SLAPP cases in Indonesia
SLAPP stands for ‘Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation’. It was initially a US legal concept, that has since been accommodated in Indonesia’s 2009 law on environmental protection.
Criminalisation of expert testimony
The first case was a lawsuit against two professors who previously had provided expert evidence in a case against a palm oil firm involved in 2018 peatland fires in Kalimantan. As experts, they calculated the costs on environmental destruction caused by the fires. This calculation constituted the basis from which the court ordered the palm oil firm to pay a total of 300 billion rupiah (roughly equal to 15.5 million Euro) for damages and environmental restoration, in a case brought by the Ministry of Environment.
The palm oil firm then filed charges against the academics based on the expert testimony they provided in court. The Cibinong court made a ‘interlocutory decision’ (putusan sela), which means that the court initially identified the case as SLAPP, and therefore did not spend more time on examining its merits. This is important as the purpose of pressing charges against environmental defenders is not necessary to win the case, it could as well be to exhaust or intimidate them. Avoidance of a full trial minimizes the impact on the accused. The palm oil firm appealed to the Bandung High Court. Read more about the case here (Indonesia at Melbourne).
Environmental defenders disturbing nickel mining
The second case concerned two local environmental defenders who were charged for disturbing the activities of a nickel mining firm in Central Sulawesi. The Andoloo District Court found that they had indeed carried out the acts they were accused of, but in line with SLAPP-legislation, these actions were not of a criminal nature. The case then went to the Supreme Court, which upheld the judgement. Read more about the case here (Mongabay - in Indonesian).
Strengthening human rights litigation
Since 2020, the NCHR has cooperated with the Indonesian Legal Aid Foundation and its network of associated legal offices, including the Makassar office involved in the latter of the two above-mentioned cases.
Focus has been on strengthening human rights litigation capacity, through trainings and the development of training materials, and support to the handling of 10 specific human rights cases per year. The support covers activities that are not financed through ‘regular’ legal aid, such as field visits to interview witnesses and affected communities, as well as various kinds of exchanges, advice and advocacy support from the national office to the field offices.
The NCHR has also previously held trainings for Indonesian judges that included a SLAPP component.