Judges' Philosophical Orientation in Resolving Anti-SLAPP Disputes

ABSTRACT


Introduction
Indonesian system of judicial power, a judge has a tremendous amount of responsibility, and judges also play a crucial role in attaining justice, which is the ideal in all legal matters. 1 The primary actors in law enforcement within the judiciary are judges. 2This is because the judge can revoke or alter an individual's status, disallow freedom, determine the legality of an individual's actions, and even threaten an individual's life based on the decision rendered.As the primary element in establishing a judicial institution, the implementation of the judges' function must also be interpreted as a central and strategic measure to maximize contributions to the realization of the vision and mission of the supervising institution. 3 is not sufficient to characterize a judge as a mere "trumpet of the law" when performing his duties; instead, he is expected to establish and justify his position as a "living interpreter" of the justice that society has desired throughout history.Judges exemplify and mirror the principles that underpin justice.To ensure the correct and equitable application of statutory regulations, judges are entrusted with upholding justice (moral justice) and setting aside the law or statutory regulations (legal justice) if such application results in injustice.A good law is defined as one that aligns with the prevailing societal laws (the living law), which coincides with or reflects the prevailing societal values (social justice). 4 reality, the judge's decision (verdict) is to resolve a dispute or case by the principles of law and justice.Advocates for justice undoubtedly anticipate that a judge's ruling will genuinely satisfy the societal standard of justice.Implementing the judge's ruling in a manner consistent with the community's perception of justice is complex. 5The judge's decision is consistently a subject of intriguing discourse, contingent upon individual perspectives and methodologies.A judge's decision is subject to disagreement due to the presence of a minimum of two opposing parties.A decision inevitably results in one party emerging victorious and another losing. 6dges' decisions which often become polemics are usually about whether the decision is equitable or not, because everyone has different assessments and standards.A decision's justification and foundation, in addition to the legal standards applied, can influence opinions regarding its fairness or disproportionateness.It is imperative that decisions include explicit and comprehensible legal justifications that adhere to a systematic approach to legal reasoning.These arguments necessitate oversight and adherence, as well as Vol. 4, No. 1, March 2024, pp.149-168   Rachmawaty et.al (Judges' Philosophical Orientation in Resolving…)   accountability, to guarantee transparency and legal certainty throughout the judicial process.Involved in decisions regarding environmental criminality. 7dges presiding over environmental cases are anticipated to exhibit progressive thinking, given the intricate nature of such cases and the abundance of scientific evidence involved.Ecological concerns are distinguished from other concerns by unique qualities.In addition, environmental cases can be classified as structural cases that pit parties with increased access to resources against parties with limited access in a vertical relationship.Practical enforcement of environmental laws is difficult. 8Judges do not simply apply pre-existing legal provisions when conducting environmental civil cases due to the complexity of the evidentiary process.Environmental legal cases also necessitate judicial activism, executed through legal discovery and legal creation via decisions, to achieve justice for both humans and the environment, thereby ensuring the preservation of a good and healthy environment and the restoration of ecological balance.This also safeguards the legal rights of environmental activists and the community at large who participate in advocating for environmental interests. 9position to community engagement in environmental protection frequently arises from business entities whose operations are perceived to contribute to ecological degradation or contamination. 10The conduct of business actors, such as filing police reports, suing affected communities, or engaging in community participation through demonstrations or the dissemination of information, complaints, or objections via the media, to silence and prevent the public from participating in environmental issues, is a strategy employed by the plaintiff or reporting party to instill fear among the public and environmental activists.Criminal reporting in the form of litigation is referred to as SLAPP (Strategic Law Suit Against Public Participation). 11fore enacting Law No 32 of 2009 on Environmental Protection and Management (UU PPLH), the court had received thirteen SLAPP cases.Anti-SLAPP arguments have been observed in seven instances since the promulgation of Law No. 32 of 2009 regarding Environmental Protection and Management (UU PPLH) from 2009 to 2021.There are four cases in total, of which three are criminal.But out of the seven cases presented, the judges who accepted the Anti-SLAPP argument rendered decisions in only three.One is a criminal case, and the other consists of two civil cases. 12The panel of justices rejected the Anti-SLAPP argument in four additional SLAPP cases.The primary reason for the panel of judges' majority of rejections was the failure to specify which activities human rights defenders engaged in as part of their environmental human rights struggle. 13w No. 32 of 2009 regarding Environmental Protection and Management (UU PPLH) to Law No. 4 of 1982 regarding Basic Provisions for Environmental Management, public participation or community participation has been regulated for an extended period.The significance of community control stems from the substantial volume of environmental cases that exceed the capacity of competent environmental managers, impeding optimal efforts to preserve and restore the environment.Anti-SLAPP, which stands for "legal protection against strategic lawsuits against public participation," pertains to safeguarding environmental activists and the general public when they attempt to express their environmental concerns.14 The significance of the Anti-SLAPP principle lies in its ability to safeguard individuals who express their views, opinions, or criticisms concerning environmental issues.According to data provided by the Indonesian Forum for the Environment (WALHI), 146 criminalization cases were filed against ecological activists on the island of Java between 2014 and 2019.These cases primarily transpired in Jakarta, West Java, Central Java, and East Java.According to data compiled by the Institute for Community Studies and Advocacy (ELSAM), environmental fighters were the target of 22 criminal cases between January 2020 and April 2020.Moreover, throughout 2019, these ecological warriors were subjected to 27 instances of criminalization; this case prompted 128 individuals and 50 community organizations to file lawsuits.According to additional data provided by ELSAM, human rights defenders who advocated for the environment were subjected to violence on 22 occasions in 2020.There was no opportunity for public participation in the decision-making process.The numerous environmental issues plaguing Indonesia contribute to the absence of ecological justice.15 This circumstance has the potential to incite and arouse the conscience of judges, compelling them to seek the law through progressive decisions that will aid the state and nation in overcoming adversity, as well as to comprehend the desires and needs of the people to serve justice, welfare, and the general welfare of all citizens of the nation.Criminal judges arrive at legal conclusions by employing progressive legal reasoning, one of which may be scrutinized through the lens of advanced penological legal rationale.In Indonesia, regulations that provide a stronger guarantee for implementing Anti-SLAPP measures are required.The Anti-SLAPP mechanism has regrettably not yet been incorporated into the legal rules.To optimize the implementation of anti-SLAPP mechanisms and regulations in Indonesia, it is necessary to conduct a comprehensive evaluation of these provisions and the obstacles that impede their operation.
The Supreme Court provides the defendant with three legal remedies to propose in civil cases.Nevertheless, applying SLAPP in criminal proceedings is not without its constraints; the SLAPP suspect or defendant can only be protected once the case has been adjudicated in court.Consequently, the extent to which statutory regulations govern the Anti-SLAPP principle must be revised, restricted, and inconsequential in ensuring legal certainty for all involved parties.Based on these issues, the legal resolution for anti-SLAPP combatants has not been optimally implemented.Participatory environmental justice that is inclusive ensures that individuals' rights to a healthy and pleasant living environment are respected.As a result, the public views environmental law enforcement with skepticism about its ability to safeguard the rights of all individuals to advocate for the environment. 16e legal concern outlined in this article pertains to the failure of the Anti-SLAPP mechanism in Indonesia to satisfy the four essential components that constitute effective Anti-SLAPP.Indonesia's Anti-SLAPP mechanism continues to suffer from both procedural and substantive flaws.Procedural vulnerabilities occur because the current mechanisms still need to be regulated concerning procedural law.Decree of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court no.36/KMA/SK/II/2013 (SK KMA 36/2013) regarding the Implementation of Guidelines for Handling Environmental Cases specifies the sole procedure for submitting an Anti-SLAPP.21 SK KMA 36/2013 establishes guidelines for judges regarding SLAPPs in interlocutory decisions and for SLAPP victims to submit Anti-SLAPP provisions, exceptions, and reconventions in civil cases or defense in criminal cases.
Anti-SLAPP determinations in interim decisions represent a progressive step because they expedite the case dismissal process, a practical implementation of the Anti-SLAPP mechanism.The purpose of this mechanism, which expedites the dismissal of cases, is to prevent the silencing effect of SLAPP participation from continuing.There need to be comprehensive regulations about this matter, as it engenders perplexity among judges.Consequently, its execution resulted in the apprehension of numerous individuals into the criminal domain.Therefore, based on Pancasila justice, the author is motivated to conduct a more in-depth examination of the philosophical orientation of judges when resolving disputes for Anti-SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) fighters.

Research Method
This is normative legal research, also known as library legal research, which entails conducting legal research exclusively by examining secondary data or library materials.This research is normative juridical legal research employing two approaches-a philosophical approach and a conceptual approach-and collects and obtains data through direct interviews with judges.The objective of this study is to ascertain the legal standing of environmental activists in Indonesia concerning Anti-SLAPP protection, environmental law enforcement in Indonesia regarding ecological fighters' protection in accordance with Law No. 32 of 2009 on Environmental Protection and Management, as well as challenges and strategies to optimize the implementation of Anti-SLAPP in Indonesia.This research employs descriptive-qualitative methods as a consequence.Examining books, statutory regulations, and other pertinent documents to gather information on theories, concepts, legal principles, and statutory rules relevant to the research at hand constitutes data collection in research. 17

Judge's Ruling in Resolving Anti-SLAPP Disputes based on Pancasila Values
Environmental law acknowledges the significance of each individual's entitlement to a healthy and satisfactory living environment.Asserting the right to a decent and healthy environment as a fundamental human right carries substantial ramifications for the legal dynamic between the state and society. 18nvironmental rights, which are components of human rights, establish constitutional duties that the government is obligated to uphold, safeguard, and comply with.Therefore, the law is critical in preserving the environment and its people.
The inclusive nature of law enforcement, which encompasses both preventative and punitive measures, is well-suited to the circumstances in Indonesia, where certain governmental entities actively engage in efforts to enhance public legal consciousness.A brief explanation of the implementation of environmental laws and regulations was provided in the introduction, specifically through the mention of multiple articles in the 1945 Constitution and its subsequent regulations.In light of this, the law enforcement discussed in this study is conventional.Then, through an examination of the incorporation of environmental articles, one can discern the fundamental concept underlying the meaning of law enforcement: the endeavor to reconcile the connection between values delineated in rigid regulations and conduct as a sequence of value translations culminating in the establishment, preservation, and conservation of social harmony. 19iminal law enforcement in the environmental sector has failed to meet the anticipated objectives.The criminal justice system's substantial, structural, and cultural lack of synchronization, coordination, simultaneity, and harmony contributes to this failure.Opposition to community engagement in environmental protection frequently arises from business entities whose operations are perceived to contribute to ecological degradation or contamination.Legislative provisions in Indonesia, specifically Law No. 32 of 2009 about Environmental Protection and Management, have endorsed safeguards for the legal rights of advocates for the right to a healthy and enjoyable environment.Nevertheless, its execution and the actual situation remain significantly below initial expectations. 20In their endeavors to advocate for environmental causes, including pollution and damage, conscientious and sound environmental advocates frequently encounter the precarious predicament of Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation (SLAPP). 21Legal instruments known as SLAPP are employed to stigmatize ecological activists. 22gislative-normative provisions about Anti-SLAPP regulations can be found in Article 66 of Law No. 32 of 2009 on Environmental Protection and Management. 23This article provides legal protection against criminal prosecution and civil litigation for community members who advocate for the right to a healthy and environmentally sustainable environment. 24In addition, the Decree Number 36/KMA/SK/II/2013 of the Chairman of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Indonesia, which pertains to implementing guidelines for managing environmental cases, also specifies Anti-SLAPP provisions.In addition, Article 28 E paragraph (3) of the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia and Article 44 of Law No. 39 of 1999 concerning Human Rights guarantee this form of community participation.In practice, however, numerous instances of rights activists for a good and healthy environment being criminalized raise significant concerns regarding the fundamental nature of democracy preservation in Indonesia.This is exacerbated by the ongoing and massive criminalization of environmental activists, which has resulted in numerous threats and repressions against these individuals. 25 Several precedent cases exist wherein environmental activists have been criminalized.One such instance involves farmers in Indramayu who received a five-to-six-month sentence for invertedly displaying the Indonesian national flag.At the same time, residents celebrated their triumph following the revocation of the Indramayu PLTU permit.Budi Pego, who was convicted of disseminating communist teachings by waving a hammer and sickle banner during a protest against gold extraction, received an additional four-year prison sentence in a separate case.These cases appear to disregard a fundamental democratic value, the recognition that the people hold the power and will.Nevertheless, the unequal positions of the government and citizens and the entrepreneurial interests that influence policy formulation produce a pattern of legal products that ultimately determine the legal politics underlying it.This engenders a negative perception of environmental law enforcement, accompanied by the formation of stagnant civil society movements and communities whose sole purpose is to advocate for ecological sovereignty values. 26Public Hearing Meeting (RDPU) was convened to deliberate on regulating the substantive aspects of Anti-SLAPP.During this meeting, multiple environmental organizations participated in the discourse surrounding the Draft Law on Environmental Management.The frequent instances of the government or other interested parties silencing individuals who advocate for environmental interests and the frequent cases of reporting back on the grounds of defamation of goodwill against the community by those who say environmental disputes to the authorities are the arguments that support the significance of anti-SLAPP regulations.27 The drafters of Law No. 32 of 2009 on Environmental Protection and Management subsequently endorsed the proposal about these provisions, affirming their importance in safeguarding community engagement in developing 25  According to the Indonesian Forum for the Environment (WALHI), there was 146 suspected criminalization of environmental fighters on the island of Java between 2014 and 2019.Specifically, four cases were reported in Jakarta, five in West Java, 19 in Yogyakarta, 15 in Central Java, and 103 in East Java.The mining sector comprises the most significant proportion of cases at 52%, followed by forestry at 13%, infrastructure at 13%, tourism and property at 13%, and spatial planning at 5%.Additionally, the Indonesian Center for Environmental Law (ICEL) documented in 2021 that environmental activists were subjected to 22 incidents of violence between January 2020 and April 2020.These cases continue to exhibit the same pattern each year.Typical forms of violence include land grabbing, intimidation, murder, arrest, and detention, as well as physical assaults and devastation.These instances may result in a decline in community engagement due to victims' reluctance to express their concerns, erosion of confidence in the efficacy of the Indonesian legal system, obstruction of future dissent, and safeguarding of private economic interests.29 The subsequent illustration presents a comparative analysis of the execution of Anti-SLAPP (Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation) measures in three countries: Australia, California, and the Philippines.

Constitutional Amendment
In Australia, there is a right to submit one's petition, and the First Amendment to the Constitution guarantees it that freedom to express opinions and participate the public interest is part of democratic actions protected by the Constitution.
The anti-SLAPP case in Indonesia influenced the judge's departure from Pancasila justice principles.In light of this, legislators were motivated to incorporate an article governing legal safeguards for public participation in environmental legislation. 30Further examination reveals that Law No. 32 of 2009 regarding Environmental Protection and Management does not define the term "environmental fighter."A judge must enforce legislative mandates in strict adherence to the philosophical underpinnings of Pancasila.The Pancasila values will serve as a fortification capable of withstanding and countering the impact of political and economic power, which may lead to partiality and unfairness in law enforcement. 31Therefore, law enforcement must be committed and proactive in the judicial system, regarding their legal jurisdiction.The presence of law enforcement agencies in environmental matters must persist in promoting the exercise of legal immunity, as stipulated in Article 66 of Law No. 32 of 2009 about Environmental Protection and Management. 32e legal frameworks that regulate public participation in the environmental sector serve as a mechanism of public oversight to prevent policymakers from exceeding their authority or acting arbitrarily when formulating policies or decisions. 33Indeed, a government is considered democratic when it vests the utmost authority and power in the people; thus, individual rights, which must be safeguarded and guaranteed, must constrain the power possessed by the government.However, disparities persist between das sollen (what ought to be) and das sein (what is in reality and practice).Anti-SLAPP defenses can be readily excluded from the trial's agenda during the initial phases of case examination without explicit priority provisions.This is because SLAPP cases are challenging to identify, as the articles used to sue or prosecute SLAPP targets frequently have no connection to environmental issues, as with Budi Pego.
The matter that may be deliberated is whether a provision mandating a rapid and concise SLAPP defense examination before the commencement of the trial is necessary and feasible.This is a fundamental matter in the criminal justice system, given that SLAPP victims have been subjected to a series of coercive procedures, including arrest, detention, and so on, before the trial process.Using coercive measures is highly susceptible to human rights violations by law enforcement. 34efore the trial process, SLAPP targets are not subject to the prospect of coercive measures in the civil sphere.However, the trial procedure is lengthy and, depending on the articles submitted by the plaintiff, can be costly and timeconsuming. 35forcing environmental management laws remains arduous because of the challenges associated with establishing and substantiating standardized criteria for ecological damage.As of yet, anti-SLAPP legislation in Indonesia fails to offer SLAPP victims reparation through monetary aid or reinstatement of their capabilities, social standing, and dignity.The fullest extent of inclusive environmental justice has yet to be achieved.Through participation, inclusive environmental justice ensures that all individuals' rights to a healthy and pleasant living environment are respected. 36e author presents alternative solutions that address these issues to offer guidance and clarity regarding enhancing the Anti-SLAPP concept in Indonesia.These solutions can be evaluated in light of Lawrence M. Friedman's legal substance, structure, and culture.Resolutions in environmental cases must be relatively prompt.It is anticipated that prolonged resolution of environmental instances will result in a deterioration of ecological conditions and the expansion of the resulting environmental impacts. 37The expeditious resolution of environmental cases can be facilitated through the proficiency and capability of justices with expertise in environmental law.

Judges' Philosophical Orientation in Resolving Anti-SLAPP Disputes
In Indonesia, the Anti-SLAPP mechanism can be fortified via the formulation of implementing regulations and the improvement of institutional capacity.When formulating implementing regulations for Law No 32 of 2009 on Environmental Protection and Management, it is imperative to ensure that the Anti-SLAPP provisions govern the expeditious and succinct dismissal of SLAPP cases.It is necessary to emphasize again the stage at which the Anti-SLAPP mechanism may be employed, be it the preliminary phase before adjudication or the initial stage of the initiated court procedure. 38Anti-SLAPP mechanisms, particularly in the criminal justice system, must be implemented before adjudication, according to the author, to prevent SLAPP victims from being subjected to a protracted process of coercion.To comply with these regulations, criminal Anti-SLAPP procedural provisions may utilize the pre-trial mechanism outlined in the Criminal Procedure Code or the institution known as the Preliminary Examining Judge (HPP), which substitutes for the mechanism in the RKUHAP, to establish succinct and preliminary Anti-SLAPP procedures before the commencement of the trial process. 39 their implementation, the Anti-SLAPP procedural provisions must also prioritize the evidentiary process, including the potential for the burden of proof reversal.Aside from that, emphasis must be placed on the compensation mechanism for SLAPP victims, including the form and quantity of compensation that can be requested in court and the evidence that can be submitted in support of such a request.Despite the mention of anti-SLAPP procedural provisions in SK KMA 36/2013, the decree remains internal and has a significantly restricted scope.In contrast, Supreme Court regulations may have broader applicability as long as they impact other state institutions.Additionally, a decision is a singular occurrence, whereas rules are perpetual.In addition, for each law enforcement agency to support the implementation of the Anti-SLAPP mechanism in the judicial process, it is necessary to issue internal regulations governing the identification and management of SLAPP cases. 40 Indonesia, law enforcement must ensure that each citizen concerned with the fight for justice in the environmental sector has access to legal protection.The acquired data indicates that many deficiencies concerning governance, sustainable development planning frameworks, and authority concurrently accompany company advancements in development within a nation.The 1998 United Nations General Assembly ratification of the Declaration on the Rights and Responsibility of Individuals, Groups, and Organs of Society to Promote and Protect Universally Recognized Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms established this as the foundation for a statement that binds nations morally-member nations in their efforts to safeguard human rights defenders.A nation's obligation should be to ensure that all individuals' rights are respected, including those who are exclusively advocating for environmental justice and the conservation of their habitat, such as those who demand a healthy and conducive environment. 41nce, to safeguard advocates for the right to a healthy and environmentally sustainable planet against legal entanglements from interested parties, it is imminent that additional regulations governing their legal protection be promulgated.Such action is crucial for the sustainability of environmental law enforcement as an entire.In this regard, greater governmental focus is warranted because legal protection for ecological activists encompasses the human rights dimension in addition to relations between humans and the environment. 42e formulation of protection law in Indonesia is grounded in Pancasila, the ideology and philosophy of the state.The design of legal protection for Western citizens is predicated on the Rechtsstaat and "Rule of the Law" concepts. 43onceptual thinking, by employing Western concepts, alludes to the foundation of Pancasila, the legal protection principle in Indonesia that serves as a pillar for the recognition and safeguarding of human dignity. 44Integrating natural resource management principles into the Indonesian agricultural sector demonstrates adherence to Pancasila by concurrently augmenting output and safeguarding natural resources.This is exemplified through the prudent application of chemical fertilizers in ratios that minimize water system pollution and soil degradation, as well as the mixing and utilization of pesticides that do not contaminate the food chain or diminish product capacity and other ecological aspects. 45n addition, environmental ethics is only touched upon momentarily, suggesting that Indonesia has yet to accord Pancasila significant consideration about impact on biodiversity.In reality, the sustainability of human life is contingent on the sustainability of life in the environment in which humans reside and the availability of natural resources that remain untapped.The constitution of the Republic of Indonesia, which serves as the supreme law in both the conceptualization of a legal state and the Indonesian constitutional system, is built upon Pancasila as its fundamental cornerstone.The Republic of Indonesia's constitution was formulated by the principles and entire thoughts encapsulated in the Pancasila values, thereby designating Pancasila as the state and national ideology.46 In light of Pancasila's position in the Indonesian constitutional system, its significance as a source of fundamental law for the Republic of Indonesia is demonstrated.As a result, Pancasila should be utilized more than just as a substantive source in Indonesia's legal system and legislation.Thus, the values of Pancasila must permeate all societal actions and movements, both at the individual and collective levels.Each individual or collective must comprehend and nurture the Pancasila values, the foundation for their conduct, ethics, and beliefs.47 The discourse surrounding environmental management invariably entails the challenge of implementing the principles of Pancasila in this regard.This is because Pancasila represents a unified and comprehensive framework that instills confidence in the Indonesian people and nation, namely that happiness in life can only be attained through the establishment of harmonious, balanced, and harmonious relationships-be they with nature or among fellow human beings, with God Almighty, or with one another.To maintain dynamic balance, harmony, and reciprocity, a relationship must be continuously nurtured and developed between humans, society, and the environment.48 Protection and management of the environment must be characterized by proportional justice for all citizens, irrespective of gender, generation, or geographic location.The utilization of natural resources must be sustainable, socially acceptable, and environmentally viable.SLAPP actions will determine the future of legal protection for environmental activists, contingent on the State's level of seriousness regarding the causal connection between the case and its context.This will ensure that those who advocate for the right to a healthful and pleasant living environment receive justice.Fortifying the Anti-SLAPP mechanism in other cases is an urgent for institutional strengthening.49 The author proposes that the government establish a new entity whose sole responsibility is to monitor SLAPP and anti-SLAPP cases.This institution will facilitate the classification process by conducting preliminary background investigations and delivering informed recommendations to law enforcement authorities.Indonesia is a legal state founded on the Pancasila principles.Indonesia's legal system is based on Pancasila.Judicial power is functionally exercised by the central actors, who are judges.The judge is responsible for dispensing justice by Pancasila, implementing the rule of law in the Republic of Indonesia, and upholding the law.The judge's decision ought to embody the following Pancasila values: faith in an all-powerful God, justice, harmonious relations between the government and the people founded on the harmony principle, proportional functional relations between state powers, mediation or deliberation in the resolution of disputes, and the principle of justice as a mechanism for attaining a balance between rights and obligations.

Conclusion
Anti-SLAPP disputes by Pancasila values, the judge's ruling remains exceptionally feeble.The repetition of environmental concerns expressed by individuals will perpetuate the pattern above.In any case, sanctions will be imposed on the community to eradicate community participation to ensure the continuation of development that harms the environment while benefiting the government and corporations.Based on these facts, it is evident that the regulation and implementation of Anti-SLAPP in Indonesia do not provide justice for all of its components, with the limitations of the extant Anti-SLAPP regulations in Indonesia being one of the contributing factors.The judge's deviation from Pancasila justice principles is evident in the inadequate legal safeguards provided to environmental activists in Indonesia.In contrast, the judge's approach to resolving Anti-SLAPP disputes by Pancasila justice is guided by the five principles outlined in Pancasila.While the judge's decision demonstrates legal certainty, it plays a role in determining the correct law during the trial process.Due to the possibility that the law does not regulate a particular aspect explicitly, judges are required to consider unwritten societal statutes and customary law in addition to the law when rendering decisions.To enhance the clarity of the Anti-SLAPP regulations outlined in Article 66 of Law No. 32 of 2009 on Environmental Protection and Management, the Indonesian government should enact supplementary legislation in the form of Government Regulations (PP).