Global warming due to human activities has become a major factor in climate change, with widespread impacts on the environment, economy, and social life. Climate change causes ecosystem damage, increases the frequency of hydrometeorological disasters, and poses serious challenges to the implementation of environmental law. In this regard, a legal framework that is normative, responsive, and adaptive to the dynamics of climate change is needed. This study aims to analyze the role of environmental law in addressing climate change from a legal philosophy perspective and examine the Climate Village Program in addressing climate change within the environmental legal framework to ensure sustainable development. The research method used is normative juridical research. The findings concerning the role of environmental law in addressing climate change from a legal philosophy perspective indicate that environmental law in Indonesia has a comprehensive legal basis through the ratification of international law on climate change into national law. Furthermore, in progressive legal studies, environmental law is a social engineering tool in encouraging behavioral change, strengthening climate policy, and realizing equitable sustainable development. Regarding the Climate Village Program’s role within the environmental legal framework for ensuring sustainable development, it serves as a progressive legal implementation that positions communities as the primary subjects of policy through a participatory approach in climate change adaptation and mitigation efforts. Therefore, the integration of environmental law and a progressive legal approach is crucial for law to serve as a vehicle for social change to achieve ecological justice and sustainable development.
Malaysia is decentralized, while Indonesia is centralized. However, both countries have natural resources and the right to freely dispose, without interference from other countries. This means that the utilization of coal mining is determined by the policies of each country through regulations. This study is a comparative legal study that raises several issues, namely how state sovereignty over natural resources is regulated in the constitutions of Indonesia and Malaysia, how the coal mining legal systems of the two countries work, and what forms of permits and criminal sanctions are used in the regulation of coal mining in Indonesia and Malaysia. The results of the study show that state sovereignty over Indonesia's natural resources is constitutionally regulated through Article 3 Paragraph (3) of the 1945 Constitution, which states that the earth, water, and natural resources contained therein are controlled by the state for the welfare of the people. Malaysia is constitutionally regulated in Articles 83-91 of the Federal Constitution of the Malay Peninsula of August 31, 1957, which explicitly states that control of land and its management is entrusted to the Malaysian State. The Malaysian coal mining law system is decentralized in terms of licensing, while Indonesia's is centralized and granted by the Ministry of Energy and Mineral Resources, although it was previously decentralized and granted by local governments before the issuance of Law No. 3 of 2020. The types of licenses granted to business actors in Indonesian coal mining law are more varied and not limited to IUPs when compared to the Malaysian state of Selangor. While Indonesia imposes heavier criminal sanctions because they are cumulative with fines, whereas Malaysia imposes alternative sanctions. However, in general, Indonesia's coal mining law system, particularly in terms of licensing, is less consistent compared to Malaysia's law, which has remained decentralized.
Postpartum maternal mortality remains a critical public health and health-law issue in Indonesia, particularly in districts where deaths persist after facility-based childbirth. This article examines postpartum maternal deaths in Brebes Regency, Central Java, and analyzes how failures in early detection, referral coordination, community surveillance, and legal-policy implementation contribute to preventable deaths. Using a qualitative case study design supplemented by document review of maternal death audit materials, health profiles, and MPDSR data, the study draws on focus group discussions, interviews, and policy analysis. The findings show that postpartum deaths are driven not only by clinical complications—hypertensive disorders, hemorrhage, infection, and non-obstetric conditions—but also by systemic vulnerabilities: passive postpartum monitoring, delayed family decision-making, fragmented referrals, weak data integration, and limited community-based surveillance. Although Indonesian health law recognizes maternal care across pregnancy, childbirth, and the postpartum period, it has not yet operationalized a specific community-based early warning mechanism for postpartum follow-up. The article argues that integrating a community-based Early Warning System (EWS) with Maternal and Perinatal Death Surveillance and Response (MPDSR) can transform maternal death review from a retrospective audit into a preventive governance tool. It recommends risk-based postnatal monitoring, referral reform, strengthened community health literacy, and rights-based maternal health regulation to reduce preventable postpartum deaths.
Environmental claims such as “eco-friendly”, “biodegradable” or “carbon neutral” now shape purchasing decisions in Indonesia, yet no Indonesian statute defines greenwashing or sets a standard for substantiating such claims. This article asks whether existing Indonesian law can already qualify greenwashing as an unlawful act, under which legal elements, and what burden-of-proof model should govern environmental claims. Using normative legal research with statutory, conceptual, case and comparative approaches, it analyses Law No. 8 of 1999 on Consumer Protection element by element, its interaction with Law No. 1 of 2024 on Electronic Information and Transactions and the e-commerce rules, Indonesian decisions on misleading claims, and greenwashing decisions from the Netherlands, Germany and Australia. Three findings emerge. First, Articles 8(1)(f), 9(1) and 10 of the Consumer Protection Law are legally capable of covering false and unsubstantiated environmental claims without a new statute. Second, enforcement fails less for want of prohibitions than because of the evidentiary structure: consumers must disprove claims built on information held by the company, while administrative sanctions under Article 60 do not reach Articles 8 to 10. Third, Article 28 of the same law, which already reverses the burden of proving fault in compensation claims, provides a doctrinal foundation for a duty of prior substantiation. The article proposes a substantiation model in which business actors must hold verifiable evidence at the time a claim is made, generic claims are presumptively misleading, and sanctions are graduated by the claim’s seriousness.
The legal problem addressed in this article is no longer whether digital assets possess economic value, but whether Indonesian fiduciary law can create an effective, opposable, and enforceable security interest over assets whose ownership and control are mediated by cryptographic or custodial systems. This study uses doctrinal legal research with statutory, conceptual, case, and comparative approaches. It analyses Law No. 42 of 1999 on Fiduciary Guarantees, the financial-sector framework for digital financial assets and crypto assets, Constitutional Court Decisions No. 18/PUU-XVII/2019 and No. 2/PUU-XIX/2021, and comparative developments in Singapore and the 2022 amendments to the United States Uniform Commercial Code. The study finds that the broad statutory concept of a fiduciary object can conceptually include transferable digital assets, but regulatory recognition of crypto assets does not by itself solve the private-law requirements of specialty, publicity, priority, and enforcement. The principal gap is therefore operational rather than merely definitional: the fiduciary register is not integrated with technical control or regulated custody, while self-custodied assets can be transferred without the creditor’s factual control. The article proposes a two-stage reconstruction that separates asset eligibility from security operability. It recommends technology-neutral eligibility criteria, digital-specific identification standards, registration linked to verifiable control or custodian notice, clearer priority and proceeds rules, and due-process-compliant enforcement. This reconstruction preserves the closed structure of property security while adapting its mechanisms to digital collateral.
