Source: http://inefamily.web.id/legal-standing/?replytocom=111
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 10:03:48+00:00

Document:
These are questions for online middle semester exam in “legal standing” subject. You only need to answer one question according to Your number at presence list. Please give Your answer in English. Your answer must be submitted before 31st December 2014.
1. Please explain definition of environment according to Act Number 32 Year 2009.
2. Please explain definition of sustainable development according to Act Number 32 Year 2009.
3. Please explain definition of environmental pollution according to Act Number 32 Year 2009.
4. Please explain the environmental standars parameter according to Act Number 32 Year 2009.
5. Please explain definition of environmental disputes according to Act Number 32 Year 2009.
6. Please explain some legal efforts to solve environmental disputes according to Act Number 32 Year 2009.
7. Please explain the characteristics of class action.
8. Please explain the characteristic of citizen lawsuit according to Act Number 32 Year 2009.
9. Please explain about citizen lawsuit in United States.
10. Please explain about citizen lawsuit in India.
11. Please explain the characteristics of legal standing according to Act Number 32 Year 2009.
12. Please explain the benefit of legal standing for society.
13. Please explain the benefit of legal standing for natural resources sustainability.
15. Please explain legal standing case between WALHI versus Kejaksaan Negeri Mojokerto.
16. Please explain the problems in legal standing of Lumpur Lapindo case.
17. Please explain the purposes of legal standing of Lumpur Lapindo case.
18. Please explain technical factor of Lumpur Lapindo case.
19. Please explain economic factor of Lumpur Lapindo case.
20. Please explain political factor of Lumpur Lapindo case.
21. Please explain negative impacts of Lumpur Lapindo case.
22. Please explain legal standing conclusion in environmental aspect of Lumpur Lapindo case.
23. Please explain legal standing conclusion in social aspect of Lumpur Lapindo case.
24. Please explain legal standing conclusion in economic aspect of Lumpur Lapindo case.
25. Please explain legal standing conclusion in legal aspect of Lumpur Lapindo case.
26. Please explain about standing doctrine (vide material teaching page 3).
27. Please explain ethical significance of legal standing doctrine (vide material teaching page 4).
28. Please explain the Frothingham v. Mellon case (vide material teaching page 5).
29. Please explain the Adler V. Board of Education case (vide material teaching page 7).
30. Please explain the Warth v. Seldin case (vide material teaching page 10).
31. Please explain the Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife case (vide material teaching page 11).
32. Please explain some questions of normative inquiry in legal standing (vide material teaching page 15).
32. Please explain the Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Environmental Services (TOC), Inc case (vide material teaching page 16).
33. Please explain qui tam action in legal standing (vide material teaching page 22).
34. Please explain legal standing case of Brown vs Board of Education of Topeka.
35. Please explain legal standing case of Dred Scott vs Sandford.
36. Please explain legal standig case Roe vs Wade.
37. Please explain legal standing case Loving vs Virginia.
38. Please explain legal standing case Gideon vs Wainwright.
legal standing lawsuit was first recognized by the courts in Indonesia in 1988.ie when the Central Jakarta District Court received the lawsuit Foundation Indonesian Environmental Forum (WALHI) to 5 government agencies and PT.Inti Indorayon Utama (PT.IIU). WALHI lawsuit is a lawsuit in which the plaintiff is not the first time to appear in court as a patient, but as an organization representing the public interest, namely the protection of the interests of pursuing the carrying capacity of ecosystems and environmental functions.
ie when the Central Jakarta District Court received the lawsuit Foundation Indonesian Environmental Forum (WALHI) to 5 government agencies and PT.Inti Indorayon Utama (PT.IIU). WALHI lawsuit is a lawsuit in which the plaintiff is not the first time to appear in court as a patient, but as an organization representing the public interest, namely the protection of the interests of pursuing the carrying capacity of ecosystems and environmental functions.
filing a lawsuit, in the which one or more persons WHO Represent the group filed a lawsuit to Themselves or Themselves, and Also represents a group of a polynomial, the which have in common the fact or legal basis between representatives of groups and members of the group.
class action lawsuit is not identical to the legal standing of environmental organizations (Legal Standing of the Organization Environment) due to the application of the concept of class action more developed in countries that regulate the Anglo-Saxon system. Then the class action in Indonesia is a very new concept and has not been understood by the state law enforcement and legal practitioners at the time it was mixed with the concept of right to sue environmental organizations.
differences in class action and the right to sue conceptually environmental organizations namely: class action consists of the class representatives (numbered 1 or more) and class members (large amounts). The second element is the victim / the real loss (concrete / real). whereas the concept of right to sue environmental organizations (legal standing), environmental organizations as the plaintiff was not a person who suffers a real loss, but rather as representing the interests of environmental protection. concept of environmental organizations represented in the lawsuit is the concept of representation in terms of a relatively abstract.
Your score is 95. Thank you, Parlindungan.
sustainable development according to Act Number 32 Year 2009 is a conscious and deliberate effort that combines aspects of environmental, social and economic development strategies to ensure the environmental integrity and safety, capability, well-being and quality of life of the present generation and future generations.
Your score is 80. Thank you, dear Isty.
Your score is 80. Thank you, Daniel.
a) Lapindo mud disaster that was just inundated four villages now been expanded to 16 villages, this means that more than 728 hectares have been inundated. In this area there is not only inundated homes, but there are educational facilities, factories, and government offices were also flooded. With this condition will automatically many people who not only lost their homes but also lose their livelihoods and there will be many children who lost their place to study.
Impact of PAHs present in the Lapindo mud on society and the environment may not be felt now, but will be felt in a period of five to ten years. In addition it should also be aware that turns Lapindo mud and sediment Porong River lead content of its very large, reaching 146 times the predetermined threshold.
c) The occurrence of Lapindo mud disaster has also disrupt economic activity in East Java. This is due to the closure of toll roads Surabaya-Gempol until an unspecified time. As we know, the city of Surabaya is the capital of East Java, so a lot of economic activity that goes there. With the closing of the highway Surabaya-Gempol, automatically lead to a lot of congestion occurring, especially in an alternative way to Surabaya. The closure of this highway is also an impact on production activity in Mojokerto and Pasuruan region which is one of the main industrial area in East Java. Lapindo mud disaster has also been made in the areas inundated land into sinkhole and damaged some water pipes belonging to the taps. A PLN SUTET also submerged in this disaster. This resulted in residents near the highway Porong difficulty in getting clean water, electricity, and telephone networks.
It can be seen that the Lapindo mudflow disaster has many negative impacts to the surrounding community and economic activity in East Java.
Your score is 75. Thank you, Putra.
under article 1 number 14 of Law Number 32 year 2009 describes the environmental pollution is entered or the inclusion of a living being, substance, energy, and / or other components into the environment by human activities that exceed the environmental quality standards that have been set.
Your score is 75. Thank you, Jerry.
The Adler V. Board of Education case, in that case, an employee of the New York City Board of Education brought a suit seeking a determination that a New York law was unconstitutional, and seeking to enjoin the Board of Education from implementing it. The majority found no constitutional infirmity in the statute. Justice Frankfurter, in his dissenting opinion, argued that “we should adhere to the teaching of this Court’s history to avoid constitutional adjudications on merely abstract or speculative issues and to base them on the concreteness afforded by an actual, present, defined controversy, appropriate for judicial judgment, between adversaries immediately affected by it.” He argued that the jurisdiction of the Court was limited “by the settled construction of Article III of the Constitution. We cannot entertain, as we again recognize this very day, a constitutional claim at the instance [sic] of one whose interest has no material significance and is undifferentiated from the mass of his fellow citizens.” Apparently, by that date, at least in the mind of Justice Frankfurter, the plaintiff’s interest must be materially significant and differentiated from a generalized grievance to meet the constitutional requirements for standing. Though now elevated to constitutional requirements, this position is consistent with the claim that standing is conferred so long as the law – either common law or statute – has conferred upon the plaintiff a cause of action, giving her the required interest.
Your score is 80. Thank you, syarmono.
The Supreme Court of Appeals upheld the constitutionality of the antimiscegenation statutes and, after [388 U.S. 1, 4] modifying the sentence, affirmed the convictions. 2 The Lovings appealed this decision, and we noted probable jurisdiction on December 12, 1966, 385 U.S. 986 .
Other central provisions in the Virginia statutory scheme are 20-57, which automatically voids all marriages between “a white person and a colored person” without any judicial proceeding, 3 and 20-54 and 1-14 which, [388 U.S. 1, 5] respectively, define “white persons” and “colored persons and Indians” for purposes of the statutory prohibitions. 4 The Lovings have never disputed in the course of this litigation that Mrs. Loving is a “colored person” or that Mr. Loving is a “white person” within the meanings given those terms by the Virginia statutes.
Your score is 80. Thank you, fredy.
Roe (P), a pregnant single woman, brought a class action suit challenging the constitutionality of the Texas abortion laws. These laws made it a crime to obtain or attempt an abortion except on medical advice to save the life of the mother.
Other plaintiffs in the lawsuit included Hallford, a doctor who faced criminal prosecution for violating the state abortion laws; and the Does, a married couple with no children, who sought an injunction against enforcement of the laws on the grounds that they were unconstitutional. The defendant was county District Attorney Wade (D).
A three-judge District Court panel tried the cases together and held that Roe and Hallford had standing to sue and presented justiciable controversies, and that declaratory relief was warranted. The court also ruled however that injunctive relief was not warranted and that the Does’ complaint was not justiciable.
Roe and Hallford won their lawsuits at trial. The district court held that the Texas abortion statutes were void as vague and for overbroadly infringing the Ninth and Fourteenth Amendment rights of the plaintiffs. The Does lost, however, because the district court ruled that injunctive relief against enforcement of the laws was not warranted.
The Does appealed directly to the Supreme Court of the United States and Wade cross-appealed the district court’s judgment in favor of Roe and Hallford.
The Court held that, in regard to abortions during the first trimester, the decision must be left to the judgment of the pregnant woman’s doctor. In regard to second trimester pregnancies, states may promote their interests in the mother’s health by regulating abortion procedures related to the health of the mother. Regarding third trimester pregnancies, states may promote their interests in the potentiality of human life by regulating or even prohibiting abortion, except when necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother.
The Supreme Court held that litigation involving pregnancy, which is “capable of repetition, yet evading review,” is an exception to the general rule that an actual controversy must exist at each stage of judicial review, and not merely when the action is initiated.
The Court held that while 28 U.S.C. § 1253 does not authorize a party seeking only declaratory relief to appeal directly to the Supreme Court, review is not foreclosed when the case is brought on appeal from specific denial of injunctive relief and the arguments on the issues of both injunctive and declaratory relief are necessarily identical.
The Does’ complaint seeking injunctive relief was based on contingencies which might or might not occur and was therefore too speculative to present an actual case or controversy. It was unnecessary for the Court to decide Hallford’s case for injunctive relief because once the Court found the laws unconstitutional, the Texas authorities were prohibited from enforcing them.
At the time of the Indonesian elect their new president today the Lapindo case has entered its eight years. Until now, the mudflow has not yet come to end. The delay in payment of compensation is just one thing that frequently emerges. In Porong, there are many other socio-ecological risks resulting from the unstoppable mudflow.
Problems arose when Lapindo faltered to meet the payment. By December 16, 2013 Lapindo has completed nearly 80 per cent of all of its liabilities. This contravened the regulation that mentions Lapindo must complete the payment no later than two years after victims signed the contract. Yet, the president has never forced Lapindo to finalize its obligations. Some victims see this as a form of waiver of the right of citizens. On that basis, some victims filed a judicial review against Law No. 15/2013 concerning the amendment of the 2013 APBN to the Constitutional Court. They raised an issue of discrimination to the victims ‘inside the map’ because most victims ‘outside the map’ have been fully paid by the government.
The judicial review was submitted on September 19, 2013 and was granted by the Court on March 26, 2014. The decision was based on the argument that the government is obliged to meet the rights of its citizens, including the victims ‘inside the map.’ However, the decision has given rise to multiple interpretations among three stakeholders of the case: the victims, the government and Lapindo. And the victims have to wait for the regulation to implement the decision. Without it, the situation will not be much different from now.
Unfortunately, during this time Lapindo has been framing its action in compensating victims as a moral responsibility rather than a legal obligation. The frame is ‘charity.’ This means, instead of compensating something that has been taken from, Lapindo is just in the beginning of giving something to the victims. Of course, gift is never free. Many victims felt indebted to Lapindo. As such, they are willing to be Lapindo’s spokespersons when there is a condemnation against Lapindo or its affiliated actors. In short, the concept of charity has raised horizontal conflict between victims. As a result, victims’ struggle will always be partial.
While public’s attention drawn to Porong, more ecological risks arise elsewhere. There is, for example, a dispute between Lapindo and villagers in the east side of the eruption. Their file had not passed the verification and therefore they have not yet received compensation. They prohibit BPLS to embank on their land. The mud continues to flow to the East through the Ketapang River and threatens the lives of residents along the river.
Data from the Sidoarjo Office of Fisheries and Marine shows that the production of fisheries in the district has dropped significantly in the last few years as a result of mud disposal to the Madura Strait through the Porong Canal. Some foreign investors in shrimp industries began to search for another location leaving fish farmers struggling by themselves in facing environmental degradation resulting from the mud pollution.
Ecological risks are also detected in the Pasuruan and Mojokerto districts where some hills are almost flatted to the ground. There has been a surge in demand for materials from the embankment and toll road relocation projects.
Thus, instead of reducing the danger the mudflow mitigation has led to the creation of new ecological risks in Porong. Unfortunately, the government seems blind to these risks and stuck on the compensation issue.
There are several challenges for the new president of Indonesia related to Lapindo case. First, the president has to ensure the smooth payment of compensation to the victim. Second, the president also has to guarantee that mitigatory actions will not be the trigger for more social-ecological risks.
Third, the president has to ensure law enforcement over the Lapindo case. Although the court had decided the mudflow as a natural disaster, yet the verdict was based on an odd mechanism: voting. Three of four expert witnesses presented at the hearing supported the earthquake assumption and only one supported the drilling assumption. The discrepancy behind the court was almost never revealed publicly. The common discourse is more about the decision ‘Lapindo is not guilty.’ Therefore, ‘political will’ from the president in reopening the Lapindo case and bringing it to a fair trial is required.
Fourth, as for the Lapindo case has resulted in a trauma and terror in mining industries in Indonesia, the biggest challenge of the new president is to ensure that there will be no more industrial disaster occurred in Indonesia.
Your score is 70. Thank you, Lidya.
The Sidoarjo mud flow or Lapindo mud (informally abbreviated as Lusi, a contraction of Lumpur Sidoarjo wherein lumpur is the Indonesian word for mud) is the result of an erupting mud volcano in the subdistrict of Porong, Sidoarjo in East Java, Indonesia that has been in eruption since May 2006. It is the biggest mud volcano in the world; responsibility for it was credited to the blowout of a natural gas well drilled by PT Lapindo Brantas, although some scientists and company officials contend it was caused by a distant earthquake.
At its peak Lusi spewed up to 180,000 m³ of mud per day. By mid August 2011, mud was being discharged at a rate of 10,000 m³ per day, with 15 bubbles around its gushing point. This was a significant decline from the previous year, when mud was being discharged at a rate of 100,000 cubic metres per day with 320 bubbles around its gushing point. It is expected that the flow will continue for the next 25 to 30 years. Although the Sidoarjo mud flow has been contained by levees since November 2008, resultant floodings regularly disrupt local highways and villages, and further breakouts of mud are still possible.
Your score is 70. Thank you, erwin.
Factors that hinder enforcement of environmental law in the case of Lapindo Among other factors Legal / Law ie, at the time of the Lapindo mud disaster, the Government does not yet have clear rules regarding the caused disasters are human-Also a natural disaster, so that the President issued Presidential Decree No. 14 year 2007 on BPLS. Factors that Law Enforcement, Police Investigators as in the case of violation of this corporation would not have the capacity or capability related to engineering and drilling mechanism. In addition, the head of the region should be Able to do a good observation, but the memories are not implemented a. Facilities and infrastructure Also Affect law enforcement Because it is in the lack of tools or advanced technology. Culture of corruption Also hamper enforcement of environmental laws, since the implementation of the compensation of the affected land purchase is not working as it should.
Decision PT Jakarta June 13, 2008: Strengthening the Central Jakarta District Court’s decision of 27 November 2007 that the presence of Sidoarjo Mud events as more dominant tendency of natural phenomena, not human error. Decision of the Supreme Court of Cassation 3 April 2009: Rejecting the request of Cassation Legal Aid Foundation, that mud is a natural phenomenon and not the fault of the industry and this decision has permanent legal force (inkracht).
Do not stop there, WALHI also sued Legal Standing Central Jakarta District Court, but the South Jakarta District Court Decision December 27, 2007: Rejecting the entire lawsuit WALHI. WALHI also filed an appeal against the decision of the South Jakarta District Court, but the verdict PT Jakarta, October 27, 2008 upheld the ruling South Jakarta District Court December 27, 2007: A burst of hot mud in Sidoarjo diebabkan natural phenomena. Letter Registrar South Jakarta District Court January 14, 2009: the states each party not filed its objection, so legally Decision PT Jakarta, October 27, 2008 has permanent legal force (inkracht).
Humans have a reciprocal relationship with the environment. Activities affect the environment. Instead, humans are also influenced by the environment. Thus there is a reciprocal relationship between humans as individuals or groups or communities and their environment.
At the time of the Lapindo mud disaster, the Government does not yet have clear rules regarding the caused disasters are human-Also a natural disaster, so that the President issued Presidential Decree No. 14 of 2007 on BPLS.
Because pollution can be harmful to the environment. Then there must be an attempt to defend the interests of the environment. Environment as a common property must be represented by WHO parties have no direct interest. In this case diwakli by environmental Organizations. The suit in the environment does not require compensation but DEMANDED to perform on certain actions that restore the environment to its previous state.
Yourscore is 85. Thank you, Rizky.
soal :Please explain about standing doctrine (vide material teaching page 3).
The environmental standard parameter according to Act Number 32 Year 2009 is environmental quality standard.
Environmental quality standard is size limits or levels of living creatures, substances, energy, or components or elements that exist or must exist and/or pollutant or the existence of which in a certain resource as environmental elements.
Determination of environmental pollution is measured through environmental quality standard.
g. another quality standards in accordance with development of science and technology.
explain the Frothingham v. Mellon cas. The supramw cort first articulated the bar to citizen and taxpayer standing during these years, for instance in 1923, in frothingham V. mellon, the planitiff sued, as a taxpayer, to restrain federal expenditures under and maternity act of 1921, an act intended to raduce infant and maternal mortality.
have no power per se to review and annul acts of Congress on the ground that they are unconstitutional. The question may be considered only when the justification for some direct injury suffered or threatened, presenting a justiciable issue, is made to rest upon such an act…. The party who invokes the power must be able to show not only that the statute is invalid but that he has sustained or is immediately in danger of sustaining some direct injury as the result of its enforcement, and not merely that he suffers in some indefinite way in common with people generally.
This case is considered the beginning of the doctrine of standing. Prior to it the doctrine was that all persons had a right to pursue a private prosecution of a public right.
The Warren Court would later carve out an exception to this rule in Flast v. Cohen, but later cases have confirmed that Flast is an exceedingly limited exception to Frothingham’s general rule (see Valley Forge Christian College v. Americans United for Separation of Church and State and Hein v. Freedom From Religion Foundation).
Yoir score is 70. Thank you, Ratih.
The first attempt Dred Scott made to achieve his freedom was to try to purchase his and his family’s way out of slavery. In April of 1846, three years after Dr. Emerson died, Dred Scott tried to make a deal with Dr. Emerson’s widow, Eliza Emerson. The deal was that if he paid her $300, she would set them free. Eliza Emerson was formerly Eliza Sanford before she was married, and it would be her brother, John Sanford, who would become the Sanford in Dred Scott vs Sandford. Eliza Emerson turned down Dred Scott’s offer, preferring to keep him as a slave. As a result of this, Scott sought redress in a Missouri court in 1846.
Abraham Lincoln, a Republican politician, used the Dred Scott decision and the resulting fear of the expansion of slavery to propel himself to prominence as his party’s Presidential candidate. After Lincoln’s election in 1860, the Southern states acted on their threat to secede. Eleven of the Southern states formed the Confederate States of America in 1861 and the United States Civil War began, lasting until 1865. Instead of the Dred Scott ruling sparing America from any further divisions, it helped cause a war that cost more lives than the total of fatalities suffered of any war America has participated in, before or since.
Yoir score is 75. Thank you, I ketut.
the past few decades – an overjudicialization of the processes of selfgovernance.
seas, exempting from the Endangered Species Act actions by U.S.
Your score is 75. Thank you, Aing.
Congress creation of the qui tam actionand informers action also undercut the view the article III bars congressionally authorized citizen actions. Early congress created numerous qui tam statutes,with the purpose of giving citizens the right to bring civil suits to help enforce criminal law. Under the qui tam action,a citizen could bring suit against those who violated the law. Many statutes in the first decade of the nations existence allowed for qui tam actions;these included statutes criminalizing liquor importation without the payment of duties. As the supreme court explained in 1905, “statutes providing for action by a common informer,who himself had no interest whatever in the controbersy other than that given by statute,have been in existence for hunders of years in enhland,and in this country ever since the foundation of our government. Similarly, early conhress created informers action,through which private citizens could bring suit to enforce public duties and keep a shere of the resulting fi e damages. The informers action could be applied both against private i dividuals and public officers. There is no evidence in the historical record that anyone harbored any doubts about the constitutionality of what where i essence citizens suits.
Your score is 75. Thank you, Agustina.
Your score is 70. Thank you, Noor Aeni.
33.The relevance of this Decree Law Tax Since the St-Hilaire decision, the Canadian Parliament has enacted the Federal Law Civil Law Harmonization Act, No. 1,  which entered into force on June 1, 2001. One provision in particular warrants a closer look. This is a new section 8.1 of the Interpretation Act,  which reads as follows: 8.1 Both the common law and civil law is the same source of authoritative and recognized property rights and civil law in Canada and, unless otherwise provided by law, if in interpreting an enactment should refer to provincial rules, principles or concepts that form part of the law property and civil rights, reference should be made to the rules, principles and concepts in force in the province at the time of entry into force is being applied. The principle of complementarity has been recognized and applied by the courts. The new section 8.1 of the Interpretation Act, which applies to all federal enactments, including tax laws, asserts that federal law complementary with provincial private law is the rule, unless otherwise provided by law. This new section provides a two-stage process, as it were, in accordance with the approach taken by Mr. Justice Decary in St-Hilaire case.
Beloved MOTHER….You are my love, my life, my heart.
This website is dedicated for my Beloved Mother (Amriany), my beloved Brother (Muhammad Iqbal), my beloved teachers, My Great Families, and my bestfriends. Most love for You. Faithfully yours: ine ventyrina.

References: v. 
 V. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 V. 
 § 1253
 v. 
 V. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.