This research examines the use of the Environmental Impact Analysis (Andal) document as a basis of evidence in resolving environmental disputes under the strict liability principle. The principle imposes absolute liability on the perpetrator without the need to prove fault. Using a normative juridical approach and analysis of two court decisions, this study highlights the different treatments of the Andal document in proving the element of “serious threat.” In South Jakarta District Court Decision No. 456/Pdt.G-LH/2016/PN.Jkt.Sel, the Andal document was considered as a proof that the defendant’s activities posed a serious threat. In contrast, in South Jakarta District Court Decision No. 676/Pdt.G-LH/2018/PN.Jkt.Sel, the same document was not considered in the ratio decidendi. This inconsistency raises legal uncertainty. This research found that there are substantive similarities between the urgency underlying the creation of Amdal and the prerequisites for implementing strict liability. Amdal can serve as important evidence for the application of strict liability in judicial proceedings as long as they are accompanied by other scientific evidence.
Phuk et al. (Sun,) studied this question.