Desy Nurhayati, Jakarta – A court here Thursday has rejected a lawsuit filed by a leading environmental group accusing Lapindo Brantas of causing the devastating mudflow in Sidoarjo, East Java.
The Indonesian Environmental Forum (Walhi) had sued Lapindo Brantas over the mudflow, an accusation knocked down by the South Jakarta District Court and the second time the company has been accused of being behind the disaster.
Presiding judge Wahono said the court had decided to reject the lawsuit and obliged the plaintiff to pay fine of Rp 1,040,000 (US$110.6).
Based on testimonies from witnesses, the judges ruled that the mudflow was a purely natural phenomenon. They said the testimony from petroleum expert Rudi Rubiandini – also a former deputy of the Sidoarjo mudflow investigation team – lacked proof.
Walhi filed the lawsuit against 12 parties, including Lapindo Brantas, PT Energi Mega Persada, PT Medco Energi and also the central government and the East Java administration.
The judges said the government had completely lived up to its responsibility to handle the mudflow disaster by establishing the Sidoarjo Mudflow Management Agency through a presidential regulation.
This is the second victory in court for Lapindo after last month's Central Jakarta District Court ruling in favor of the company over a lawsuit filed by the Indonesian Legal Aid Institute. The court's judges said the defendant had paid enough compensation to victims and had not violated the law.
The plaintiff's lawyer Firman Wijaya was quoted by detik.com news portal as saying the court's rule was a sign of the "death of justice" for conservation.
Walhi chairman Chalid Muhammad told The Jakarta Post the environmental group would discuss the court's verdict with the mudflow victims before filing for a case review.
"As an environmental group, of course we will file a review. But we need to discuss it first with the victims since they are the ones who are suffering because of the disaster," Chalid said.
"We need to get their views whether they still believe that justice will side with them." "If they agree to file the review, we will go on. But if they disagree and are pessimistic about winning the case, we will conduct an evaluation before we move to the court."
Chalid said that even though the group had submitted supporting documents that supported the thesis that the mudflow was caused by drilling work carried out by Lapindo instead of a natural phenomenon, the judges did not consider them to be substantial proof.
"The judges also neglected the consequences of their rule. If they decided that the mudflow was a natural phenomenon, the government will have to pay for everything, while the company will pay nothing," he said.