Flooding remains a persistent threat in Indonesian urban areas, including Batu City, East Java, causing extensive physical, social, and economic impacts. This study examines flooding impacts and analyzes prevention and mitigation efforts from a socio-legal perspective, with a focus on governance and spatial planning. Using a qualitative sociological-legal approach, the study finds that recurrent flooding in Batu City is primarily driven by human-induced land-use changes and weak enforcement of spatial planning regulations. Conversion of protected forests into agricultural land and settlements has reduced water catchment capacity, while degradation of the Brantas River Basin, including sedimentation and river narrowing, exacerbates flood risk. Batu, Junrejo, and Bumiaji sub-districts are the most affected, with flood durations often exceeding three hours. The findings indicate that deficiencies in spatial planning governance and law enforcement are key institutional factors in flood vulnerability. This study contributes to environmental administrative law by linking spatial governance failures to disaster risk and offers policy recommendations for revising the Regional Spatial Plan (RTRW) and strengthening local flood mitigation regulations.

Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) serves as a legal instrument to evaluate the major effects of proposed businesses or activities and implement preventive measures to mitigate potential environmental impacts. Beyond being a prerequisite for environmental permits, EIA provides decision-makers with a basis for approval while incorporating the precautionary principle. Following the enactment of Law No. 6 of 2023, which formalizes Government Regulation in Lieu of Law No. 2 of 2022 on Job Creation, the precautionary principle is applied only to high-risk activities, limiting its broader role in environmental protection. This study employs a normative juridical approach to assess whether current Indonesian legislation aligns with environmental law principles. Findings indicate that post-Job Creation Law, the precautionary principle is restricted to activities with significant risks and uncertain scientific outcomes, highlighting the need for its wider application across all business activities to support sustainable development that balances economic, ecological, and socio-cultural interests.

Land mafia activities remain a persistent problem in Indonesia, prompting the implementation of electronic land certificates as a preventive measure. This study examines the realities of electronic certificate implementation at the Batam City and Palangka Raya City Land Offices, using a normative-empirical approach combining literature reviews and interviews. Despite encountering internal and external challenges, both offices have actively addressed these issues, contributing to the Ministry of ATR/BPN’s issuance of 6.1 million electronic certificates in 2025. The study finds that electronic land certificates enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of land registration while mitigating the risk of forgery and limiting land mafia activities, highlighting their significance in promoting transparency, legal certainty, and resilient land governance in Indonesia.

Addresses the urgent need for a legal framework to regulate rock mining in the geologically fragile Palu–Donggala coastal region, where exploitation often conflicts with the constitutional Right to a Good and Healthy Environment (Article 28H of the 1945 Constitution). It examines the failure of local governments to fulfill their obligation to protect citizens’ rights and the ineffectiveness of existing sanctions. Using a normative legal (juridical-normative) method with constitutional, progressive human rights, and conceptual approaches, the research analyzes ius constitutum and ius constituendum through doctrinal interpretation. The research formulates the Dual Liability Model, which holds corporations financially accountable for ecological losses and local governments legally responsible for rights violations. This model promotes the use of Environmental Carrying Capacity (ECC) as an absolute veto in licensing, ensuring stronger environmental governance and effective restoration of citizens’ rights in disaster-prone regions..

The extensive legal framework governing maritime law enforcement in Indonesia has inadvertently created a proliferation of institutions with overlapping authorities and divergent jurisdictional interpretations, resulting in institutional silos that undermine coordinated operations and reduce enforcement effectiveness. Focusing on Ternate City’s waters, this research uses empirical legal research and descriptive qualitative analysis to examine these challenges and their implications, including the risk of inter-agency disputes and strained cooperation. It finds that six agencies—the Indonesian Navy, Bakamla, KPLP, the Directorate General of Customs and Excise, Polair, and PSDKP—exercise jurisdiction in the same maritime zones, generating complexity and confusion among stakeholders. Without clear coordination, enforcement becomes inefficient and potentially compromises national maritime security and economic interests. Therefore, a comprehensive strategy to harmonize mandates and strengthen inter-agency coordination is essential to ensure effective and cohesive law enforcement across Indonesian waters..

This research examines the legal implications of changing the nomenclature from “environmental permits” to “environmental approvals” in Indonesia’s environmental licensing law. Moving beyond a conventional public law focus, it highlights the role of private law instruments in advancing climate change mitigation and adaptation. The core question addressed is whether this terminological shift aligns with the principles of ecological justice and how environmental licensing law should be reconstructed to uphold these values. Using a doctrinal legal research method, the analysis integrates statutory, conceptual, and philosophical perspectives, employing techniques of interpretation and construction. The findings indicate that while certain reforms under the Job Creation Law support ecological justice, others undermine it. The research concludes that the current framework requires comprehensive reconstruction to more effectively embody ecological justice and strengthen climate action.

This manuscript presents a comparative analysis of environmental permitting frameworks in Indonesia and Malaysia, specifically focusing on their application to large-scale development initiatives, particularly National Strategic Projects (PSN) . As developing economies, both nations grapple with the imperative of balancing economic growth with environmental sustainability. This study employs a comparative juridical–normative approach, drawing on statutory frameworks, secondary literature, and policy documents from Indonesia and Malaysia. Additionally, this study examines the legal and procedural aspects of environmental impact assessment [Analisis Mengenai Dampak Lingkungan (AMDAL) in Indonesia and Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) in Malaysia], highlighting key similarities and differences in their approaches. While both countries possess established legislative frameworks for environmental protection, Indonesia’s accelerated permitting for the PSN, commonly facilitated by the Online Single Submission system, has drawn criticism for potentially compromising environmental safeguards and exacerbating social and environmental conflicts. Conversely, Malaysia relies on its more standardized EIA process for major projects, although it faces challenges in ensuring effective enforcement and public participation. The analysis demonstrates that despite distinct regulatory evolutions and implementation strategies, both nations share common struggles in mitigating the adverse environmental and social consequences of rapid development. The findings underscore the urgent need to strengthen environmental governance, enhance transparency, and promote meaningful stakeholder engagement to foster genuinely sustainable development pathways in Indonesia and Malaysia.

This article examines the shortcomings of environmental law enforcement in Indonesia concerning culpa (negligence) by individual offenders. Criminal sanctions in such cases often produce superficial “greenwashing” verdicts, where penalties appear strict yet fail to deliver substantive justice or environmental restoration. Although based on ecological damage assessments, these calculations rarely serve a practical function, as proving negligence becomes secondary and compensation remains unused. As a result, rulings reveal a disconnect between environmental harm and sanctions imposed, with imprisonment and fines disproportionately burdening negligent individuals while offering little ecological benefit. Using a normative juridical approach combining statutory, conceptual, and case analyses, this study finds that the system fosters inefficiency, with costly assessments underutilized and appeals largely abandoned, leaving clemency as the only viable remedy. It argues that community service sanctions focused on ecological rehabilitation would provide a fairer, more feasible, and future-oriented alternative that aligns accountability with environmental recovery.

Land disputes in Indonesia often encounter legal uncertainty due to the rigid separation of judicial authority between district courts, which adjudicate ownership disputes, and state administrative courts (PTUN), which review the legality of land ownership certificates. This jurisdictional divide frequently leads to inconsistent or contradictory rulings over the same land, reflecting a systemic challenge in the Indonesian judicial system. This research examines mechanisms to overcome the impasse of absolute competence between the two courts, focusing on the development of a connectivity court model that integrates their functions. Employing a normative legal method with a statutory approach, the study proposes the modification of procedural law to establish a connectivity court that enables joint adjudication of civil ownership and administrative certificate disputes. Such a mechanism not only ensures legal certainty and coherence in decisions but also promotes justice that is simple, efficient, and affordable, while optimizing existing judicial infrastructure and avoiding the complexities and costs associated with creating a specialized agrarian court.