Fia Hamid-Walker – On 8 October 2025, the Cibinong District Court made a significant decision, dismissing a plantation firm's civil suit against two Bogor Agriculture Institute (IPB) professors – the first application of the Anti-SLAPP framework in Indonesia.
This ruling is a big win for academic freedom and environmental advocacy, sending an encouraging message to lower courts across the country.
The court's interlocutory decision (putusan sela) in Case No. 212/Pdt.G/2025/PN Cbi related to PT Kalimantan Lestari Mandiri's (PT KLM) tort claim against Professors Bambang Hero Saharjo and Basuki Wasis for expert testimony they provided in previous peat-fire litigation against the company. The court held the company's claim was inadmissible.
Anti-SLAPP laws in Indonesia
SLAPP stands for 'Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation'. It refers to civil or criminal actions filed to intimidate or punish people for engaging in public-interest activities (speaking, reporting, testifying, organising). The aim is not to win on the merits but to silence, distract, outspend and exhaust the target.
Activists, environmental and human rights defenders, courts, scholars, and NGOs worldwide have used "Anti-SLAPP" laws to screen out and dismiss these suits early to safeguard participation. In Indonesia, too, Anti-SLAPP laws now provide substantive safeguards and procedural tools:
Substantive law – under Article 66 of Law 32/2009 on Environmental Protection and Management (PPLH) anyone who advocates for a right to a good and healthy environment cannot be prosecuted criminally or sued civilly for their participation. This serves as the legal basis for Anti-SLAPP protections. Constitutional Court (MK) Decision No. 119/PUU-XXIII/2025 (28 August 2025) confirms that Article 66's protection extends to victims, reporters, witnesses, experts, and environmental activists involved in environmental protection.
Procedural mechanism – Supreme Court Regulation (Perma) No. 1/2023 on Guidelines for Adjudicating Environmental Cases provides judges with a tool for early triage in environmental case, including the ability to recognise SLAPP characteristics and dismiss cases at an interlocutory stage rather than after a full trial.
Guidance from leading NGO the Indonesian Centre for Environmental Law (ICEL) offers helpful tips on how judges can recognise the patterns of SLAPP cases. It points out key signs such as:
- the defendant's actions involve public-interest participation like giving testimony, reporting, or advocacy.
- the lawsuit is directly connected to that active participation.
- claims or damages seem disproportionate and meant to chill further speech.
- power imbalances are present, such as rich corporations suing individuals, experts, or communities.
If these signs are identified, early dismissal through an interlocutory decision is often the best course of action.
The case against IPB academics
In the PT KLM case, the lawsuit against the two professors followed government efforts to address the 2018 peatland fires in PT KLM's Kapuas concession in Central Kalimantan.
Relying on the expert evidence of the two academics, the Kuala Kapuas District Court sided with the environment ministry, requiring PT KLM to pay approximately Rp 89.3 billion (AUD 8.7 million) in damages and around Rp 210.5 billion (AUD 20.4 million) for environmental restoration. This decision was confirmed on appeal.
This tactic of using litigation to target expert witnesses is a classic SLAPP manoeuvre aimed at discouraging future environmental enforcement actions and, in particular, intimidating experts who might consider giving future evidence against environmental wrongdoers. The Cibinong court's ruling helps break the cycle of fear that SLAPP cases can create.
What did the judges say?
Three strands of reasoning stand out in the Cibinong decision. First, the court agreed that expert testimony in environmental cases is a form of public interest participation protected by Article 66 of PPLH, rather than a private act that can be penalised through civil measures.
Second, by making an interlocutory decision, the Cibinong court implemented the early screening process established by the Supreme Court in Perma No. 1/2023. This is important because the main purpose of Anti-SLAPP measures is to be timely.
Third, the Cibinong court referred to the Constitutional Court decision No. 119/PUU-XXIII/2025. This makes it easier to categorise various environmental participants – such as victims, reporters, and experts – as falling under the protections of Article 66.
A precedent?
While Indonesia does not have a formal system of judicial precedent like common law countries, this ruling is a landmark, and should be seen as a model by other judges.
Courts around the country should quickly review cases using the new rules in Perma No. 1/2023 to see if they involve SLAPP characteristics. If the plaintiff's claims are tied to protected participation, including expert testimony, they should promptly issue a clear order stating the case is inadmissible, and order the plaintiff to pay costs.
Judges will need to swiftly and clearly identify the public participation, connect it to the retaliatory lawsuit, and stop the case early to prevent discouraging free speech or wasting public resources.
If anti-SLAPP decisions are appealed to provincial High Courts or the Supreme Court, the focus should be on whether the Anti-SLAPP rule and quick-dismissal process were correctly used, not on re-examining the case details that the Anti-SLAPP law aims to skip.
Consistently confirming this approach will help establish a clear legal standard and encourage other courts and specialised environmental panels to adopt the quick-screen-and-dismiss method, ensuring that participation in environmental protection is not discouraged by long legal battles brought in bad faith.
What does the ruling mean for Indonesia?
The Cibinong court's ruling has at least three major implications. First, it strengthens academic freedom. Indonesia's environmental enforcement depends on independent scientists reconstructing fires, emissions and so on, and calculating restoration costs. If experts face retaliatory suits, the flow of evidence halts. PN Cibinong's Anti-SLAPP signal should lessen that chilling effect.
Second, Anti-SLAPP legislation is a legal tool that ensures fairness. Communities, NGOs, Indigenous groups, and public officials usually have less capacity to fight lawsuits than big companies. Quickly dismissing cases helps level the playing field by reducing the costs of self-defence and allowing important public work to continue. Guidance from ICEL and related groups shows how judges and officials can recognise abusive SLAPP lawsuits – and then act fast.
Third, Anti-SLAPP legislation helps fight against companies that shift environmental risks onto others and then use legal procedures to silence critics. The Cibinong ruling will not stop all corporate pressure, but it changes the default: participation is presumed worthy of protection, not suspicion.
What to watch next
PT KLM may appeal the PN court's decision. The main question then will be whether the relevant High Court (and possibly the Supreme Court) will support early dismissal of the company's case. As mentioned, quick decision-making is a key part of the Anti-SLAPP framework.
The Ministry of Environment has indicated that the Anti-SLAPP criteria were met in this case. It should therefore be a valuable tool for advocacy groups, who can use it to defend land activists and local groups facing similar legal tactics in the future.
Additionally, new legal decisions are expected to clarify aspects like what counts as "participation," the limits on counterclaims, and the costs payable by plaintiffs who abuse the system.
After the ruling in Cibinong, appellate courts should uphold the early-dismissal logic, trial courts should adopt consistent screening and penalties for abusive plaintiffs, and NGOS, universities, and ministries should standardise quick support for SLAPP targets.
The Cibinong decision shows that Anti-SLAPP laws are now a working procedure in Indonesia, not just an idea. This should reduce fear among scientists, Indigenous defenders, and community advocates, and help rebuild trust in environmental enforcement.