Forestry law enforcement in Indonesia faces serious challenges, especially in ensuring consistency between criminal verdicts and the application of administrative sanctions. A key instrument in the forestry legal regime is the revocation of Forest Utilization Business Licenses (PBPH) as an administrative sanction for serious violations, such as illegal logging. However, in practice, there are indications of failure in implementing these sanctions. The case of PT Cakra Sejati Sempurna (PT CSS) serves as a clear example of how the mismatch between court rulings and administrative policies risks damaging the integrity of Indonesia’s forestry legal system.
Regulatory Framework: PBPH Revocation in Ministerial Regulation (Permen) LHK No. 8 of 2021
Regulation of the Minister of Environment and Forestry (Permen LHK) Number 8 of 2021 concerning Forest Management and Preparation of Forest Management Plans, as well as Forest Utilization in Protected Forests and Production Forests, comprehensively regulates the governance of forest utilization business licensing, including the administrative sanction mechanism. This regulation emphasizes that administrative sanctions imposed by the government on PBPH holders include written warnings, administrative fines, suspension, and up to the revocation of the license. License revocation is the heaviest form of sanction that can be imposed if the violation is serious or repeated. This provision is regulated in Chapter X regarding administrative sanctions, which explicitly includes license revocation as a law enforcement instrument.
Article 365 of Permen LHK Number 8 of 2021 lists several grounds for license revocation, namely:
- Failing to carry out real field activities within 1 (one) year after the PBPH is issued;
- Not paying Non-Tax State Revenue (PNPB) in accordance with statutory provisions;
- Abandoning the work area;
- Transferring the PBPH without the approval of the grantor;
- Being declared bankrupt by a district court;
- Being subject to a criminal sanction that has final and binding legal force (incracht); and/or
- Failing to execute administrative sanction orders for PBPH suspension.
Thus, normatively, perpetrators of forestry crimes such as illegal logging should not only face criminal penalties but also lose their administrative rights to manage the forest.
The Case of PT Cakra Sejati Sempurna
PT Cakra Sejati Sempurna (PT CSS) holds a natural forest concession (PBPH) covering ± 42,135 Ha in Murung Raya Regency, Central Kalimantan Province, operating in the forestry sector and producing roundwood.1 In January 2024, the National Police Criminal Investigation Agency (Bareskrim Polri) released investigation results proving that PT CSS engaged in illegal logging outside its concession area covering 300 ha, which took place from November 28 to December 1, 2023. Police seized evidence consisting of 163 stumps or approximately 1,613 cubic meters of wood.2
Initially, based on the Muara Teweh District Court ruling3, PT CSS was not proven legally and convincingly guilty of illegal logging. Subsequently, the Independent Assessment and Verification Agency (LPVI) PT Borneo Wanajaya Indonesia (PT BWI) conducted an initial Sustainable Forest Management (PHL) performance assessment audit on PT CSS, resulting in a “Moderate” performance rating. Consequently, a PHL Certificate (S-PHL) for PT CSS was issued by PT BWI.4
On May 14, 2025, Kaoem Telapak sent a complaint letter to the National Accreditation Committee (KAN) as the agency that accredits and assesses the performance of LPVI PT BWI. One point of complaint concerned the issuance of the Legality and Sustainability Verification System (SVLK) certificate to PT CSS, despite a cassation ruling stating that PT CSS was legally and convincingly proven guilty of a corporate crime: “Intentionally harvesting or collecting forest products within the forest without having the rights or approval from authorized officials.”5 This cassation ruling overturned the Muara Teweh District Court’s verdict.
LPVI PT BWI conducted a special audit after receiving the complaint. The special audit results denied that the ruling was final, arguing that a Judicial Review (PK) was still in process.6 However, Article 66 paragraph (2) of Law Number 3 of 2009 concerning the Supreme Court explains that “A request for judicial review does not suspend or stop the execution of a Court ruling.” Thus, although there was a PK attempt against Cassation Ruling Number 5741 K/Pid.Sus-LH/2024, that attempt could not suspend or stop the execution of the court’s decision. This was further reinforced by the PK ruling on October 28, 2025, which rejected PT CSS’s application.7 Consequently, Cassation Ruling Number 5741 K/Pid.Sus-LH/2024 remains in effect.
Based on a re-examination of the special audit results, in November 2025, LPVI PT BWI subsequently revoked PT CSS’s Sustainable Forest Management Certificate (S-PHL). According to Decree (SK) 9895 of 2022 concerning SVLK Standards and Guidelines, grounds for S-PHL revocation include point c: “Having received a final and binding legal decision (incracht van gewijsde) due to violations including: logging outside designated blocks, human rights violations, buying/receiving/storing/processing/selling illegal timber, and/or forest burning in its work area.”8
Disconnection between Court Rulings and Administrative Sanctions
With that final and binding court decision, the Ministry of Forestry (Kemenhut) should have applied the sanction of revoking PT CSS’s PBPH. Kaoem Telapak sent several reports to Kemenhut urging for the revocation. However, in April 2026, PT CSS regained its Sustainable Forest Management Certificate (S-PHL) through LPVI PT Intishar Sadira Eshan.9 Consequently, all roundwood produced by PT CSS will again be labeled with the SVLK certificate. This situation shows that despite being criminally proven guilty, their legal access to their PBPH continues and the market remains open.
A criminal verdict should be a strong basis for follow-up administrative action, such as license revocation. Revocation is the logical consequence of serious violations that damage the forest ecosystem. Without PBPH revocation, the same company potentially risks returning to illegal forest exploitation.
A final and binding criminal verdict for forestry violations is a serious indicator of company non-compliance. LPVI also plays a crucial role in ensuring that SVLK implementation is carried out properly by forestry business licenses. LPVI should not only wait for the PBPH revocation by Kemenhut as the sole basis for denying or revoking certification. The audit process should be more proactive in assessing legality risks and sustainability within the system. Permen LHK No. 8 of 2021 clearly states in Article 342 paragraph 3 that besides the government, control activities over forest management, utilization, processing, and legality assurance can be carried out by LPVIs appointed by the Minister. This emphasizes LPVI’s responsibility. Unfortunately, in this case, the certification agency failed to do so to protect the credibility of the SVLK.
Conclusion
The Legality and Sustainability Verification System (SVLK) is meant to ensure Indonesian timber products come from legal and sustainably managed sources, yet companies can still undergo certification processes, highlighting the weak integration of law enforcement data with the certification system. The SVLK, which should be an international standard, could lose credibility if companies proven to have violated the law can still obtain certification. This happens because Kemenhut, certification agencies, and law enforcement agencies operate within frameworks that are not yet fully integrated, so court rulings do not automatically trigger administrative sanctions. This mismatch creates a bad precedent in Indonesia’s legal system.
The case of PT CSS reflects the weak implementation of law enforcement policies rather than a lack of regulation. Normatively, Permen LHK No. 8 of 2021 already provides a strong basis for license revocation. The main problem lies in the absence of an automatic revocation mechanism based on court rulings, poor inter-agency coordination, and potential conflicts of interest in the forestry sector. In this context, the government has actually shown the ability to collectively revoke problematic PBPHs, such as the revocation of 18 licenses in early 202510 and 22 licenses in early 2026 following disasters in northern Sumatra.11 However, inconsistency in individual cases like PT CSS points to a problem of selective implementation.
The failure to apply administrative sanctions in the form of PBPH revocation against PT Cakra Sejati Sempurna signifies a serious loophole in Indonesia’s forestry law enforcement system. When court rulings are not followed by firm administrative action, the principle of the rule of law is weakened. Without concrete steps, efforts to eradicate illegal logging will only remain symbolic, while the practice continues on the ground.
List of References
- Decree of the Minister of Environment and Forestry No. SK.17/Menlhk/Setjen/HPL.0/1/2022 dated January 02, 2022.
- TribataNews Lamongan Resort Police, East Java: National Police Criminal Investigation Agency (Bareskrim Polri) Holds a Press Conference at PT KWI Lamongan Regarding Illegal Logging in Central Kalimantan, accessed on April 03, 2026.
- Muara Teweh District Court Number 30/Pid.B/LH/2024 PN Mtw dated May 22, 2024.
- S-PHL Certificate number 019/BWI-SPHL with a validity period of July 04, 2024, to July 03, 2030.
- Decision of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Indonesia Number 5741 K/Pid.sus-LH/2024 dated August 27, 2024.
- Results of the Special Audit on the PHL (Sustainable Forest Management) Performance Assessment of PT CSS by PT BWI, 2025.
- Ruling Number 2016 PK/Pid.Sus-LH/2025 dated October 28, 2025.
- Revocation of PT CSS’s S-PHL by LPVI PT BWI, 2025.
- Announcement of the results of PT CSS’s PHL performance assessment by LPVI PT ISE, 2026.
