Crossmark

Main Article Content


Abstract

Environmental criminal law enforcement in Indonesia underwent reconfiguration following the enactment of the Undang-Undang Cipta Kerja, Undang-Undang Nomor 1 Tahun 2023 tentang Kitab Undang-Undang Hukum Pidana (KUHP Nasional), and Undang-Undang Nomor 1 Tahun 2026 tentang Penyesuaian Pidana. These changes have raised questions regarding the position of the ultimum remedium principle in determining the use of criminal law against environmental offenses and in corporate criminal liability. This study aims to analyze the construction of environmental offenses following the amendments introduced through the Undang-Undang Cipta Kerja, judicial practices in applying the principles of ultimum remedium and primum remedium, and the repositioning of the ultimum remedium principle following the enactment of the KUHP Nasional, particularly in the context of corporate criminal liability. This study employed a normative legal method using statutory, conceptual, and case approaches through an analysis of relevant legislation and court decisions. The findings indicate that, first, ultimum remedium is not formulated as a general prerequisite for imposing criminal sanctions and is explicitly attached only to Article 100(2) of the UUPPLH, whereas the Undang-Undang Cipta Kerja introduced a structural ultimum remedium model for licensing violations through Articles 82A–82C and Article 109. Second, judicial practice demonstrates inconsistent application because it depends on judicial interpretation and interinstitutional coordination. Third, the KUHP Nasional provides sentencing objectives and guidelines, provisions on corporate liability under Articles 45–50, and additional penalties and measures for corporations under Articles 118–123, which are better able to accommodate proportionality considerations. Based on these findings, the ultimum remedium principle needs to be repositioned from a determinant of criminalization to a tiered guideline for formulating legal norms, exercising prosecutorial discretion, and imposing criminal sanctions, accompanied by selection criteria based on the una via principle and strengthened institutional coordination. This repositioning offers a conceptual framework for more proportionate, consistent, and accountable environmental criminal law enforcement, particularly in addressing corporate criminal liability.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Citation Metrics & Similar Scopus Articles

Citation data unavailable from the configured source
Check Secondary Documents in Scopus
Open this article in Scopus, then check the Secondary documents tab. Use Manual Citation Fallback only for counts you have verified manually.
Open in Scopus
Similar Scopus Articles
Scopus
  1. Rai A. (2026)
    Performance of the proposed ASAS/SPARTAN classification criteria in a cohort of patients with acute anterior uveitis and newly diagnosed axial spondyloarthritis
    Joint Bone Spine, 93(6)
  2. Nabti E.H. (2026)
    Plant growth-promoting bacteria as biological controls for sustainable crop protection against agricultural biodeterioration
    Discover Sustainability, 7(1)
  3. Alqethami A. (2026)
    Clinical phenotype, MRI inflammatory involvement, and treatment patterns in HLA-B27 positive and negative axial spondyloarthritis: a Saudi MRI-based cohort study
    BMC Rheumatology, 10(1)

Article Details

How to Cite
Febriani, Y., & Putri, I. S. (2026). Reposisi Asas Ultimum Remedium dalam Penegakan Hukum Pidana Lingkungan Pasca Berlakunya KUHP Nasional dan Undang-Undang Cipta Kerja (Analisis Normatif, Praktik Peradilan, dan Pertanggungjawaban Pidana Korporasi). AHKAM, 5(4), 4683-4709. https://doi.org/10.58578/ahkam.v5i4.12180

References

Anwar, M. (2020). Holistic paradigm contradiction of the ultimate principle of remedium against the principle of legality in environmental criminal law enforcement. Administrative and Environmental Law Review, 1(1), 43–52. https://doi.org/10.25041/aelr.v1i1.2083

Aryaputra, M. I., & Triwati, A. (2023). Arah kebijakan sistem pemidanaan bagi korporasi dalam KUHP Nasional. Masalah-Masalah Hukum, 52(2), 208–216. https://doi.org/10.14710/mmh.52.2.2023.208-216

Bahary, S., Ismansyah, & Rosadi, O. (2023). Implementasi prinsip ultimum remedium dalam penegakan hukum pada kawasan keterlanjuran. UNES Law Review, 5(4), 1666–1675. https://doi.org/10.31933/unesrev.v5i4.553

Indonesia. (2009). Undang-Undang Nomor 32 Tahun 2009 tentang Perlindungan dan Pengelolaan Lingkungan Hidup. https://peraturan.bpk.go.id/Details/38771/uu-no-32-tahun-2009

Indonesia. (2021). Peraturan Pemerintah Nomor 22 Tahun 2021 tentang Penyelenggaraan Perlindungan dan Pengelolaan Lingkungan Hidup. https://peraturan.bpk.go.id/Details/161852/pp-no-22-tahun-2021

Indonesia. (2022). Pedoman Jaksa Agung Nomor 8 Tahun 2022 tentang Penanganan Perkara Tindak Pidana di Bidang Perlindungan dan Pengelolaan Lingkungan Hidup. https://jdih.kejaksaan.go.id/produk-hukum/detail?id=4338

Indonesia. (2023). Undang-Undang Nomor 1 Tahun 2023 tentang Kitab Undang-Undang Hukum Pidana. https://peraturan.bpk.go.id/Details/234935/uu-no-1-tahun-2023

Indonesia. (2025). Undang-Undang Nomor 20 Tahun 2025 tentang Kitab Undang-Undang Hukum Acara Pidana. https://peraturan.bpk.go.id/Details/337302/uu-no-20-tahun-2025

Indonesia. (2026). Undang-Undang Nomor 1 Tahun 2026 tentang Penyesuaian Pidana. https://peraturan.bpk.go.id/Details/337869/uu-no-1-tahun-2026

Lesmana, R. M. (2020). Penerapan asas ultimum remedium pada pelaku tindak pidana pelanggaran baku mutu limbah (analisis Pasal 100 UU 32 Tahun 2009). Khazanah Multidisiplin, 1(1), 31–45. https://doi.org/10.15575/km.v1i1.9697

Listiyani, N., & Nopliardy, R. (2022). Kajian terhadap UU Cipta Kerja kluster lingkungan hidup atas dihapusnya prinsip strict liability. Al-Ulum: Jurnal Ilmu Sosial dan Humaniora, 8(2), 127–142. https://doi.org/10.31602/alsh.v8i2.8274

Marzuki, P. M. (2017). Penelitian hukum (Edisi revisi). Kencana.

Nuraini, H., Astriani, N., & Adharani, Y. (2022). Ketentuan pidana administrasi (administrative penal law) dalam penegakan hukum lingkungan setelah diundangkannya UU Cipta Kerja. Jurnal Magister Hukum Udayana (Udayana Master Law Journal), 11(3), 581–599. https://doi.org/10.24843/JMHU.2022.v11.i03.p08

Pratiwi, K. T., Kotijah, S., & Apriyani, R. (2021). Penerapan asas primum remedium tindak pidana lingkungan hidup. SASI, 27(3), 363–375. https://doi.org/10.47268/sasi.v27i3.471

Safitri, S. S. (2023). Interrelasi denda administratif dan pidana dalam pelanggaran hukum lingkungan hidup pasca Perppu Cipta Kerja. Jurnal Hukum Lingkungan Indonesia, 9(2), 279–304. https://doi.org/10.38011/jhli.v9i2.590

Santoso, I. B., & Taun, T. (2018). Penerapan asas ultimum remedium dalam penegakan hukum pidana lingkungan hidup. University of Bengkulu Law Journal, 3(1), 15–22. https://doi.org/10.33369/ubelaj.3.1.15-22

Suciadi, W. S., & Mandiana, S. (2024). Penerapan doktrin strict liability dalam tindak pidana lingkungan hidup oleh korporasi. Kultura: Jurnal Ilmu Hukum, Sosial, dan Humaniora, 2(11), 1035–1045. https://jurnal.kolibi.org/index.php/kultura/article/view/4608

Widayati, L. S. (2015). Ultimum remedium dalam bidang lingkungan hidup. Jurnal Hukum IUS QUIA IUSTUM, 22(1), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.20885/iustum.vol22.iss1.art1

Widyaningsih, G. A. (2020). Setelah UU Cipta Kerja: Menelaah efektivitas sanksi administratif lingkungan hidup (Seri Analisis No. 6). Indonesian Center for Environmental Law. https://icel.or.id/media/pdf/ICEL_SeriAnalisis6.pdf

Yuherawan, D. S. B. (2012). Kritik ideologis terhadap dasar kefilsafatan asas legalitas dalam hukum pidana. Jurnal Dinamika Hukum, 12(2), 221–235. https://doi.org/10.20884/1.jdh.2012.12.2.32