Firm and Legitimate Action Against Environmental Destruction

THE government’s move to revoke at least 28 forestry concessions following the Sumatra floods and landslides in November 2025 deserves support. The state must indeed be firm against environmental violations. However, such firmness must not bypass due process, as doing so risks undermining the very legitimacy of enforcement.

The revocation of Toba Pulp Lestari’s permit in North Sumatra, for instance, demonstrates an old dilemma between the need to act fast and the obligation to uphold due process. The indications of deforestation and environmental destruction, which prompted the revocation, must not be ignored. Public pressure to terminate the companies’ operations was only natural. But how the state responds will still determine whether justice is respected or instead disregarded.

In an environmental emergency, the state is indeed required to act swiftly to prevent wider destruction. Risks that have not been entirely proven cannot be used as a reason to delay action. Still, any swift action must rest on a clear legal basis, a rational justification, and proportional measures. Without these foundations, swiftness can easily transform into abuse of authority.

The issue is not firmness itself, but the execution. The government revoked these permits based on recommendations from the Forest Area Enforcement Task Force. In several instances, this step was taken before legal proceedings even began. At first glance, it appears the state is preempting a process that should rightfully be tested in court.

In fact, the law provides room for swift and legitimate action. The government can impose administrative sanctions, halt operations, or temporarily freeze forestry utilization permits based on preliminary evidence. This approach allows for immediate intervention without waiting for a lengthy legal process, while still honoring legal corridors and leaving room for correction should errors be discovered later.

Unfortunately, the government often opts for shortcuts—either for the sake of its image or to appease the anger of the affected communities. Direct revocation becomes the first and last step, rather than part of a measured process. Such decisions are easily challenged in court and risk being overturned. Should this happen, the state not only loses its authority but also weakens environmental protection.

Without a solid foundation and a transparent process, companies can easily spin the narrative, labeling such firm actions as arbitrary. This has even sowed suspicion among the public: is this enforcement truly about protecting the environment, or is it clearing the path for a resource grab? The government’s plan to transfer the management of former Toba Pulp land to the state-owned Perhutani via the Daya Anagata Nusantara Investment Management Agency (Danantara), for example, only sharpens those question marks.

Environmental law enforcement does not have to choose between speed and certainty. The state can combine both: act swiftly through risk-based administrative sanctions, then follow through with legal proceedings to ensure accountability. With this strategy, speed does not sacrifice justice, and firmness remains within legal bounds.

Ultimately, what is at stake is not just the permits of forestry companies, but also public trust in the legal mechanism. Without legal certainty, businesses live in a state of flux. Without firmness, environmental destruction will continue to recur. The state must strike a balance: enforce the law, do not leapfrog it.