<![CDATA[This article examines the urgency and constitutional limits of strict liability as a mechanism for addressing corporate environmental pollution in Indonesia through the perspective of green criminology and recent Constitutional Court jurisprudence. The study addresses an accountability gap arising from cumulative, technically complex, and organizationally dispersed ecological harms that are difficult to attribute to individual decision-makers. Article 88 of Law No. 32 of 2009 on Environmental Protection and Management primarily establishes civil strict liability, while corporate criminal liability follows a different attribution structure. This study employs normative legal research using statutory, conceptual, case, and comparative approaches. It analyzes the Environmental Protection and Management Law as amended by Law No. 6 of 2023, Supreme Court Regulation No. 13 of 2016, Constitutional Court Decisions No. 91/PUU-XVIII/2020, No. 35/PUU-XXI/2023, and No. 119/PUU-XXIII/2025, as well as twenty-five recent Scopus-indexed studies published from 2022 to 2025. The findings indicate that removing the phrase expressly dispensing with proof of fault creates interpretive uncertainty but does not necessarily eliminate the strict character of absolute liability. However, transforming Article 88 into automatic criminal liability would conflict with legality and proportionality. The study proposes a dual-track model combining genuine civil strict liability for restoration and compensation with an expressly legislated organizational criminal-liability framework for high-risk environmental offences, supported by restoration orders, compliance supervision, evidentiary rules, and anti-retaliation protection. ]]>
