Authored By: Jovita Meidiana Purwadi
Universitas Padjajaran
Introduction
In 2018, the Balikpapan Bay oil spill became one of Indonesia’s most significant environmental pollution incidents after a crude oil pipeline owned by PT Pertamina (Persero) ruptured when struck by the anchor of the MV Ever Judger.[1] The incident caused extensive damage to mangrove forests, coral reefs, and coastal ecosystems, and disrupted the livelihoods of coastal communities.[2] Given that Indonesian environmental law adopts the polluter pays principle under Undang-Undang Nomor 32 Tahun 2009 tentang Perlindungan dan Pengelolaan Lingkungan Hidup (Environmental Protection and Management Law),[3] the case raises important questions about the allocation of legal responsibility and the effectiveness of existing enforcement mechanisms.
Against this background, this article addresses two principal questions. First, how should legal liability be apportioned between PT Pertamina and Zhang Deyi, the master of the MV Ever Judger, for the Balikpapan Bay oil spill under the Environmental Protection and Management Law? Second, to what extent does Undang-Undang Nomor 32 Tahun 2014 tentang Kelautan (Marine Affairs Law) provide an adequate framework for sanctioning corporations responsible for marine pollution? This article argues that while the Environmental Protection and Management Law establishes a robust strict liability regime, its inconsistent application, combined with the Marine Affairs Law’s failure to codify corporate liability, exposes a critical gap in Indonesia’s marine environmental governance.
Legal Liability for the Balikpapan Bay Oil Spill
The spill gave rise to administrative, civil, and criminal liability, contaminating approximately 7,000 hectares of marine waters and 60 kilometers of coastline.[4]
From an administrative perspective, the Ministry of Environment and Forestry imposed government coercive measures (paksaan pemerintah) on PT Pertamina as owner and operator of the pipeline, requiring environmental restoration, revision of its environmental permit, environmental audits, installation of a Leak Detection System, and periodic inspections.[5] These measures confirm that PT Pertamina remained responsible for managing operational risks and restoring environmental damage. This responsibility persisted despite the external event that triggered the rupture.
Civil liability presents a more complex issue. Article 88 of the Environmental Protection and Management Law adopts strict liability, requiring operators of hazardous activities to bear responsibility without proof of fault.[6] Nevertheless, in Decision No. 976/Pdt.G/2018/PN JKT.SEL, the South Jakarta District Court positioned PT Pertamina as plaintiff and held Zhang Deyi jointly liable for damages arising from the ruptured pipeline.[7] This framing is significant: joint liability under general tort principles ordinarily presupposes shared fault between co-defendants, whereas strict liability under Article 88 requires no such finding against the pipeline operator itself.[8] By letting PT Pertamina appear as claimant rather than co-obligor, the court effectively displaced the strict liability regime with an ordinary fault-based analysis of Zhang Deyi’s negligent navigation, rather than reconciling it with Pertamina’s statutory duty to restore the environment regardless of fault.
This does not fully reflect the operation of strict liability. As owner and operator of the pipeline, PT Pertamina should remain primarily responsible for restoration regardless of fault. Zhang Deyi dropped the anchor during severe weather in a restricted area,[9] a fact that both supports and undermines a force majeure claim, since anchoring in a prohibited zone suggests foreseeable negligence rather than an irresistible event under Article III(2) of the CLC 1969.[10] Liability should therefore be apportioned by degree of fault and causal contribution to the harm: Pertamina bears restoration costs under strict liability, while recourse against Zhang Deyi is limited to damages attributable to his navigational negligence.
Criminal liability was directed solely at Zhang Deyi. In Decision No. 749/Pid.B/LH/2018/PN Bpp, the Balikpapan District Court found him guilty of environmental pollution, sentencing him to ten years’ imprisonment and a fine of IDR 15 billion.[11] Although Article 116 of the Environmental Protection and Management Law permits corporate criminal liability alongside that of responsible individuals,[12] no charges were brought against PT Pertamina despite its role as pipeline operator.[13] This omission mirrors the inconsistency in the civil proceedings: instruments exist to hold corporations accountable, yet enforcement directed both civil and criminal consequences toward the foreign vessel master rather than the domestic operator.
Assessing the Adequacy of Indonesia’s Marine Affairs Law in Addressing the Balikpapan Bay Oil Spill
The inconsistent allocation of liability above is not merely a judicial failing; it also reflects gaps in the broader statutory framework which the Marine Affairs Law was intended to address. The Law establishes Indonesia’s primary framework for protecting the marine environment by prohibiting pollution, regulating marine spatial planning, and providing administrative, civil, and criminal sanctions.[14] It also requires coastal zoning (RZWP3K) and assigns supervisory responsibilities to central and regional authorities.[15] Together with Presidential Regulation No. 109 of 2006 on Emergency Response to Oil Spills at Sea,[16] these provisions show a regulatory intent to prevent, control, and restore marine pollution.
Nevertheless, the case reveals important limitations. Although Articles 57 to 59 sanction marine pollution, they do not specifically regulate corporate liability in complex incidents or incorporate the strict liability principle found in the Environmental Protection and Management Law.[17] The legal basis for imposing liability on PT Pertamina was therefore drawn from the latter statute, suggesting the Marine Affairs Law remains insufficient as a standalone enforcement instrument.
Implementation weaknesses compound this gap. The case exposed overlapping responsibilities among the Ministry of Marine Affairs and Fisheries, the Ministry of Environment and Forestry, and regional governments, delaying recovery and fragmenting enforcement.[18] Although Indonesia possesses preventive instruments, including environmental permits, audits, marine zoning, and emergency response procedures, these failed to identify operational risk before the pipeline failed, leaving enforcement largely reactive.[19]
Addressing this requires more than harmonisation in the abstract. A revision to the Marine Affairs Law should explicitly incorporate the strict liability principle for corporate operators of hazardous marine activities, mirroring Article 88, and should clarify how joint and criminal liability apply where an operator and a third party jointly contribute to a pollution event. Strengthening implementing regulations and inter-agency coordination alongside this substantive reform would ensure that future incidents are addressed through a coherent framework, rather than one that depends on which statute happens to be invoked first.
Conclusion
The Balikpapan Bay oil spill demonstrates that Indonesia’s environmental liability regime under the Environmental Protection and Management Law has not been applied consistently. Although Article 88 imposes strict liability on operators of hazardous activities, the civil judgment shifted the burden of compensation almost entirely to Zhang Deyi while PT Pertamina remained primarily subject to administrative sanctions. This approach departs from the rationale of strict liability, under which PT Pertamina should remain principally responsible for environmental restoration, while Zhang Deyi’s liability should be limited to the consequences of his negligent navigation, taking into account the force majeure circumstances recognised under the Civil Liability Convention 1969.
The case also reveals that Law No. 32 of 2014 on Marine Affairs is not yet sufficient as a standalone legal basis for addressing complex marine pollution incidents involving corporate actors. Although it establishes the institutional framework for marine governance, effective corporate accountability continues to depend on the Environmental Protection and Management Law. Accordingly, Indonesia should harmonise both legal regimes by incorporating a clearer corporate liability framework into the Marine Affairs Law, strengthening inter-agency coordination, and ensuring consistent enforcement to better prevent and respond to future marine pollution incidents.
Reference(S):
Legislation
Undang – Undang Nomor 32 Tahun 2009 Tentang Perlindungan dan Pengelolaan Lingkungan Hidup
Undang – Undang Nomor 32 Tahun 2014 Tentang Kelautan
Cases
Putusan Pengadilan Negeri Jakarta Selatan Nomor 976/Pdt.G/2018/PN JKT.SEL
Putusan Pengadilan Negeri Balikpapan Nomor 749/Pid.B/LH/2018/PN Bpp
Secondary Sources
Ahyadi MY, ‘Analisis dampak oil spill di Teluk Balikpapan terhadap kehidupan masyarakat dalam perspektif hukum dan lingkungan’ (2021) 21(1) Jurnal Bumi Lestari.
Fatmawaty D, ‘Analisis pertanggungjawaban pencemaran lingkungan akibat tumpahan minyak (Studi Kasus: Kebocoran Pipa Minyak di Teluk Balikpapan)’ (2020) 20(1) Jurnal Bumi Lestari.
Seliyana and Rosdiana, ‘Pertanggungjawaban hukum PT Pertamina akibat kebocoran pipa di Teluk Balikpapan’ (2019) 1(1) Lex Suprema.
Sridewi K and Siti D, ‘Penyelesaian sengketa lingkungan hidup di luar pengadilan (non-litigasi) melalui jalur negosiasi (Studi Kasus Tumpahnya Minyak di Laut Karawang)’ (2020) 9(2) Justitia: Jurnal Ilmu Hukum dan Humaniora.
Online Sources
Abdi N, ‘Akibat tumpahan minyak, KOMPAK gugat Wali Kota hingga Menteri KKP’ (2019) Antara News https://www.antaranews.com/berita/868717/akibat-tumpahan-minyak-kompak-gugat-wali-kota-hingga-menteri-kkp accessed 4 August 2026.
Abdi N, ‘Pushidrosal ungkap jangkar MV Ever Judger penyebab tumpahan minyak di Teluk Balikpapan’ (2018) Antara News https://www.antaranews.com/berita/702380/pushidrosal-ungkap-jangkar-mv-judger-penyebab-tumpahan-minyak-di-teluk-balikpapan accessed 4 August 2026.
Susanto I, ‘KLHK perintahkan Pertamina audit sistem keamanan’ (2018) Kompas https://www.kompas.id/baca/utama/2018/04/07/klhk-perintahkan-pertamina-audit-sistem-keamanan accessed 4 August 2026.
[1] Dewi Fatmawaty, ‘Analisis Pertanggungjawaban Pencemaran Lingkungan Akibat Tumpahan Minyak (Studi Kasus: Kebocoran Pipa Minyak di Teluk Balikpapan)’ (2020) 20(1) Jurnal Bumi Lestari 14, 14; Novi Abdi, ‘Pushidrosal Ungkap Jangkar MV Judger Penyebab Tumpahan Minyak di Teluk Balikpapan’ (Antara News, 17 April 2018) https://www.antaranews.com/berita/702380/pushidrosal-ungkap-jangkar-mv-judger-penyebab-tumpahan-minyak-di-teluk-balikpapan accessed 4 August 2026.
[2] Muhammad Yaris Ahyadi, ‘Analisis Dampak Oil Spill di Teluk Balikpapan Terhadap Kehidupan Masyarakat Dalam Perspektif Hukum dan Lingkungan’ (2021) 21(1) Jurnal Bumi Lestari 18, 18; Novi Abdi, ‘Akibat Tumpahan Minyak, Kompak Gugat Wali Kota hingga Menteri KKP’ (Antara News, 13 Mei 2019) https://www.antaranews.com/berita/868717/akibat-tumpahan-minyak-kompak-gugat-wali-kota-hingga-menteri-kkp accessed 4 August 2026.
[3] Undang-Undang Nomor 32 Tahun 2009 tentang Perlindungan dan Pengelolaan Lingkungan Hidup.
[4] Novi Abdi, ‘Akibat Tumpahan Minyak’ (n 2).
[5]Ichwan Susanto, ‘KLHK Perintahkan Pertamina Audit Sistem Keamanan’ (Kompas.id, 7 April 2018) https://www.kompas.id/baca/utama/2018/04/07/klhk-perintahkan-pertamina-audit-sistem-keamanan accessed 4 August 2026; Fatmawaty (n 1) 14–21.
[6] Undang-Undang Nomor 32 Tahun 2009 tentang Perlindungan dan Pengelolaan Lingkungan Hidup, art 88.
[7] Putusan Pengadilan Negeri Jakarta Selatan Nomor 976/Pdt.G/2018/PN JKT.SEL.
[8] Seliyana, Bruce Anzward, and Rosdiana, ‘Pertanggungjawaban Hukum PT. Pertamina Akibat Kebocoran Pipa di Teluk Balikpapan’ (2019) 1(2) Jurnal Lex Suprema 1, 1–17.
[9] Novi Abdi, ‘Pushidrosal Ungkap Jangkar MV Judger’ (n 1).
[10] International Convention on Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage 1969, art III(2).
[11] Putusan Pengadilan Negeri Balikpapan Nomor 749/Pid.B/LH/2018/PN Bpp.
[12] Undang-Undang Nomor 32 Tahun 2009 tentang Perlindungan dan Pengelolaan Lingkungan Hidup, art 116.
[13] Seliyana, Anzward, and Rosdiana (n 8).
[14] Undang-Undang Nomor 32 Tahun 2014 tentang Kelautan.
[15] Fatmawaty (n 1) 14–21.
[16] Peraturan Presiden Nomor 109 Tahun 2006 tentang Penanggulangan Keadaan Darurat Tumpahan Minyak di Laut.
[17] Undang-Undang Nomor 32 Tahun 2014 tentang Kelautan, arts 57–59.
[18] Novi Abdi, ‘Akibat Tumpahan Minyak’ (n 2).
[19] Komala Sridewi Lestari and Devi Siti Hamzah Marpaung, ‘Penyelesaian Sengketa Lingkungan Hidup Diluar Pengadilan (Non Litigasi) Melalui Jalur Negosiasi (Studi Kasus Tumpahnya Minyak di Laut Karawang)’ (2022) 9(2) Justitia: Jurnal Ilmu Hukum dan Humaniora 51, 51–60.
