In a welcome decision, the Jakarta High Court has rejected an attempt by the asbestos industry to silence and financially cripple consumer organisations and health advocates speaking out about the dangers of chrysotile asbestos. Indonesia’s Asbestos Fibre Cement Manufacturers’ Association (FICMA) had launched a strategic lawsuit against public participation, suing a consumer protection agency and individual campaigners for Rp. 790 billion (around USD 75 million). The case claimed alleged future losses linked to a 2024 Supreme Court ruling that upheld mandatory health warning labels on asbestos products — a decision secured through legal action by consumer groups. The court’s ruling marks a significant defeat for the asbestos industry and a win for public health advocacy.
Responding to the decision of PT DKI, Leo Yoga Pranata, one of the defendants representing LPKSM Yasa Nata Budi, said that the Judge’s Decision was an affirmation of the importance of the label and warning on every asbestos product.
“We are grateful to FICMA for the commotion they made; finally, all of Indonesia and the world know that the asbestos they traded in Indonesia has spread carcinogenic risks for decades. Now they have to put a label and health warning because it has been decided by the Supreme Court and confirmed by PT DKI,” he said.
Some parts of the ruling were perplexing and concerning
While a win in terms of no defamation findings, other parts of the judgment were perplexing. Coordinator of INABAN, Darisman, emphasised that the decision of the Jakarta High Court, on the one hand, gave clarity that the labelling is warranted, but on the other hand, created new ambiguities in the community. The court ruling also stated that chrysotile asbestos is still needed in Indonesia, is not dangerous, and protected by the law. The Director of LION Indonesia, Mr Surya Ferdian, said that the judge’s decision that chrysotile asbestos was not dangerous had created legal uncertainty. This, according to him, will in fact put Indonesian workers and consumers at risk of asbestos exposure.
“If this is used and becomes a precedent in the future, it may be that many lethal chemicals will be decided to be legal by a Court because they are seen by judges to be that way. “
A misunderstanding of the Rotterdam Convention
The Head of the Advocacy Team, Dadan J Priandana, agreed, saying there were a number of irregularities that had been made by the panel of judges.
Dadan said the PT DKI judge had exceeded the authority granted by the judicial power law.
“What is striking is that the judge decided that chrysotile asbestos was needed, not dangerous, and was protected by the ratification of the Rotterdam Convention. This decision creates a new legal norm that is declarative regarding the nature of a chemical substance. The PT judge does not have that authority,” he said. It is expected that this part of the decision will be appealed.
Union Aid Abroad–APHEDA and LION Indonesia would like to thank all those who submitted statements to the court and provided advice and support to the defendants over the last 18 months.