<![CDATA[River contamination by the palm oil industry threatens the constitutional right to a healthy environment, creating a jurisprudential dilemma between ecological justice and socio-economic stability. District Court Decision No. 168/Pid.B/LH/2023/PN Bls, which imposed a probationary sentence on a corporate executive for river pollution, has sparked academic debate regarding the efficacy of non-custodial sanctions. This study examines the judge’s legal reasoning in applying probation and evaluates its juridical implications for environmental criminal law enforcement and river ecosystem protection. Employing a normative legal research methodology with statutory and case approaches, secondary data were analyzed qualitatively through deductive legal syllogism. The findings reveal that the ratio decidendi integrates three dimensions: the defendant’s subjective-personal circumstances, the principle of proportionality, and a restorative-sociological approach prioritizing ecological recovery and local economic continuity. Juridically, probation signifies a paradigm shift from retributive-punitive to restorative-reparative justice, yet risks undermining deterrence if decoupled from autonomous corporate liability and rigorous institutional oversight. It is concluded that probation constitutes a progressive instrument in environmental criminal law when applied selectively, supported by sustained monitoring mechanisms, and reinforced by a robust corporate accountability framework to ensure equilibrium between ecological restoration and legal certainty.]]>
