negara itu sendiri. Selain itu dasar hukum pengajuan gugatan administratif terhadap izin lingkungan diatur khusus dalam Pasal 93 ayat (1) UU PPLH. Namun demikian, dalam prakteknya di peradilan tata usaha negara, penerapan Pasal 93 ayat (1) UU PPLH tersebut dilaksanakan secara berbeda-beda oleh Majelis Hakim peradilan tata usaha negara. Perbedaan penerapan tersebut diakibatkan oleh rumusan atau anasir Pasal 93 ayat (1) UU PPLH yang bersifat multitafsir karena mengandung frasa bersyarat yang berpotensi ditafsirkan sebagai pembatasan/pengecualian kompetensi absolut peradilan tata usaha negara untuk memeriksa, mengadili dan memutuskan izin lingkungan sebagai obyek gugatan. Dalam Tesis ini akan diuraikan analisis mengenai penerapan Pasal 93 ayat (1) UU PPLH tersebut khususnya mengenai gugatan administratif terhadap izin lingkungan. Penelitian ini merupakan penelitian hukum normatif dengan menggunakan studi kepustakaan dan wawancara dalam pengumpulan data, kemudian data-data yang diperoleh dianalisis dengan menggunakan pendekatan kualitatif.

---

This thesis discusses administrative claims on environmental permits in relation to efforts to resolve environmental disputes using administrative courts. Indonesia's currently prevailing environmental law regime is regulated by Law Number 32 year 2009 regarding the Protection And Management of the Environment (UU PPLH) with its bylaws. Article 38 of the UUPLH states that environmental permits can be revoked through a decision of the State Administrative Court. The review of said environmental permit is initiated by the submission of a claim through the State Administrative Court using the reasons for revocation as set out in article 37 paragraph (2) of the UU PPLH as well as referring to the reasons for revocation in the State Administrative Court Law itself. In addition to the above, the legal grounds for submitting an administrative claim against an environmental permit is specifically regulated in Article 93 paragraph (1) of the UU PPLH. However, in practice in the State Administrative Court, the council of judges applied Article 93 paragraph (1) of the UU PPLH in a diverse. Said diversity in application is caused by the multi-interpretative nature of the elements of article 93 paragraph (1) of the UUPLH because it contains a conditional phrase that can potentially be interpreted as a limitation/exclusion of the State Administrative Court?s absolute competence to examine, review, and decide on environmental permits as the object of a claim. This thesis will explain the analysis on the application of said Article 93 paragraph (1) of the UU PPLH especially regarding administrative claims on environmental permits. This research is a normative legal research by using a library study and interview technique for its data resources, then the obtained data will be analyzed using a qualitative approach."

"Adanya Perbedaan antara gugatan wanprestasi dengan gugatan perbuatan melawan hukum apabila terjadi pelanggaran yang menimbulkan kerugian terletak pada apakah terdapat hubungan kontraktual antara para pihak yang bersengketa. Apabila antara pihak yang bersengketa ada hubungan kontraktual maka pihak yang menderita kerugian akibat pelanggaran tersebut dapat mengajukan gugatan wanprestasi. Apabila tidak ada hubungan kontraktual antara para pihak yang bersengketa maka pihak yang menderita kerugian akibat pelanggaran dapat mengajukan gugatan perbuatan melawan hukum. Adanya perkembangan penafsiran tentang istilah perbuatan melawan hukum yang termaktub dalam Pasal 1365 Kitab Undang-Undang Hukum Perdata menjadi pemahaman istilah hukum dalam arti yang luas, berdampak kepada penerapan dasar gugatan dalam sengketa hubungan kontraktual. Gugatan wanprestasi yang biasanya diterapkan dalam sengketa relatif mengalami perubahan jika melihat kepada adanya kasus sengekta hubungan kontraktual yang dituntut dengan alasan perbuatan melawan hukum. Dampak selanjutnya adalah terhadap penerapan ganti rugi yang dituntut oleh pihak yang merasa dirugikan. Penggunaan teori tujuan ganti rugi berdasarkan alasan gugatan yang bersifat klasik, tidak lagi dapat diterapkan secara mutlak. Dalam kasus putusan Mahkamah Agung No 1284.K/Pdt/1998 Tanggal 18 Desember Tahun 2000, perbuatan melawan hukum diterapkan sebagai putusan meskipun dalam salah satu pertimbangannya dinyatakan ada hubungan kontraktual antara para pihak."

"In its development of the last three years, there has been a new phenomenon in Indonesia jurisdiction; i.e. public claims made using a class action procedure. The utilization of such a procedure has been made so frequently and obtained legal forces because it has got us opportunity and justification in a variety of Indonesian legislations; among other things: law no. 23, 1997 concerning environmental management, law no. 8, 1999 regarding consumer protection and law no. 41 governing forestry followed up by a litigation procedure through the supreme court?s regulation no. 1, 2002. such a regulation has bridged the concept and legal theory which is subsequently used to execute .civil dalm procedures since there has been a shift from using an individual model to using a representative one. before the supreme court issued this regulation, courts had always' rejected collective claims on the ground that Indonesias civil law, especially section 123 of hir, a revised indonesia's law, stated that such claims could be brought up their claimants or by hiring Iavvyers. without a special authorization, however, lawyers could not represent class interest to be in session of court now, on the basis of article 4 of supreme court regulation to represent a ciass interest, the representative is not required to have this special authorization from the group he represents. social groups having the some case shoulclnot bring their case individually to prevent a recurrent case from happening. this oollective claim, class action, can be made at a lower cost so that the general public may bring their claims to court. in addition, to void mutually controversial verdicts, when each individual make his own claim, class action constitutes to be a more effident procedure. class action as a litigation procedure has its historical, social and cultural background in the common law system. therefore, class action as an effort of civil law reform in Indonesia has a tendency toward the civil law system; from legal comparison viewpoint, lt requires brillian thoughts on the part of judges in order to implement the existing laws actively; let alone, when we consider that the supreme court regulation no. 1, 2002 is but a way of transferring on America or Australian model. on the other hand, class action as a legal protection over Indonesian communities can be exercised as a social control; i.e. as social norms against deviant behaviours and their effects that include prohibitions, demands, condemnation and compensation. dispude resolution procedures with regard to compensation over unlawful deeds in class action should be prepared in detail, covering mechanism of its distribution for all members of a class including suggestions on court proving or panel to help distribute compensation more smoothly. when a compensation demand is approved, a judge isobliged to decide in detail the class grouping, compensation distribution mechanism`and steps to be taken by class representatives such as the obligation of notification. among the frequent cases are environmental function recovery, waste management improvement, pollution source eradication, compensation for the affected group and attitudinal changes among law breakers.Besides, class action as a tool of social engineering, that is, when a gap between law and social change appears, should find its solution whereas class action as a social emancipation means the equal right among various aspects of social life.based on the fact that court decision in class action is binding to all, any interest group using this procedure should help reduce administrative problems. this new phenomenon in Indonesia jurisdiction, public claims using a class action procedure, ls relevant to Frederick Calvert's theory. the people?s interest represented by a class action is in accordance with the theoiy of utilitarianism proposed by Jeremy Bentham. judges, accordingly, should make their decision on the basis of equilibrium principle between individual and collective interests as put forward by John Rawls In his theory of justice. rules are then needed to avoid a conflict of interests, between individual and collective ones. law as an umpire is indispensable."

"ABSTRAKin its development of the last three years, there has been a new phenomenon in Indonesia jurisdiction; i.e. public claims made using a class action procedure. The utilization of such a procedure has been made so frequently and obtained legal forces because it has got us opportunity and justification in a variety of Indonesian legislations; among other things: law no. 23, 1997 concerning environmental management, law no. 8, 1999 regarding consumer protection and law no. 41 governing forestry followed up by a litigation procedure through the supreme court?s regulation no. 1, 2002. such a regulation has bridged the concept and legal theory which is subsequently used to execute .civil dalm procedures since there has been a shift from using an individual model to using a representative one. before the supreme court issued this regulation, courts had always' rejected collective claims on the ground that Indonesias civil law, especially section 123 of hir, a revised indonesia's law, stated that such claims could be brought up their claimants or by hiring Iavvyers. without a special authorization, however, lawyers could not represent class interest to be in session of court now, on the basis of article 4 of supreme court regulation to represent a ciass interest, the representative is not required to have this special authorization from the group he represents. social groups having the some case shoulclnot bring their case individually to prevent a recurrent case from happening. this oollective claim, class action, can be made at a lower cost so that the general public may bring their claims to court. in addition, to void mutually controversial verdicts, when each individual make his own claim, class action constitutes to be a more effident procedure. class action as a litigation procedure has its historical, social and cultural background in the common law system. therefore, class action as an effort of civil law reform in Indonesia has a tendency toward the civil law system; from legal comparison viewpoint, lt requires brillian thoughts on the part of judges in order to implement the existing laws actively; let alone, when we consider that the supreme court regulation no. 1, 2002 is but a way of transferring on America or Australian model. on the other hand, class action as a legal protection over Indonesian communities can be exercised as a social control; i.e. as social norms against deviant behaviours and their effects that include prohibitions, demands, condemnation and compensation. dispude resolution procedures with regard to compensation over unlawful deeds in class action should be prepared in detail, covering mechanism of its distribution for all members of a class including suggestions on court proving or panel to help distribute compensation more smoothly. when a compensation demand is approved, a judge isobliged to decide in detail the class grouping, compensation distribution mechanism`and steps to be taken by class representatives such as the obligation of notification. among the frequent cases are environmental function recovery, waste management improvement, pollution source eradication, compensation for the affected group and attitudinal changes among law breakers.besides, class action as a tool of social engineering, that is, when a gap between law and social change appears, should find its solution whereas class action as a social emancipation means the equal right among various aspects of social life.based on the fact that court decision in class action is binding to all, any interest group using this procedure should help reduce administrative problems. this new phenomenon in Indonesia jurisdiction, public claims using a class action procedure, ls relevant to Frederick Calvert's theory. the people?s interest represented by a class action is in accordance with the theoiy of utilitarianism proposed by Jeremy Bentham. judges, accordingly, should make their decision on the basis of equilibrium principle between individual and collective interests as put forward by John Rawls In his theory of justice. rules are then needed to avoid a conflict of interests, between individual and collective ones. law as an umpire is indispensable."