Article Per Year (5 Year)
p-Index From 2021 - 2026
0.23
P-Index
This Author published in this journals
All Journal SEIKAT: Jurnal Ilmu Sosial, Politik dan Hukum
Moehamad Nindyarto Laskmana Praja
Universitas Semarang
Arts Environmental Science Law, Crime, Criminology & Criminal Justice Social Sciences

Published : 1 Documents Claim Missing Document
Claim Missing Document
Check
Articles

Found 1 Documents
Search

 1 
Kajian Yuridis Penjatuhan Sanksi Pidana dan Perdata Secara Bersamaan Terhadap Korporasi Pencemar Lingkungan Moehamad Nindyarto Laskmana Praja; Kadi Sukarna
SEIKAT: Jurnal Ilmu Sosial, Politik dan Hukum Vol. 5 No. 5 (2026): SEIKAT: Jurnal Ilmu Sosial, Politik dan Hukum
Publisher : LPPM Sekolah Tinggi Ilmu Ekonomi 45 Mataram

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.55681/seikat.v5i5.3877

Abstract

This study aims to analyze the normative basis, the position of the doctrine of parallelism of criminal and civil sanctions against environmental polluting corporations, and its relevance to the principle of ne bis in idem. The urgency of this research lies in the still limited studies that combine criminal and civil liability of corporations in one analytical framework, especially when the two paths produce different decisions as in the case of PT Rayon Utama Makmur. The study uses a normative legal method with a statutory, conceptual, and case approach to the Sukoharjo District Court Decision Number 152/Pid.B/LH/2023/PN Skh and the Supreme Court Decision Number 4441 K/Pdt/2024. The results of the study indicate that the parallelism of sanctions based on Article 1 number 2 of the PPLH Law does not violate ne bis in idem because the idem element is not fulfilled across regimes, and the acquittal of PT RUM does not eliminate the success of the civil lawsuit of affected residents. In conclusion, parallelism is a legitimate and necessary form of environmental law enforcement. The novelty and contribution of the research lies in positioning the divergence of decisions as evidence of the independence of the legal regime, rather than judicial inconsistency.
Co-Authors Sukarna, Kadi