Perbedaan Sanksi Pidana dan Peran Pendidikan Lingkungan Non-Formal dalam Penegakan Hukum Pengelolaan Sampah Korporasi: Studi Perbandingan Dua Putusan Pengadilan Negeri Tangerang

Background International attention to Indonesia’s exposure to the global waste trade has grown since China’s National Sword policy (2018) diverted waste flows to Southeast Asia. Indonesian legal scholarship has largely focused on administrative/civil liability or Tragedy of the Commons theory, while empirical case studies grounded in verifiable primary rulings remain scarce, as does attention to education as a preventive complement to criminal sanctions. This study addresses both gaps through a comparative case study of two corporate environmental criminal cases decided by the Tangerang District Court. Methods A qualitative legal case study using documentary technique on two rulings: Tangerang District Court Ruling No. 1834/Pid.Sus/2020/PN Tng (PT Indonesia Toray Synthetics, verbatim primary source) and Ruling No. 1606/PID.B/LH/2022/PN TNG (PT Advance Recycle Technology, reconstructed from the prosecutor’s statement and cross-verified through four media outlets). Data were analyzed against Law No. 32/2009 and the theories of Tragedy of the Commons and Unequal Ecological Exchange. Results PT Indonesia Toray Synthetics was proven to have dumped hazardous waste (B3) without a permit (Articles 60/104) and was fined Rp300 million plus a clean-up obligation. PT Advance Recycle Technology was proven to have imported waste across the border without a permit (Articles 105/106/116/118–119) and was fined Rp4 billion, with no additional sanction reported in the available sources. An observed contrast emerged between fine size and the presence of a remedial sanction across these two cases. Conclusion Indonesian courts can impose meaningful criminal sanctions, but the Article 119 remedial sanction was applied inconsistently across the two cases examined, particularly in the larger cross-border case. Recommended reforms include standardizing remedial sanctions, strengthening cross-border verification, improving public access to rulings, and expanding non-formal environmental legal education (Article 65(2)) to address the detection gap revealed by both cases, including a proposed corporate-facing education model.