Government Coercion in Indonesian Environmental Law: Eight Enforcement Tools and Emergency Powers Under PP 22/2021
Executive Summary
Government Regulation No. 22 of 2021 (PP 22/2021) establishes government coercion (paksaan pemerintah) as a central administrative enforcement mechanism through BAB XI Paragraf 3 (Articles 511-513). This sanction empowers environmental authorities to compel violators to take specific actions or cease prohibited activities, backed by state enforcement power.
The regulation provides two pathways to coercion. Standard coercion follows non-compliance with written warnings after specified deadlines expire. Emergency coercion may be imposed immediately without prior warning when violations create serious threats, wider impacts, or greater environmental losses requiring urgent response.
Eight forms of coercion are available to authorities, ranging from temporary production halts and discharge channel closure to equipment seizure and demolition. This graduated toolkit enables authorities to match enforcement intensity to violation severity and circumstances.
The framework integrates coercion with environmental restoration requirements. Authorities may compel violators to restore damaged environments or appoint third parties to perform restoration at violator expense. The environmental guarantee fund provides a cost source when violators lack resources, ensuring restoration proceeds regardless of operator financial capacity.
Background & Context
Administrative sanctions require enforcement mechanisms beyond simple orders. When violators ignore written warnings or continue prohibited activities, governments need tools to compel compliance or directly address environmental harm. Government coercion fills this role in Indonesian environmental law.
The concept derives from administrative law principles allowing government to enforce public duties when private parties fail to comply voluntarily. In environmental contexts, this includes stopping pollution discharges, removing illegal structures, seizing equipment used for violations, and compelling environmental restoration. Without coercive powers, environmental regulations would depend entirely on voluntary compliance.
PP 22/2021 systematizes government coercion within the broader administrative sanctions framework. The regulation positions coercion as the second sanction tier after written warnings, escalating to administrative fines, permit suspension, and permit revocation for continued non-compliance. However, emergency provisions also enable direct coercion without the warning step when circumstances demand immediate action.
The eight coercion forms provide authorities flexible tools matching different violation types and urgencies. Production halts address ongoing pollution generation. Discharge channel closure prevents further pollution release. Seizure removes violation-enabling equipment. Demolition addresses illegal physical structures. This toolkit approach ensures appropriate responses across diverse environmental violation scenarios.
Key Provisions
Standard Coercion Following Warning Non-Compliance
Government coercion typically follows failure to comply with written warnings within specified timeframes.
Pasal 511 Ayat 1:
"(1) Sanksi Administratif berupa paksaan pemerintah sebagaimana dimaksud dalam Pasal 508 ayat (1) huruf b diterapkan terhadap penanggung jawab Usaha dan/atau Kegiatan yang tidak melaksanakan perintah dalam teguran tertulis dalam jangka waktu yang telah ditetapkan."
Government coercion applies to business operators who fail to execute orders contained in written warnings within the established timeframe. This creates a sequential enforcement process where warnings precede coercion, giving operators opportunity to comply before facing compulsory measures.
Emergency Coercion Without Prior Warning
Urgent circumstances enable immediate coercion without the written warning prerequisite.
Pasal 511 Ayat 2:
"(2) Pengenaan paksaan pemerintah sebagaimana dimaksud pada ayat (1) dapat dijatuhkan tanpa didahului teguran tertulis apabila pelanggaran yang dilakukan menimbulkan: a. ancaman yang sangat serius bagi manusia dan Lingkungan Hidup; b. dampak yang lebih besar dan lebih luas jika tidak segera dihentikan pencemaran dan/atau kerusakannya; dan/atau c. kerugian yang lebih besar bagi Lingkungan Hidup jika tidak segera dihentikan pencemaran dan/atau kerusakannya."
Government coercion may be imposed without prior written warning when violations create serious threats to humans and environment, when pollution or damage will cause larger and wider impacts if not immediately stopped, or when environmental losses will grow if pollution or damage continues. These emergency triggers recognize that some situations cannot wait for standard warning-and-deadline procedures.
Eight Forms of Government Coercion
Authorities may select from eight coercion types based on violation circumstances.
Pasal 511 Ayat 3:
"(3) Paksaan pemerintah sebagaimana dimaksud pada ayat (1) dan ayat (2) dapat dilakukan dalam bentuk: a. penghentian sementara kegiatan produksi; b. pemindahan sarana produksi; c. penutupan saluran pembuangan air limbah atau Emisi; d. pembongkaran; e. penyitaan terhadap barang atau alat yang berpotensi menimbulkan pelanggaran; f. penghentian sementara sebagian atau seluruh Usaha dan/atau Kegiatan; g. kewajiban menyusun DELH atau DPLH; dan/atau h. tindakan lain yang bertujuan untuk menghentikan pelanggaran dan tindakan memulihkan fungsi Lingkungan Hidup."
The eight forms include temporary production halt, production facility relocation, wastewater or emission discharge channel closure, demolition, seizure of violation-causing goods or equipment, temporary partial or complete business cessation, mandatory DELH or DPLH document preparation, and other actions aimed at stopping violations and restoring environmental functions. The final category provides flexibility for novel situations not covered by specific enumerated forms.
Mandatory Environmental Restoration
Coercion extends to compelling environmental restoration after pollution or damage occurs.
Pasal 512 Ayat 1-2:
"(1) Menteri, gubernur, atau bupati/wali kota sesuai dengan kewenangannya memaksa penanggung jawab Usaha dan/atau Kegiatan untuk melakukan pemulihan Lingkungan Hidup akibat Pencemaran Lingkungan Hidup dan/atau Kerusakan Lingkungan Hidup. (2) Menteri, gubernur, atau bupati/wali kota sesuai dengan kewenangannya dapat menunjuk pihak ketiga untuk melakukan pemulihan fungsi Lingkungan Hidup akibat Pencemaran Lingkungan Hidup dan/atau Kerusakan Lingkungan Hidup."
The Minister, governor, or regent/mayor according to their authority may compel operators to restore the environment from pollution or damage. Alternatively, authorities may appoint third parties to perform restoration. This dual approach ensures restoration proceeds whether or not violators have technical capacity to perform restoration themselves.
Cost Allocation for Restoration
Restoration costs fall on violators regardless of who performs the work.
Pasal 512 Ayat 3-4:
"(3) Pemulihan fungsi Lingkungan Hidup sebagaimana dimaksud pada ayat (2) dilakukan atas beban biaya penanggung jawab Usaha dan/atau Kegiatan. (4) Beban biaya sebagaimana dimaksud pada ayat (3) dapat bersumber dari dana penjaminan untuk pemulihan fungsi Lingkungan Hidup sebagaimana dimaksud dalam Pasal 471."
Third-party restoration costs are borne by the responsible operator. Costs may be sourced from the environmental restoration guarantee fund established under Pasal 471. This fund linkage ensures restoration financing availability even when violators lack current resources, while preserving cost recovery from responsible parties.
Delay Penalties
Operators who fail to implement coercion orders face escalating penalties.
Pasal 513:
"(1) Setiap penanggung jawab Usaha dan/atau Kegiatan yang tidak melaksanakan paksaan pemerintah dapat diterapkan denda atas keterlambatan pelaksanaan paksaan pemerintah. (2) Denda atas setiap keterlambatan pelaksanaan paksaan pemerintah terhadap penanggung jawab Usaha dan/atau Kegiatan ditentukan berdasarkan penghitungan persentase pelanggaran dikali nilai denda paling banyak. (3) Denda atas keterlambatan sebagaimana dimaksud pada ayat (1) merupakan penerimaan negara bukan pajak yang wajib disetorkan ke kas negara sesuai dengan ketentuan peraturan perundang-undangan tentang penerimaan Negara Bukan Pajak."
Operators failing to implement government coercion face delay penalties calculated as violation percentage multiplied by maximum fine value. These penalties constitute non-tax state revenue deposited to the state treasury. The escalating financial consequence incentivizes prompt compliance rather than continued delay.
Implementation & Compliance
For Business Operators
Understanding coercion triggers enables proactive compliance. Written warnings specify compliance deadlines, and meeting those deadlines prevents coercion escalation. Operators receiving warnings should immediately assess compliance feasibility and communicate with authorities if extensions are genuinely needed.
Emergency coercion presents greater risk because it arrives without warning. Operations creating potential serious threats, wider impacts, or growing environmental losses face possible immediate shutdown or other coercion without opportunity to self-correct first. Risk assessment should identify such scenarios and ensure preventive measures.
If coercion is imposed, prompt compliance avoids delay penalties and further escalation. Challenging coercion through administrative appeals may be appropriate for disputed cases, but continued non-compliance during appeals typically results in penalty accumulation.
For Environmental Authorities
Selecting appropriate coercion forms requires matching enforcement intensity to violation characteristics. Discharge channel closure addresses ongoing pollution release. Equipment seizure addresses removable violation sources. Production halts address pollution generation. Demolition addresses illegal structures. Business cessation represents the most comprehensive intervention.
Emergency coercion decisions require documented justification showing serious threats, wider impacts, or growing losses. The absence of prior warning means the coercion decision itself must demonstrate factual basis for emergency treatment rather than relying on warning non-compliance.
Third-party restoration appointments require contractor qualification assessment and cost reasonableness evaluation. While costs fall on violators, authorities selecting contractors bear responsibility for ensuring restoration quality and cost appropriateness.
For Environmental Restoration Contractors
Third-party appointment for restoration creates business opportunities but also accountability to government authorities. Contractors perform restoration under authority supervision with costs recovered from violators. Quality standards apply to restoration work, and contractors may face scrutiny if restoration proves inadequate.
The guarantee fund linkage means restoration financing may come from dedicated environmental funds rather than direct violator payment. Contractors should understand payment procedures when fund financing applies.
Conclusion
PP 22/2021's government coercion framework provides environmental authorities with meaningful enforcement tools backed by state power. The eight coercion forms enable responses calibrated to diverse violation types from ongoing pollution to illegal structures. Emergency powers ensure urgent situations receive immediate response without procedural delays.
The integration with environmental restoration requirements extends coercion beyond simply stopping violations to repairing resulting damage. Third-party restoration appointments ensure technical capacity exists regardless of violator capabilities, while cost allocation preserves polluter-pays principles.
Delay penalties create escalating consequences for continued non-compliance, preventing coercion orders from becoming merely advisory. The non-tax revenue classification integrates penalty collection with national fiscal systems.
This comprehensive framework positions government coercion as an effective enforcement mechanism rather than merely a paper threat, ensuring environmental regulations have teeth when voluntary compliance fails.
Official Source
This article analyzes Government Regulation No. 22 of 2021 on Environmental Protection and Management Implementation (PP 22/2021), specifically BAB XI Paragraf 3 (Pasal 511-513) on Government Coercion.
The official regulation text can be accessed at:
Primary Source:
PP No. 22 Tahun 2021 - BPK Regulation Portal
Alternative Sources:
- JDIH Kementerian Lingkungan Hidup dan Kehutanan
Official Gazette: Lembaran Negara Republik Indonesia Tahun 2021 Nomor 32
Disclaimer
This article was AI-generated under an experimental legal-AI application. It may contain errors, inaccuracies, or hallucinations. The content is provided for informational purposes only and should not be relied upon as legal advice or authoritative interpretation of regulations.
We accept no liability whatsoever for any decisions made based on this article. Readers are strongly advised to:
- Consult the official regulation text from government sources
- Seek professional legal counsel for specific matters
- Verify all information independently
This experimental AI application is designed to improve access to regulatory information, but accuracy cannot be guaranteed.