CORPORATE RESPONSIBILITY TOWARDS OF FOREST FIRE IN

CONNECTION WITH THE ENVIRONMENTAL APPLICATION

Arranged by:
NURMAWATI 20150610233
Nurmawati684@gmail.com

ABSTRACT

Land and forest fire have grabbed much concern and been considered as
national issue. The event occurs repeatedly year by year, specifically in Sumatra and
Kalimantan islands. Government institutions and local community, including farmers
and estate enterprises have a very close linkage in such disaster. The smoke produced
by the fire has been transformed into a widespread of thick cloud and immediately
affects health conditions of the community. The smoke also directly interfere river,
land, and air transport systems, thus influencing basic socio-economic life of human
being. Due to the actors who burn the forest to open land oil palm plantation company
allegedly is a corporation, the corporation issues related to speak also to the issue of
accountability. In terms of corporate accountability is possible through the doctrine of
strict liability which, in this teaching criminal liability can be imposed on perpetrators
of criminal acts in question with no need to prove the existence of fault (intent or
negligence) actors. But the emphasis placed on it, as a result of his actions have
caused loss to the community. Suffice if proven that the offender has committed an
unlawful act, or not doing that is required by the criminal provisions (offenses of strict
liability).

Keywords: Corporate Liability; Forest fires; and Application of Environmental Law

 CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION

A. BACKGROUND
Criminal liability, in foreign terms, is also called toerekenbaardheid or
criminal responsibility, which leads to the perpetrator's crime with the intent to
determine whether a defendant or suspect is accountable for a crime that occurred
or not. In order to punish the perpetrator, it is required that the criminal offense
that he has committed must meet the elements prescribed by law. Judging from the
ability to be responsible, then someone capable of being responsible can be
accountable for his actions Criminal liability has a close relationship with the
determination of criminal law subjects. The subject of criminal law in the
provisions of legislation is the perpetrator of criminal acts that can be accountable
for all legal acts committed as a manifestation of responsibility because of his
fault with others (victims).
UN Congress VII in 1985, among other things, discussed the type of crime
in the theme of "New Dimensions of Crime in the Context of Development", and
saw the crime phenomenon which is a continuation of economic activity and
growth where the corporation plays a lot in it, such as tax fraud, life, insurance
fraud, advertising fraud whose impact can damage the joints of a country's
economy. Seeing the development and growth of corporations that have a negative
impact, the position of the corporation began to shift from only the subject of civil
law to include also the subject of criminal law. In the context of criminal acts in
this study is forest fires that damage the environment.
Now, the age has grown and people's lives are so complex, therefore the
understanding of a crime must also be shifted from the old (classical) view. It is
inconceivable how the concept of classic glasses might be used to photograph the
symptoms that arise and occur in this increasingly sophisticated and modern
society. Moreover, to photograph the perpetrators of crimes that are now evolving
to include not only in human form in the sense of no longer conventional crime,
now has shifted, besides done by the subject of human law, but also can be done
by actors who are equated with human beings namaely corporations. Thus, of
course, old glasses have not hit the target again if still insisted to be used in the
present.
 So inevitably the focus of criminology studies should develop themselves
is through a critical study of various forms of phenomena in the life of a modern
society. The current Criminal Code does not regulate corporate criminal liability
in the sense of not knowing corporation as a subject of crime. The Criminal Code
used until now still holds that a delict can only be done by humans (natuurlijk
persoon). Article 59 of the Indonesian Criminal Code is: "In cases where the
offense is criminalized against the board, members of the governing body or
commissioners, the board, member of the governing body or commissioner does
not interfere with the offense". Such meaning is that a crime has never been
committed by a corporation but has been committed by its management. The
Criminal Code only regulates the criminal acts committed by individual persons
whose responsibilities are also done individually.
This limitation of understanding has subsequently covered or protected the
legal entity from all crimes that have been committed. On behalf of legal entities
(corporations) the perpetrators are safe and protected from legal harassment and
free to act. There is no criminal law sanction that can be imposed on the legal
entity because at that time there is no legal arrangement that regulates criminal
liability for legal entities. Sufficient demands are only related to the civil scope
alone, for example by requesting compensation payments due to the actions of a
civic legal entity that have harmed other legal subjects.
The objective of the law of environmental protection and management is
to create a balance of environmental harmony.6 Therefore, the protection and
management of the environment is a systematic and integrated effort undertaken
to preserve environmental functions and prevent the occurrence of pollution and /
or environmental destruction life that includes planning, utilization, control,
maintenance, supervision, and law enforcement

B. PROBLEM FORMULATION
1. What is the accountability of the corporation against the crime of forest
fires?
2. What is the process of corporate responsibility for forest fires in the
application of environmental law?

C. OBJECTIVES OF WRITING
 1. To know and assess the juridical liability of the corporation against the
crime of forest fire;
2. To understand and assess the juridical process of corporate responsibility in
environmental law enforcement.

CHAPTER II
DISCUSSION

A. The accountability of the corporation against the crime of forest fires

Forest and land fires in Indonesia, particularly in West Kalimantan, are
quite common and even the majority of people consider forest and land fires in
West Kalimantan as seasonal, meaning that almost every year forest and land fires
occurring as a result of human actions are legal events , ie events or events that
cause legal consequences. Forest and land fire incidents not only have a negative
impact on natural ecosystems and artificial ecosystems, but also incur legal
liability for the perpetrators. It even requires the government and the law
enforcement apparatus to take necessary legal action in accordance with its
 authority and duties. The wider community has a social responsibility to prevent
the occurrence of forest and land fires.1
Land and forest fires in West Kalimantan often occur in plantation and
community landholdings. In terms of the rule of law, forest and land fires are
linked to forestry regulations,2 in plantations,3 and in the environmental sector. 4 In
these rules include provisions on prohibition of combustion and there is a provision
of sanctions which can be applied to the perpetrator of the burning which
ultimately affects the occurrence of pollution and / or damage to the environment.5
At the level of law enforcement, it was experiencing quite a lot of
obstacles. In addition to the unclear formulation of the offense and various
sanctions, the proof is also quite difficult, except in the case of being caught.
Strictly speaking, preventive and repressive law enforcement actions against forest
and land fire cases and their ecosystem impacts are still not effective. That fact, can
be seen from the lack of settlement of cases of forest and land burning submitted to
the Court. In fact, almost no perpetrators of forest and land burning in West
Kalimantan are charged with such legal sanctions.6
The Government has a very high interest in the development of oil palm
plantations in Indonesia because of its very important position in the structure of
the State's economy. The important economic roles of oil palm plantations include
job creation, improving living standards of people within the plantation area, and
contributing to the country's foreign exchange so that the government provides the
most important facilities for oil palm plantation, which is a facility to acquire land
and labor cheap and political protection, provided by the government to investors.7
The problems of plantation relics of government programs in the 80s that
are patterned purely private plantations, government projects, and self-help
patterns. The business strategy developed by plantation companies in West
Kalimantan in general and Sambas District in particular is to maintain a balance

1 Amanda, “Sinkronisasi Penegakan Hukum Pidana Lingkungan Hidup Dengan Undang-

Undang Yang Terkait Dengan Lingkungan (Studi Kasus Kebakaran Hutan dan Lahan)”,
Jurnal Mahasiswa, Jurnal NESTOR Magister Hukum 2, No. 2, 2013.
2 Law No. 41 of 1999 on Forestry.
3 Law No. 18 of 2004 on Plantation.
4 Law no. 32 of 2009 on the Protection and Management of the Environment.
5 Ibid
6 Ibid
7 Ibid
 between growth and profitability, implement Operational Excellence, develop
Intelectual Capitol, develop downstream value-adding industries and establish
strategic alliances that are mutually beneficial. This business strategy is then
further developed in the form of business policy, which includes: controlling the
business through key performance indicators, enacting Standard Operating
Procedures (SOPs) that support the new paradigm of the company, managing
business based on values gradually applying transfornational leadership, and
cultivating innovation which increases productivity significantly.8
The development of oil palm plantations has a positive impact on regional
economic development, so it needs to be improved in order to improve the welfare
of society in accordance with the purpose and function of plantation development.
However, positive impacts arising from plantation business activities on the other
hand also have a negative impact, one of which occurred forest fires and land in
the plantation area as happened in PT. Wilmar Sambas Plantation (WSP) and PT.
Bulk Cawang Plantation (BCP) Sambas that cause ecological, economic and socio-
cultural losses, so law enforcement is necessary.9
In conjunction with forest and land fires there are several criminal
provisions in the Forestry Law, Plantation Law, and Environmental Law that
govern the sanctions of the consequences of forest and land fires.
Article 50 paragraph (3) sub-paragraph d of Law no. 41 of 1999 on
Forestry only formulated the act of "burning the forest". This formulation is not
clear the category of deliknya, formal or material offense and / or offense
pollution / destruction of the environment. Similarly, the sanction arrangement,
namely:
1. "If deliberately threatened under the provisions of Article 78 paragraph
(3) with a maximum imprisonment of 15 (fifteen) years and a maximum
fine of Rp. 5.000.000.000, - (five billion rupiah).
2. If due to negligence is threatened under the provisions of Article 78
paragraph (4) with a maximum imprisonment of 5 (five) years and a
maximum fine of Rp. 1.500.000.000, - (one billion five hundred million
rupiah).

8 Ibid
9 Majalah Media Informasi dan Komunikasi Perkumpulan Sawit Watch, “Jefri Gideon S :
Kriminalisasi Massal Dibalik Janji Manis Ekspansi Perkebunan Sawit”, Vol. 1 Tahun 7, 2007, hal. 16.
 3. Elucidation of Article 50 Paragraph (3) d, excluding from criminal
threats to "limited fires of forest" permitted only for special purposes or
inevitable conditions, such as: forest fire control, pest eradication, as
well as the development of plant habitats and animals that must obtain
permission from the authorities ".
The problem is, what if the act of burning the excluded forest, apparently
cause pollution and / or damage to the environment? Cases of forest and land fires
in plantation area owned by PT. BCP and PT. WSP has been enforced by law
enforcement by using criminal sanction provisions in Environmental Law, and
based on Singkawang District Court decision both companies have been
disconnected, so that on the decision the Public Prosecutor declared Cassation, and
then the Cassation decision rejected the Prosecutor's request.
"Both cases of forest and land fires at PT. BCP and PT. WSP as mentioned
above was investigated by police investigators of West Kalimantan Police and
Civil Servant Investigator (PPNS) Bapedalda West Kalimantan Province which
concluded that the two companies are causing pollution and environmental
destruction.
Based on the result of investigation conducted by police officer and PPNS
environment of West Kalimantan Province Bapedalda, then State Attorney of
Sambas as an institution that is authorized to make demands, demands the leader /
responsible of both companies (separately) with Primair charges as regulated and
criminalized in Article 41 verse (1) Jo. Article 46 paragraph (1) Jo. Article 47 of
Law no. 23 of 1997 on Environmental Management. And Subsidair's indictment as
stipulated and criminalized in Article 42 paragraph (1) Jo. Article 46 paragraph (1)
Jo. Article 47 of Law no. 23 of 1997.
In his indictment the public prosecutor declares that the business leaders /
entrepreneurs of both companies are guilty of unlawful crimes intentionally
committing acts that result in pollution and / or destruction of the environment, so
the prosecutor demands that the heads of the two companies be criminally charged
with imprisonment for 5 (five) years in jail, plus a fine of Rp. 300.000.000, - (three
hundred million rupiah) subsider for 6 (six) months of confinement and with the
order for the defendant to be detained, and subject to regulatory action in the form
of repairing the burnt land area in the two plantation companies ". 10 Based on the
indictment of such prosecutor above, it is clear that the prosecutor demanded

10 Ibid. p. 16
 perpetrators of forest and land fires in both companies using the provisions
concerning corporations, which means that legal subjects who commit criminal
acts of forest and land fires are corporations. The subject of a criminal offense is a
person who may be subject to criminal liability. In the concept of civil law which is
then adopted in public law, people are terms that include two legal subjects namely
human and other subjects which by law are established as the subject of law. In this
latter context, civil law has categorized legal entities as legal subjects. But in
further developments, the subject of criminal law is not only human and legal
entity but also includes the name of the corporation.
According to Sutan Sjahdeini, in criminal law, the notion of corporation is
not only a legal entity. There, the corporation covers both legal entities and non-
legal entities. Not only are limited legal entities such as limited liability
corporations, foundations, corporations or associations authorized as legal entities
classified as corporations under penal law, but also firm, limited partnership or CV,
and partnership or maatschap, ie bodies a business which, according to civil law, is
not a law. A group of people who are organized and have leadership and do legal
acts, also included in what is meant by corporations.11
Theories about corporations have evolved from classical theory to current
theories. A fairly classic theory such as identification doctrine, ie corporations can
be held accountable if a senior enough in the corporate structure commits a crime
in the field of office. The weakness of this theory, however, is to dwell only on
higher levels of structure while crime using modes of subordinates or subsidiaries
or even other companies can not be snared by this theory. Another doctrine is the
vicarious liability theory, which, according to this doctrine, if an agent or a
corporation work, commits a crime, its criminal liability can be imposed on the
enterprise, without the requirement of any benefit or prohibition by the corporation
for such action. The fundamental problem of this doctrine is that if a corporation
has normatively issued a policy to avoid mistakes so that individual acts are judged
solely as individual responsibility.
In Article 50 Paragraph (3) Sub-Paragraph d of Law No.41 Year 1999 on
Forestry, states that burning forests is a prohibited act, which the article referred to
is: "Everyone is forbidden to burn forest". The threat of criminal penalty applicable
to persons committing acts of forest burning is as mentioned in Article 78
paragraph (3), paragraph (4) of Law no. 41 of 1999 on Forestry, which reads:
11 Sutan Remy Sjahdeini, Pertanggungjawaban Pidana Korporasi, (Jakarta : Grafiti Press, 2007).
 Paragraph (3): "Any person who intentionally violates the provisions
referred to in Article 50 paragraph (3) sub-paragraph d shall
be punishable by a maximum of 15 (fifteen) years
imprisonment and a maximum fine of Rp.5,000,000,000.00
(five billion rupiah)".
Paragraph (4): "Any person who due to his / her negligence violates the
provision as referred to in Article 50 paragraph (3) sub-
paragraph d shall be punishable with a maximum
imprisonment of 5 (five) years and a maximum fine of
Rp.1.500.000.000,00 (one billion five hundred million
rupiah) ".
Thus, the limitation of the enforceability of Law no. 32 of 2009 on
Environmental Protection and Management is related to the consequences of
burning the forest which reduces environmental quality standards. Another case
with the limitation of Law no. 41 of 1999 on Forestry governing the burning of
forests. Therefore, the Forestry Law is a lex specialis derrogat lex generalis namely
the PPLH Law. In other words, the Forestry Law is a more specific and specific
regulation on forestry, whereas the PPLH Law regulates the environment globally,
or the consequences of forest fires.

B. The process of corporate responsibility for forest fires in the application of

environmental law
It can be argued that the first post in maintaining and maintaining
environmental law is in the hands of administrative officials, because they are the
ones issuing permits and by themselves those who first find out if no permit or
conditions in the license are violated.12 The search of the documents (AMDAL,
permits (licenses), and division of job duties in positions contained in the relevant
corporate body (corporation) will generate data, information and facts of negative
impacts caused by the business activities concerned and the extent to which
monitoring and control has been to the impact of these documents, it can also be
seen how the rights and obligations of the management of the company, to monitor,
prevent and control the negative impacts of the activities of the company so that

12 Andi Hamzah. Op.Cit. p. 63

 from the search it will also be evident whether the pollution and / or damage to the
environment it happens because of deliberate at au negligence.13
The enforcement of a criminal law is an ultimum remedium or a final
remedy because its purpose is to punish offenders with imprisonment or fines.
Thus, criminal law enforcement does not work to improve the polluted
environment. However, criminal law enforcement is always applied selectively.14
Ultimum Remedium is associated with Article 100 of Law no. 32 of 2009
on Environmental Protection and Management has outlined that there are 3 (three)
violations in the environmental field, namely:
1. Breeding of waste water quality standards;
2. Violation of emission standard quality;
3. Offense quality violations.
Associated with Court Decision as the material of this research, then PT.
ADEI PLANTATION & INDUSTRY proven legally and convincingly guilty of
committing a crime "because its negligence resulted in exceeding the standard
criteria of environmental damage". Criminalize the Defendant therefore with a fine
of Rp. 1.500.000.000, - (One Billion Five Hundred Million Rupiah) provided that
if the fine is not paid is replaced with the imprisonment represented by Mr. Tan Kei
Yoong for 5 (five) months. Dropped additional criminal charges against Defendant
PT. ADEI PLANTATION AND INDUSTRY in the form of repairs due to criminal
action to recover land damaged by the fire of land area of 40 ha through the
composting, at a cost of Rp. 15.141.826.779,325, - (Fifteen Billion One Hundred
Forty One Jut Eight Hundred Twenty Six Thousand Seven Hundred Seventy Nine
Rupiah Three Hundred Twenty Five Sen). Thus, if Defendant Br. Tan Kei Yong as
Regional Director of PT. ADEI does not carry out what the court ordered, then it
may be subject to Article 100 paragraph (1) of Jo. Paragraph (2) of Law no. 32
Year 2009 with a maximum imprisonment of 3 (three) years imprisonment and a
maximum fine of Rp. 3,000,000,000, - (Three Billion Rupiahs).
As stated earlier that the meaning of strict liability is that the maker may
already be punished if he has committed the act as defined in the law without
seeing how his inner attitude can be interpreted as "liability without fault". The

13 Syahrul Machmud. Op.Cit. p. 147

14 Sukanda Husin. Op.Cit. p. 121
 answer to the corporation's response to environmental crime should pay attention
to the following:15
1. "The corporation covers both legal entities (legal entities) as well as
non-legal entities such as organizations and so on.
2. The corporation may be private (private yuridicial entity) and may also
be public (public entity).
3. When it is identified that environmental crimes are committed in an
organizational form, the natural persons (managers, employees) and
corporations may be punished either individually or collectively
(bipunishment provision).
4. There is a management error in the corporation and the so-called breach
of a statutory or regulatory provision.
5. The liability of a legal entity shall be carried out irrespective of whether
the persons responsible within the legal entity are identified,
prosecuted and convicted.
6. All criminal sanctions and actions may be liable to the corporation,
excluding capital punishment and imprisonment.
7. The application of criminal sanctions against corporations does not
eliminate individual errors.
8. Criminalization of corporations should pay attention to corporate
positions for control of the company, through the policy of the board or
the executives of the firm (corporate executive officers) who have the
power-deciding deficiency and the decision has been accepted by the
corporation. "
Law no. Law No. 32 Year 2009 on Environmental Protection and
Management acknowledges the responsibilities of corporations as set forth in
Articles 116 to 119. Subject to Article 117, if a crime is committed by or on behalf
of a legal entity, company, foundation or other organization, its criminal penalty
shall be weighed one third. In addition to the fine penalty, corporations that commit
criminal offenses may be subject to substantial penalties in the form of fines and
additional penalties in the form of disciplinary action as follows:16
1. "Deprivation of profits derived from the crime (fruit of crime).
2. Closure of all or part of company.
3. Improvement due to crime.

15 Etty Utju R. Koesoemahatmadja, Op.cit., p. 88.

16 Sukanda Husin. Op.Cit. p. 124
 4. Obligate to do what is done without rights.
5. Eliminate what is neglected without rights.
6. Putting the company under the maximum of 3 (three) years ".
Because of the formulation of Article 119 of Law no. 32 of 2009 on
Protection and The Environmental Management does not explicitly state whether
this type of punishment is alternative or may be imposed two or more at a time, the
authors also argue that the types of punishment may be imposed on two or more at
once depending on the case by case or the consequences of the offense.

The benefits of strict liability principles are:17

1. "The importance of the warrant complies with certain important rules as
necessary for the welfare of society.
2.The faulty error is obtained for violations of the rules related to the
welfare of society.
3. A high level of social danger arising from such acts ".
With the use of strict liability as a new legal system, the constraints
experienced by the patient can be breached. Under this system, proof is no longer
imposed on the claimant party (the victim of the disadvantaged), as has been
commonly adhered to. But charged to the perpetrators of the act against the law.
Here applies the principle of reversed proof (Omkerings van Bewijslast).
Furthermore, related to the punishment of perpetrators of criminal acts
committed by the corporation in the field of environment (corporation can be
punished), then the corporation punishment is regulated in Law no. Law No. 32
Year 2009 on UUPPLH, especially Article 98 Paragraph (1), describes several
elements that must be fulfilled within the framework of criminal prosecution,
namely: First, whose element. Secondly, unlawfully. Third, deliberately. Fourth,
committing acts which resulted in exceeding ambient air quality standard, water
quality standard, seawater quality standard or environmental damage criteria.
Based on the formulation of Article 116 paragraph (1) above requires that
criminalization against corporations undertaking environmental damage may be
imposed on business entities, and / or persons giving orders to commit such
offenses or persons acting as leaders of activities in such offenses. Therefore

17 NHT. Siahaan, Op.cit., hal. 317.

 corporations in environmental management efforts have an obligation to make
policies / steps that must be taken that is:18
1. "Formulate environmental policy
2. Formulate appropriate organizational structures / structures
(appropriate) and establish who is responsible for the implementation
of the environmental policy.
3. Formulate internal instructions / rules for the execution of activities that
interfere with the environment where it should also be noted that
company employees know and understand the instructions that apply
the company concerned.
4. Provision of financial means or budgeted implementation costs wisdom
of environmental management ".
If against obligations, the corporation is not or less functioning with well,
this could be a reason to assume that corporations are less or less hard work in
preventing the possibility of illicit conduct. Furthermore, to establish the
corporation as an environmental crime, especially corporate crime, 19 there are
several factors to be considered:20
1. "Whether the case relates to a criminal offense in which a disruption to
a protected interest is expressed as a crime.
2. The norms of thoroughness / precision are related to behaviors that
interfere with the environment.
3. The nature, structure and work of the legal entity ".
Associated with the case of land fires on 17 and 18 June 2013 on oil palm
plantations PT. ADEI, then the party responsible for the business and / or activity is

18 Article 118 of Law no. 32 of 2009 on the Protection and Management of the Environment.
19 Singgih in Mahmud Mulyadi, Op.cit., P. 26-28, that: "corporate crime is divided and defined in 6
(six) categories: 1) Defrauding the stock holders (the company does not report the actual profit to the
shareholders); 2) Defrauding the public (deceiving the public about products mainly related to quality
and materials); 3) Defrauding the Government (making an incorrect tax report); 4) Endangering
employees (companies that pay no attention to the safety of their employees); 5) Illegal intervention in
the political process (colluding with political parties by contributing campaigns); 6) Endangering the
public welfare (pollution producing process ie dust, sewage, sound and so on).
Various facts and data on corporate crime at the national level, for example pollution of Brantas times
conducted by the factory know PT. Sidomakmur, the case of Indorayon Utama in North Sumatra and
even the still-warm case discussed and the present concern for all elements of the society, in describing
the corporate peril that harms and harms the wider community is the "Lapindo Brantas mud case" in
Sidoharjo, this mudflow brings an extraordinary compound for the surrounding community, where the
mud has inundated twelve villages and three sub-districts. Lapindo mud mud case can be categorized
as corporate crime (corporate crime).
20 Ibid. p.36
the corporation itself (PT ADEI). Therefore, PT. ADEI deserves to be subject to
strict liability principle because its actions result in a prolonged fire that lasts for
less than 2 (two) weeks, causing pollution of the environment and the smoke
disturbance that extends to the neighboring countries. So with the application of
the principle of strict liability then at least environmental damage can be
minimized the impact of the damage and the victims get compensation from the
losses they experienced.
The process of corporate responsibility in environmental law enforcement
starts from the investigation process, investigation conducted by PPNS
Environment and can coordinate with Police Investigator as Supervisor
Coordinator of PPNS-LH. Furthermore, the process of delegating the case files to
the prosecution of the Prosecutor at the local Prosecutor's Office for prosecution, if
the case file is considered complete, then the Prosecutor will issue a letter P-21, or
if the case file is considered incomplete, the Attorney Researcher will issue a letter
P-19 which contains instructions to the Investigator to conduct a re-investigation in
accordance with the direction of the Prosecutor Researcher in order to be
prosecuted in the hearing. After the process is complete, then the following case
files the suspects delegated to the local District Court for trial process to check the
case in accordance with the indictment of the Public Prosecutor.
 CHAPTER III
CLOSING

A. CONCLUSION
Corporations that commit unlawful crimes intentionally commit acts that
result in forest fires may be held accountable under Article 49 of Law no. 41 of
1999 on Forestry, which states that: "Rightsholders or licenses are responsible for
the occurrence of forest fires in their work areas". By law, Article 49, is the entry
point of responsibility to the corporation. In Law no. Law No. 18 Year 2013 on
Prevention and Eradication of Forest Destruction has been regulated in Article 18,
that: "In addition to being subject to criminal sanctions, violations of the provisions
referred to in Article 12 letter a, letter b, letter c, Article 17 paragraph (1) letter b,
letter c , letter e, and Article 17 paragraph (2) letter b, letter c, and letter e
conducted by legal entity or corporation shall be subject to administrative sanction
in the form of: a. Government Coercion; b. Forced Money; and / or c. Revocation
of Permission ". Demands can be made using the provisions concerning the
corporation, which means that the legal subject who commits criminal acts of
forest and land fires are corporations. The subject of a criminal offense is a person
who may be subject to criminal liability. In the concept of civil law which is then
adopted in public law, people are terms that include two legal subjects namely
human and other subjects which by law are established as the subject of law. In this
latter context, civil law has categorized legal entities as legal subjects. However, in
further developments, the subject of criminal law is not only human and legal
entity but also includes the name of the corporation.
The process of corporate responsibility in environmental law enforcement
starts from the investigation process, investigation conducted by PPNS
Environment and can coordinate with Police Investigator as PPNS-LH Supervisory
Coordinator. Furthermore, the process of delegating the case files to the
prosecution of the Prosecutor at the local Prosecutor's Office for prosecution, if the
case file is considered complete, then the Prosecutor will issue a letter P-21, or if
the case file is considered incomplete, the Attorney Researcher will issue a letter P-
19 which contains instructions to the Investigator to conduct a re-investigation in
accordance with the direction of the Prosecutor Researcher in order to be
prosecuted in the hearing. After the process is complete, then the following case
files the suspects delegated to the local District Court for trial process to check the
case in accordance with the indictment of the Public Prosecutor.

B. SUGGESTION
Environmental PPNS or PPNS Forestry should coordinate with Police
Investigators as the Coordinator of Supervisory inquiry in order to get a plan and a
mature strategy to reveal and make clear and clear a criminal case of
environmental destruction or forest burning. This is because corporations already
have people who are paid to commit the crime of burning the forest and the land
so as if the burning of forest and land have nothing to do with the corporation, but,
after all quiet, then the corporation is doing its activity on land deliberately burned
by people the messenger of the corporation.
Should judge in sentencing the corporation as actor the criminal prioritizes
the environmental impacts contaminated by the actions of the corporate actors,
and must prove legally that the environment around which the company operates
has been polluted due to the environmental destruction allegedly committed by the
corporation and further prioritizes the restoration of a damaged and polluted
environment by the corporation that undertakes the crime of pollution or
destruction of the environment. So it was found a fair decision for the community
around the place of the corporation.
 REFERENCES

Sources Of Book
Arifin, Syamsul, 2012. Hukum Perlindungan dan Pengelolaan Lingkungan Hidup di
Indonesia, Jakarta : Sofmedia.
Hamzah, Andi (Ed.), 1986. Bunga Rampai Hukum Pidana Dan Acara Pidana, Jakarta :
Ghalia Indonesia.
Hamzah, Andi. 1990. KUHP dan KUHAP, Jakarta : Rineka Cipta.
Huda, Chairil., Dari Tiada Pidana Tanpa Kesalahan Menuju Kepada Tiada
Pertanggungjawaban Pidana Tanpa Kesalahan, Jakarta : Kencana, tanpa tahun.
Muladi dan Dwidja Priyatno. 2010. Pertanggungjawaban Pidana Korporasi, Jakarta :
Kencana.
Prakoso, Djoko. 1987. Asas-Asas Hukum Pidana di Indonesia, Edisi Pertama,
Yogyakarta : Liberty.
Prodjohamidjojo, Martiman. 1997. Memahami Dasar-Dasar Hukum Pidana Indonesia,
Jakarta :Pradnya Paramita.
Sahetapy, JE. (Ed.). 1987. Victimology Sebuah Bunga Rampai, Jakarta : Pustaka Sinar
Harapan.
Saleh, Roeslan. 1983. Perbuatan Pidana dan Pertanggungjawaban Pidana Dua
Pengertian Dalam Hukum Pidana, Jakarta : Aksara Baru.
Sjahdeini, Sutan Remy. 2007. Pertanggungjawaban Pidana Korporasi, Jakarta : Grafiti
Press.

Sources of Thesis and Journal

Amanda, "Sync Enforcement of Environmental Criminal Laws With Environmental
Related Laws (Case Studies of Forest and Landfire Cases)", Student Journal,
Journal of NESTOR Masters of Law 2, No. 2, 2013.
Krisnan, Johny., "Criminal Accountability System in Perspective of National Criminal
Law Reform", Semarang: Thesis, Master Program of Legal Science of Post-
Graduate Program of Diponegoro University, 2008.
Media and Communications Media Magazine of Sawit Watch Society, "Jefri Gideon
S: Mass Criminalization Behind Sweet Promise of Palm Plantation Expansion",
Vol. 1 Year 7, 2007.
Detiknews, "The Attorney General's Office Supports Corporate Criminal Act Criminal
Code Draft", published Wednesday, October 30, 2013,
http://news.detik.com/read/2013/10/30/181125/2399828/10/., Accessed on 01
February 2015.

Legislation
Law No. 5/1990 on the Conservation of Biological Natural Resources and its
Ecosystem
Law Number 23 Year 1997 on Environmental Management
Law No. 41 of 1999 on Forestry
Law Number 18 Year 2004 regarding Plantation
Law no. 32 of 2009 on Protection and Management Environmental
Government Regulation Number 4 Year 2001 concerning Control of Damage and
Environmental Pollution related to Forest and Land Fire
Government Regulation Number 45 of 2004 on Forest Protection

Sources of internet
http://www.rudyct.com/PPS702-ipb/12167/hermanus_br.pdf

https://ilmugeografi.com/ilmu-sosial/dampak-kebakaran-hutan

https://rizkikurniatohir.files.wordpress.com/2016/03/kebakaran-hutan.pdf

https://media.neliti.com/media/publications/14314-ID-pertanggung-
jawaban-korporasi-terhadap-kebakaran-hutan-dalam-kaitannya-
dengan-pe.pdf
CORPORATE RESPONSIBILITY TOWARDS OF FOREST FIRE IN
CONNECTION WITH THE ENVIRONMENTAL APPLICATION

Submitted to :
H. Nasrullah., SH., Sag., MCL

Created by :
NURMAWATI 20150610233

INTERNATIONAL PROGRAM FOR LAW AND SHARIA

FACULTY OF LAW

UNIVERSITAS MUHAMMADIYAH YOGYAKARTA

2017