Nature as a Legal Subject in the Preparation of Environmental Impact Assessments (Amdal): A Green Constitution Perspective for Social-Ecological Justice

: The analysis of Environmental Impact Assessments (Amdal) in project plans and/or activities has been considered crucial to anticipate environmental pollution and damage within the environmental legal system regulated by Indonesia's Environmental Law. Amdal serves as a tool for communities to challenge various development projects that pose threats to their environment. However, the government has recently sought to narrow the space for public participation and the functions of Amdal, as evident in Presidential Regulation No. 2 of 2022 on Job Creation. This normative legal research aims to examine the urgency and concept of Amdal from a green constitution perspective. The study reveals that, from the green constitution perspective, the existence of Amdal with broad participation is essential. Instead of restricting it only to affected communities, as outlined in Presidential Regulation No. 2 of 2022 on Job Creation, participation in the preparation, submission of objections, and assessment of Amdal documents, according to the green constitution perspective, should be expanded not only to the general public but also to non-human entities, such as rivers, mountains, land, flora-fauna, and others. This study is expected to contribute to the revitalization of an ecocentric Amdal concept in line with green constitution principles, supporting efforts toward more ecocentric environmental protection. In a broader vision, this study is anticipated to contribute to the transformation of environmental law and the constitution to be more responsive to social-ecological justice.


A. INTRODUCTION
The widespread environmental damage at both global and national levels underscores the critical importance of Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) documents in anticipating and addressing environmental pollution and degradation resulting from business projects and/or activities.Since its first legislative introduction in Indonesia through Law Number 4 of 1982 concerning Basic Provisions for Environmental Management (UUPPLH) and Government Regulation Number 29 of 1986 concerning Environmental Impact Analysis, and subsequently updated with Law No. 32 of 2009 on Environmental Protection and Management, EIA has emerged as a vital tool for public participation in the planning of projects and/or activities that have the potential to cause environmental pollution and damage.Additionally, it serves as a legal recourse for the community to take legal action if a project has adverse effects on the environment.
However, the existence of Environmental Impact Assessments (EIA) has been subject to reduction in recent years by the Government through Presidential Regulation No. 2 of 2022 on Job Creation, which, in substance, is not significantly different from Law No. 20 of 2020 on Job Creation.In the Omnibus Law, EIA has not been entirely eliminated, contrary to the misunderstanding by some researchers (Feri, Akib, and Triono 2021;Nur et al. 2021; Wright and Shin 1988).Nevertheless, Presidential Regulation No. 2 of 2022 on Job Creation, Article 22, has reduced public participation in the formulation, submission of objections, and the establishment of EIA, which were previously regulated in Articles 25 to 31 of the Environmental Management Basic Provisions Law (UUPPLH).
In such a situation, according to Vandana Shiva, the study of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) concept from a green constitution perspective serves as a foundation for sustainable development and environmental continuity (Shiva 1991).The green constitution concept in constitutional law and environmental politics is considered a constitutional and radical solution in addressing intertwined social-ecological crises that occur simultaneously (Rohmah, Mushoffa. Kholish, 2022).While numerous studies on the urgency of EIA have been conducted, such as those by (Herlina and Supriyatin 2021; Sukananda and Nugraha 2020).critiques of the EIA concept post the Job Creation Law have also been undertaken, for instance, by (Febriyanti et al. 2021; Lestari and Sitabuana 2022; Medellu and Ledo 2021).However, these studies have not adopted the green constitution as a theoretical framework.The difference between this study and previous ones lies in two aspects: firstly, the focus is on the regulation of EIA in the Omnibus Law on Job Creation; secondly, the theoretical framework employed is the green constitution.This study complements previous research as these two aspects will be integrated into a single investigation.
This article is written to identify and analyze the regulation of EIA in Presidential Regulation No. 2 of 2022 on Job Creation from the perspective of the green constitution.

B. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
The research methodology employed in this study is normative legal research, focusing on Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) as the research object and examining it through the lens of the green constitution theory.Following Soerjono Soekanto's framework (Soekanto and Mamudji, 2015), normative legal research in this study is conducted on legal principles, legal systematics, and legal synchronization.The method utilized in this research is qualitative with a prescriptive interpretative perspective (Soekanto and Mamudji 2015).Legal materials in this study consist of two types: first, primary materials in the form of legislation, namely the Environmental Management Basic Provisions Law (UUPPLH) and the Omnibus Law on Job Creation.Secondary legal materials include literature related to the green constitution concept.This secondary literature serves the purpose of assessing EIA in alignment with the green constitution concept.In the analysis section, the researcher will delve into relevant literature or secondary data to further explore the research topic.To strengthen the analysis of data findings, the researcher employs several methods correlated with the grand method, such as library research, field research, and bibliographic research (Muhajir 1998:159).

C. Dilemma of Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Regulation in Presidential Regulation No. 2 of 2022 on Job Creation
As a product derived from scientific analysis, the results of Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) studies function as an "early warning system" (Bethan 2008).EIA can be utilized as anticipation and control tools if a business is expected to have significant impacts on the environment and society.In more detail, EIA proves highly valuable for (Sukananda and Nugraha 2020): 1. Providing clear information about a business plan, including the environmental impacts it will generate.In the Case of EIA Comparing the Job Creation Law and its Presidential Regulation.There is no significant difference in the regulation of Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) between the Job Creation Law and its implementing regulation, the Job Creation Presidential Regulation(Izzah.2022).The substantial divergence in EIA regulation is, in fact, found in the previous law, namely Law No. 32 of 2009 concerning Environmental Protection and Management (UUPPLH).In the UUPPLH, EIA is a prerequisite for obtaining an environmental permit.An environmental permit is granted to anyone undertaking activities or projects that require EIA or Environmental Management Efforts (UKL-UPL) as a prerequisite for obtaining business or activity permits (Article 1 paragraph 35 UUPPLH).The environmental permit is issued based on an environmental feasibility decision made by the Minister, governor, or regent/mayor according to their authority based on the assessment of the EIA Assessment Commission or the UKL-UPL recommendation (Article 36).The Minister, governor, or regent/mayor, according to their authority, must reject an environmental permit application if it is not accompanied by EIA or UKL-UPL (Article 37).However, the Job Creation Presidential Regulation eliminates Article 36 of the UUPPLH.
Article 21 of the Job Creation Presidential Regulation explicitly states that "In order to facilitate everyone in obtaining environmental approvals, this Government Regulation in Lieu of Law changes, removes, or establishes new regulations related to Business Licensing regulated in Law No. 32 of 2009 concerning Environmental Protection and Management."This provision implies that the priority of the policy change regarding the environment is not directed towards environmental protection efforts but is more focused on creating a business-friendly climate, even if it means changing regulations related to environmental protection requirements (Parastasia 2024).
However, according to David R. Boyd, policies that prioritize ease of doing business must be balanced with concrete measures that support environmental protection (Boyd 2017).Boyd's perspective reflects environmental justice and concerns about changes in regulations that do not prioritize environmental protection in the business licensing process.He emphasizes that sustainable economies are not achievable without serious environmental protection.Boyd underscores the importance of policies ensuring that businesses are not only benefited but also held accountable for the environmental impacts of their operations.
The enactment of the Job Creation Presidential Regulation (Perppu Cipta Kerja) has replaced the business licensing system within the Environmental Protection and Management Law (UUPPLH), initially based on a license approach, with the implementation of a risk-based approach (RBA) (Febriyanti et al. 2021).Originally, the UUPPLH stipulated that, "Environmental permit is a permit granted to anyone undertaking activities or projects that require EIA or Environmental Management Efforts (UKL-UPL) as a prerequisite for obtaining business or activity permits" (Article 1 Paragraph 35 UUPPLH).The provision regarding Environmental Permits has been altered in the Job Creation Presidential Regulation, now referred to as Environmental Approval, defined as, "Environmental Approval is a decision on environmental feasibility or a statement of environmental management readiness that has obtained approval from the Central Government or Local Government" (Article 22 Paragraph 1 Job Creation Presidential Regulation).This shift implies that, previously, an Environmental Permit was a prerequisite for obtaining business/activity permits, and now environmental approval is no longer a requirement.What is now required is Environmental Approval, which could be a statement of environmental management readiness that has obtained approval from the Central Government or Local Government.
Granting business permits to specific authorities, namely the Central Government or Local Government, without considering environmental permits, is a concrete example of a policy prioritizing business ease without regard for environmental sustainability.Such decisions create a situation where economic and business interests take precedence over environmental preservation.This perspective is affirmed by prominent environmental scholars such as Robert D. Bullard.
According to Bullard, this approach reflects authoritarianism in environmental management (Bullard and Wright 2009).This authoritarianism is evident in the injustice of decision-making processes, where policies are formulated without consideration for vulnerable groups and often sacrifice communities in weaker economic and social situations.In this context, vulnerable groups such as poor communities, ethnic minorities, or socioeconomically disadvantaged groups often become victims of policies that favor business interests without considering their impact on the environment in their living areas.They are more likely to be exposed to environmental risks, such as air and water pollution, which can adversely affect their health and well-being.
On the other hand, the absence of environmental permit requirements has consequences, allowing activities/businesses to proceed while environmental permits are still being processed (Luhukay 2021).t this juncture, the orientation to boost investment in the Job Creation Presidential Regulation poses a threat to environmental sustainability and risks weakening law enforcement (Sitompul 2022).Despite potentially streamlining investment flows (Setiyowati and Edy Lisdiyono 2021), the environmental protection procedural reforms in the Job Creation Presidential Regulation undoubtedly signify a regression in a country's environmental legal framework (Haryosetyo 2021).
In the Minister of Environment Regulation No. 5 of 2012 regarding Types of Business and/or Activities Required to be Accompanied by an Environmental Impact Assessment (AMDAL), several business sectors mandated to have an Environmental Impact Assessment include: multi-sectoral, tourism, energy and mineral resources, satellite technology, forestry, defense, transportation, fisheries and marine, industry, public works, housing and settlement areas, and nuclear energy Pradheksa.etal 2023) In the Job Creation Presidential Regulation, the reduction in AMDAL can be observed in several aspects: First, the participation space in AMDAL formulation for the community as stipulated in Article 25 sub s of UUPPLH is narrowed down only for directly affected and relevant communities (Job Creation Presidential Regulation Article 22 Number 4).Previously, under UUPPLH, environmental observers and/or those affected by any decision in the AMDAL process had to be involved in AMDAL formulation as regulated in Article 26 Paragraph 3 UUPPLH.The Job Creation Presidential Regulation abolishes this provision through Article 22 sub 5, and instead, Article 29 PP 22 of 2021 on Environmental Protection Management determines that, "Environmental observers, researchers, or supporting community-based non-governmental organizations that have nurtured and/or assisted communities directly affected as referred to in paragraph (1) 'may' be involved as part of the directly affected community."With this regulation, civil society organizations playing a role in the environmental sector and advocating for communities threatened or affected by environmentally damaging development are not "required" to participate in AMDAL formulation.However, according to various studies (Kodir and Mushoffa 2017; Rakhman and Haryadi 2020; Rerung 2022; Ruhiat, Heryadi, and -2019), the presence of environmental NGOs has contributed to raising public awareness of environmental preservation through educational activities, campaigns, and advocacy.However, when policy arrangements sideline the active role of civil society organizations in AMDAL formulation, it not only creates injustice in participation but also contradicts democratic values.Joseph S. Nye, a democracy theorist, emphasizes the importance of active involvement of all elements of society in decision-making processes that impact their daily lives (Nye 2004).This includes decisions related to the environment, which have long-term implications for sustainability and community well-being.
Democratization of participation is not just about voting in general elections but also involves involving communities in decisions related to natural resources, the environment, and shared well-being.Introducing perspectives and knowledge from various community groups, including environmental NGOs, is a crucial step toward more inclusive and fair decision-making.Excluding these voices from the AMDAL formulation process not only harms the community but also undermines the essence of democracy, where every voice and perspective should be valued and integrated to achieve decisions that represent common interests.
The presence of environmental NGOs or CSOs can help address public participation issues, including ethical concerns, education, technology use capacity, and more.This is particularly important in cultures where people tend to avoid conflict and find it taboo to criticize higher-ranking authorities, such as the government (Wibawa and Cahya 2019) .
Secondly, the provision that communities can raise objections to the AMDAL document, as stated in Article 26 Paragraph Within the framework of public participation, a model such as rational elitism is employed, where participation doesn't involve the broader public but is specific to those considered to have competence and capacity .This model of public participation is not more advanced than the liberal-democratic model, which requires broad participation from the public, regardless of competence and background.In this view, every member of society has an equal standing and an equal right to participate in the formulation of public policies.However, in practice, while the aspirations of the public are heard, they may not be fully taken into consideration.As a continuation, the deliberative democracy movement emphasizes that society should be involved broadly to accommodate the diversity of fundamental comprehensive values in decision-making related to the environment (Smith 2003; Supriyadi 2014)."Everyone has the right to live prosperous physically and mentally, reside, and obtain a good and healthy environment and is entitled to obtain health."And Article 33 Paragraph (4), which states:

D. Nature as a Legal
"The national economy is organized based on economic democracy with the principles of togetherness, efficiency, fairness, sustainability, environmental insight, self-reliance, and maintaining the balance of progress and national unity."Article 28H Paragraph (1) represents that a healthy environment is part of human rights, while Article 33 Paragraph (4) places environmental insight in the implementation of the national economy.
In summary, the environmental entities in these constitutional articles are positioned as secondary, not primary.Compared to the constitutions of other countries, Indonesia's current constitution significantly lags behind the ideas of eco-constitutionalism or ecosophy, as seen in the constitutions of Ecuador (Pietari 2016), Bolivia, Switzerland, Egypt, France, and New Zealand (Schimmöller 2020) which explicitly support the environment (water, mountains, seas, rivers, forests, wildlife, etc.) as legal subjects (Suryawan and Aris 2020).
Given these considerations, this research refers to the framework of the green constitution conceptualized by Rohmah (2022), dkk dan Fauzan (2021).More than just constitutionalism of environmental legal norms, the green constitution is a critique of the anthropocentric political structure, which is considered a source of environmental damage (Samways 2018).The green constitution can also be understood as a concept of radical constitutionalism for environmental protection by applying the concept of ecosophy (Rantelangan 2023).The concept of ecosophy emphasizes that non-human nature such as animals, plants, mountains, rivers, air, and other non-human entities also have sovereignty (Binawan 2014).
Because they have sovereignty, these non-human entities also have the right to be recognized as legal subjects (Usman 2018).Perhaps, for some, recognizing nature as a legal subject might seem odd.However, history shows that the concept of legal subjects has expanded over time.In ancient times, corporations and women were not recognized as legal subjects.But with the In the context of recognizing nature as a legal subject, the concept of the right of nature (Scarpino and Nash 1990a) or the rights of nature is introduced, although in practice, the implementation of these rights is still represented by Ecosophy and the rights of nature are two concepts that go beyond the concepts of democracy (Lavazza and Farina 2022) and human rights.Democracy and human rights arise from naturalistic-liberal philosophy (Giladi 2014) that marks the anthropocentric paradigm.In Ecuador and Bolivia, the recognition of the rights of nature (Pachamama: Mother Earth) in their constitutions more than a decade ago was articulated as an alternative proposal to global capitalism (Berros 2021).Beyond anthropocentrism, the adoption of the rights of nature in Ecuador also recognizes the historicality of capitalism (Moore 2017) as the source of the global environmental crisis.
As explained in the previous subsection, the Omnibus Law on Job Creation has significantly narrowed the space for public participation in the formulation of environmental impact analyses (Amdal) and the submission of objections to Amdal.The Omnibus Law has also abolished the existence of the Environmental Impact Assessment Commission, which in the previous law required the involvement of the public.Instead, the assessment of Amdal is now entirely entrusted through the Feasibility Test mechanism, with a team consisting only of the Central Government, Regional Government, and certified experts.The reduction of participation in Amdal in the Omnibus Law is not only potentially unconstitutional since the 1945 Constitution guarantees the public's right to participate in the field of the environment (Supriyadi 2014), but it also disregards the rights of nature as a discourse of expanding legal subjects that is currently evolving.By ignoring the rights of nature, the regulation of the concept of participation in the formulation, submission of objections, and assessment of Amdal in the Omnibus Law does not reflect the concept of ecosophy.The logical consequence is that the concept of Amdal in the Omnibus Law also contradicts the principles of the green constitution.
If referring to the ideal concept of a green constitution, there are at least two things that need to be done in the mechanism of formulation, objection submission, and assessment of Amdal documents.First, by strengthening the position of affected communities, the general public, and environmental activists, both individuals and groups, in the formulation, objection submission, and assessment of Amdal documents.Second, introducing nature as a legal subject in the formulation, objection submission, and assessment of Amdal documents.If in Ecuador and Bolivia, the rights of nature are inspired by the concept of pachamama believed by indigenous communities (Espinosa 2019), efforts to adopt the rights of nature in the mechanism of formulation, objection submission, and assessment of Amdal, as well as the constitution, can be done by introducing "Mother Earth" (Samosir and Kakunsi 2022), a concept already familiar to the Indonesian public.The prerequisite for these two points, of course, is a fundamental change in the constitutionalization of environmental norms in the 1945 Constitution to be biosentric/ecocentric.
Several studies have shown that public participation in controlling companies has quantitatively suppressed cases of environmental destruction (Zhang et al. 2023).Narrow participation in the formulation, submission, and assessment of Amdal, besides potentially giving rise to illegitimate Amdal, may also produce Amdal documents whose benefits are only felt by a few people, especially business operators.Therefore, Amdal should ideally be prepared with the broadest possible participation of the community.Amdal prepared without the involvement of environmental activists will result in Amdal whose benefits are tentative.For example, a business may be able to stand and operate, generating profits for its owner.However, the environmental impacts may begin to be felt by the community, and at the most severe level, this could threaten the sustainability of the business/activities itself.
The formulation, objection submission, and assessment of Amdal involving the widest possible community are likely to produce Amdal documents that are certain in their benefits, widely felt by the community, and sustainable, both economically and ecologically (Rohmah, Herawati, and Kholish 2021).Therefore, the Omnibus Law on Job Creation should not revise the provisions of public participation in the UUPPLH.Before Amdal is prepared, ideally, it can already be ensured that the community really needs investment in their environment.If not, then the investment is only the need of the capital owner.The identification of whether or not the community needs a potential environmentally impactful activity/business is necessary, considering the recommendations from the study by Wagner and Suteki (2019), which state that what is needed now is environmental planning and impact assessments that carry a relational approach, based on ethical concerns and the centrality of the people's needs.In this context, broad participation matter of EIA.The enactment of the Job Creation Presidential Regulation was smoother as it was preceded by the removal of one of the MK judges (Wicaksono et al. 2023) who played a significant role in declaring the Job Creation Law unconstitutional.Despite legal challenges, the Constitutional Court rejected all objections to the Job Creation Presidential Regulation (Halim, Amni and Maulana.2023).

( 4 )
of UUPPLH, is eliminated by Article 22 sub 5 of the Job Creation Presidential Regulation.With this regulation, the general public actively involved in environmental issues and civil society organizations working to advocate for communities threatened or affected by environmentally damaging development no longer have the right to object to AMDAL, unless given space to participate by the responsible business/activity owner (Article 29 paragraph 2 PP 22/2021).Thirdly, the requirement for the existence of the AMDAL Commission Team, regulated in Articles 29, 30, and 31 of UUPPLH, is removed by the Job Creation Presidential Regulation.According to Article 30 of UUPLH, Article 30 Paragraph (1), Commission's membership consists of representatives from: a. environmental agencies; b. related technical agencies; c. experts in knowledge related to the type of business and/or activity being studied; d. experts in knowledge related to the impacts arising from a business and/or activity being studied; e. "representatives of the potentially affected community"; and f. "environmental organizations".In Perppu 2 of 2022, AMDAL as the basis for the feasibility test of the Environmental Impact of a business and/or activity plan is conducted by an Environmental Impact Feasibility Test team consisting only of representatives from the Central Government, Regional Government, and certified experts.The government then further technocratically regulates the AMDAL through the Ministry of Environment and Forestry Regulation of the Republic of Indonesia Number 18 of 2021 concerning Competence Certification of Environmental Impact Analysis, Institutions Providing Services for the Preparation of Environmental Impact Analysis, and Environmental Impact Feasibility Tests.
Subject in the Formulation, Objection Submission, and Assessment of Environmental Impact Analyses (Amdal): The Perspective of the Green Constitution The 1945 Constitution is often considered to represent the concept of a green constitution by many authors (Asshiddiqie 2009; Budimansyah et al. 2021; Chaidir and Fudika 2019; Gunawan and Taufik 2023; Hasim 2023; Pinilih 2018; Yusa and Hermanto 2018).However, this assumption is not entirely accurate.The environmental norms in the 1945 Constitution are inherently anthropocentric.In this anthropocentric framework, citizens/humans are still placed at the central position in environmental protection (Rohmah et al. 2022).The 1945 Constitution only has two articles related to the environment, namely Article 28H Paragraph (1), which states: development of capitalism(Tigar and Levy 2000) and egalitarianism, both were acknowledged as legal subjects.Currently, the expansion of legal subjects to nature is also happening, as demonstrated by the recognition of the Whanganui River in New Zealand or the Ganges and Yamuna rivers in India(Shodikin 2023), and several other natural entities elsewhere as legal subjects.
Tobroni 2021).Previously, the Job Creation Law was deemed unconstitutional by the Constitutional Court (MK).The MK declared that the Job Creation Law was procedurally flawed and provided two years for the legislative body to revise it in accordance with the legislative process.However, the government subsequently issued Presidential Regulation No. 2 of 2022 on Job Creation, which, in substance, did not differ from the Job Creation Law (Sumodiningrat 2023),