{"id":9966,"date":"2025-09-19T16:39:42","date_gmt":"2025-09-19T09:39:42","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.tuk.or.id\/?p=9966"},"modified":"2025-09-22T15:38:14","modified_gmt":"2025-09-22T08:38:14","slug":"examination-of-the-desakmandiri-verdict-academics-students-highlight-weak-bank-accountability-in-south-jakarta-district-court-verdict","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.tuk.or.id\/en\/2025\/09\/examination-of-the-desakmandiri-verdict-academics-students-highlight-weak-bank-accountability-in-south-jakarta-district-court-verdict\/","title":{"rendered":"Examination of the #DesakMandiri Verdict: Academics & Students Highlight Weak Bank Accountability in South Jakarta District Court Verdict"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"\"<\/p>\n

Depok, September 19, 2025 \u2013 The South Jakarta District Court’s decision No. 1186\/PDT.G\/2024\/PN.Jkt.Sel, which declared TuK INDONESIA’s public lawsuit against Bank Mandiri niet ontvankelijke verklaard (NO), is once again being questioned through an academic forum. During the #DesakMandiri Verdict Examination event, held by TuK INDONESIA together with the Student Executive Board of the Faculty of Law, University of Indonesia (FH UI), academics and students provided critical analysis of the panel of judges’ considerations, especially the reason of \u201cinsufficient parties\u201d used to reject the lawsuit (09\/16).<\/p>\n

Linda Rosalina, Director of TuK INDONESIA, emphasized that the reason of \u201cinsufficient parties\u201d in the ruling actually shows the weak protection of the rights of the community and the environment. “The reason of insufficient parties used by the judge weakens the spirit of those seeking justice. In fact, what should have been examined was Bank Mandiri’s responsibility in its financing of PT Agro Nusa Abadi, a subsidiary of Astra Agro Lestari that operates without an HGU and has triggered conflicts with the community in Central Sulawesi,” she said. Linda also reminded that the banking sector cannot wash its hands of the social and environmental crises caused by their financing. \u201cThe credit flowing into the extractive sector is enormous, amounting to Rp 1.032 trillion in AFOLU and Rp 548 trillion in mining. Bank Mandiri has a role there, and it must be held accountable. A ruling like this sends a signal that banks can be free from responsibility, and that is dangerous,\u201d she emphasized.<\/p>\n

This examination featured five examiners from various universities and backgrounds, namely Majda El Muhtaj (Medan State University), Dr. Ghansam Anand (Faculty of Law, Airlangga University), Muhamad Faiz Aziz (practitioner and academic), Umar Mubdi (Gadjah Mada University), and Eko Riyadi (Islamic University of Indonesia). Ghansam Anand, a lecturer at the Faculty of Law, Airlangga University, assessed that the South Jakarta District Court’s decision No. 1186\/PDT.G\/2024\/PN.JKT.SEL still leaves important points to be noted. \u201cWe certainly respect the verdict, but academically speaking, it should be noted that examining a verdict is a space for critical review, not for undermining the authority of the judiciary,\u201d explained Ghansam. According to him, the panel of judges’ consideration of the exception of lack of parties did not meet the standards for a complete consideration as stipulated in Article 178 of the HIR and the jurisprudence of the Supreme Court. \u201cThe judges did mention the need to involve several parties such as Eco Nusantara, ATR\/BPN, KLHK, and OJK, but they did not clearly explain the legal relationship that requires them to participate,\u201d he added. \u201cThus, academically speaking, a decision based on the exception of insufficient parties does not have sufficient and complete considerations (insufficient judgment) or is not legally sound (onvoeldoende gemotiveerd). Therefore, academically speaking, such a decision is likely to be overturned at the appellate court level,\u201d he concluded.<\/p>\n

In line with Ghansam, Umar Mubdi stated that judges should be able to distinguish between parties that are absolutely necessary (indispensable parties) and parties that are relevant (relevant authorities). “If they are indispensable parties, then they should be included as parties in the case. However, if they are relevant authorities, they should only be used as evidence, whether as witnesses, documents, or experts. If they do not have an absolute relationship, then they should not be included as parties. Therefore, the consideration to include Eco Nusantara and others is not valid,” he said.<\/p>\n

Meanwhile, Faiz Aziz highlighted this examination as a space for providing a critical perspective on judges’ legal considerations, while also opening up a healthy space for discussion among academics and practitioners. \u201cThrough this examination, it is important to see how consistently legal principles are applied, particularly in civil cases, with the hope of enriching our understanding of civil proceedings and providing constructive input to judicial institutions.\u201d
\nEko Riyadi emphasized that defendants have a responsibility to respect human rights and that courts have a constitutional obligation to ensure that constitutional rights are protected. \u201cIndonesia has ratified almost all human rights instruments. One of the consequences is the obligation to comply with existing achievements through domestic mechanisms within the country,\u201d he explained.<\/p>\n

In her presentation, Majda El Muhtaj emphasized the strategic position of banks, which should not be neutral. According to her, banks have the power and authority to ensure healthy financing mechanisms that can restore balance to the social order. “PT Bank Mandiri is complicit in financing businesses whose operations have a serious impact on human rights and the environment, as well as on the resilience of vulnerable communities. Therefore, legal action and efforts against it must continue to be carried out to oversee the national commitment to incorporate the UNGPs in business activities, including in the financial sector and industry,” said Majda.<\/p>\n

As an organizing partner, BEM FH UI emphasized the importance of student involvement in the issue of bank accountability. This is because financing a number of companies that have been proven to damage the environment is a form of non-compliance with the state’s responsibility to guarantee the right to a good and healthy environment as stipulated in Article 28H paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia (UUD NRI Tahun 1945). Therefore, every bank must be careful and cautious when allocating funds by ensuring the track record of companies. The money provided by banks should not result in the destruction of the environmental ecosystem, which cannot be repaired with money, no matter how much it is.<\/p>\n

The discussion, moderated by journalist Della Syahni from Mongabay Indonesia, also opened up a public question and answer session. Participants were invited to consider how the court’s decision was not only a matter of legal technicalities, but also a matter of environmental justice and the protection of affected communities.<\/p>\n

Contact:
\nAnnisa 08788 444 6640<\/p>\n

Anotasi Desak Mandiri<\/p>\n