Environmental Law Cases report

FACULTY OF ARCHITECTURE, PLANNING AND SURVEYING

DEPARTMENT OF LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE

LAS 654- LAND LAW AND PLANNING REGULATIONS

ENVIRONMENTAL LAWSUIT

PREPARED BY:

SAZUAN AFIFI BIN NAWI (2013690006)

CHECKED BY:

PUAN SITI ZABEDA HAJI MOHAMMAD

ENCIK DZARUL HARDY

SUBMISSION DATE:

6 JUNE 2014

Environmental Lawsuit Land Law and Planning Regulations

Environmental Lawsuit |

2

Table Of Contents

No Cases Page

1. Local Cases 3 - 4

Sarwodi Abdul Ghani VS Jabatan Alam Sekitar

2. Local Cases 5 - 6

Kilang jubin lepas sisa industri.

3. International Cases 7 - 10

Lyng v. Northwest Indian Cemetery Protective Association.

4. References 11



3

LOCAL CASES

CASE STUDY 1: Sarwodi Abdul Ghani VS Jabatan Alam Sekitar.

Maklumat Ringkas Kes

Lokasi dan Tarikh Kesalahan: Pemeriksaan dibuat pada 6 Ogos 2007 di Kilang Getah Palong 8, Gemas

dan pada 3 September 2007 keputusan analisis kimia dikeluarkan.

Jenis Kesalahan: Felda Rubber Industries Sdn. Bhd. didakwa melepaskan air buangan mengandungi

bahan kimia, yang di mana kandungannya melebihi kepekatan yang ditentukan Peraturan Kualiti Alam

Sekeliling, ke dalam pengairan darat.

Pihak yang Terlibat

Hakim: Nik Nasimah Nik Mohammad

Pendakwa: Pegawai Jabatan Alam Sekitar

Responden: Sarwodi Abdul Ghani (Pengurus Felda Rubber Industries Sdn. Bhd.)

Fakta Kes

Mengikut fakta kes, semasa pemeriksaan dilakukan ke premis berkenaan yang terletak di Jalan Minyak

Beku mendapati telah melakukan kesalahan seperti aduan yang dilaporkan.Hasil siasatan dalam

kawasan premis mendapati terdapat aliran air daripada aktiviti perindustrian mengalir masuk ke

longkang kilang sebelum memasuki longkang awam tanpa dirawat terlebih dahulu. Sampel aliran itu

telah dianalisa di Jabatan Kimia Malaysia, Johor menunjukkan efluen tersebut mengandungi paras

kepekatan melebihi had yang ditetapkan.

Turut ditemui Pepejal Terampai iaitu 2,900 mg/l melebihi had kepekatan yang dibenarkan iaitu 100mg/l

dan turut terdapat kandungan COD iaitu 10,300mg/l melebihi had kepekatan yang dibenarkan iaitu

200mg/l.



4

Proses Penghakiman

Syarikat itu didakwa dengan Peraturan 11(1)(b) dan Peraturan 12(b), Peraturan-Peraturan Kualiti Alam

Sekeliling (Efluen Perindustrian) 2009, Akta Kualiti Alam Sekeliling, 1974 dan boleh dihukum di bawah

Peraturan 32, Peraturan-Peraturan Kualiti Alam Sekeliling (Efluen Perindustrian) 2009, akta sama.

Keputusan Mahkamah

Syarikat itu didakwa dengan Peraturan 11(1)(b) dan Peraturan 12(b), Peraturan-Peraturan Kualiti Alam

Sekeliling (Efluen Perindustrian) 2009, Akta Kualiti Alam Sekeliling, 1974 dan boleh dihukum di bawah

Peraturan 32, Peraturan-Peraturan Kualiti Alam Sekeliling (Efluen Perindustrian) 2009, akta sama.

Pengarah Urusan, Tan Sien Nian, mewakili syarikat itu mengaku bersalah dan dikenakan denda

sebanyak RM24,000 dan jika gagal membayar saman akan dikenakan hukuman penjara selama tiga

bulan.



5

CASE STUDY 2: Kilang jubin lepas sisa industri.

Maklumat Ringkas Kes

Lokasi dan Tarikh Kesalahan: Perbuatan itu dibuat di Lot 10807, Kawasan Perindustrian Tuanku Ja'afar,

pada 21 September 2011, antara pukul 2.25 petang hingga 5.30 petang.

Jenis Kesalahan: Kim Hin Ceramic (Seremban) Sdn. Bhd. telah melepaskan efluen perindustrian ke dalam

perairan dan kandungannya melebihi kepekatan dengan parameter tidak mematuhi peraturan yang

dibenarkan ke dalam perairan

Pihak yang Terlibat

Hakim: Datin M Kunasundari

Pendakwa: Abdul Razak Yasin (Pegawai Jabatan Alam Sekitar

Responden: S Visnu (Pengurus Kim Hin Ceramic)

Fakta Kes

Case Summary :

Mengikut pertuduhan, kilang Kim Hin Ceramic didakwa melepaskan efluen perindustrian ke dalam

perairan dan kandungannya melebihi kepekatan dengan parameter tidak mematuhi peraturan iaitu

pepejal terampai mempunyai kepekatan 56,280 miligram per liter (mg/l) iaitu melebihi had piawai 100

mg/l. Kilang itu melepaskan efluen perindustrian ke dalam perairan daratan dengan kandungan melebihi

kepekatan yang ditentukan di bawah Peraturan 11(1)(b) dan Peraturan 12(1)(b), Peraturan-Peraturan

Kualiti Alam Sekeliling (Efluen Perindustrian) 2009.

Parameter yang tidak mematuhi peraturan itu ialah pepejal terampai yang mempunyai kepekatan

sebanyak 56,280 miligram/liter iaitu melebihi had piawai 100 mg/l yang ditetapkan. Selain itu, zink yang

mempunyai kepekatan sebanyak 13 mg/l iaitu melebihi had piawai 2 mg/l yang ditetapkan. Juga



6

penggunaan minyak dan gris yang mempunyai kepekatan sebanyak 12 mg/l iaitu melebihi had piawai 10

mg/l yang ditetapkan. Juga besi yang mempunyai kepekatan sebanyak 80 mg/l iaitu melebihi had piawai

5 mg/l yang ditetapkan dan Oksigen Kimia Yang Diperlukan (COD) yang mempunyai kepekatan 314 mg/l

iaitu melebihi had piawai 200 mg/l yang ditetapkan

Proses Penghakiman

Kim Hin Ceramic dituduh di bawah Seksyen 25 (1) Akta Kualiti Alam Sekeliling 1974 iaitu melepaskan

efluen perindustrian ke dalam perairan daratan dengan kandungan melebihi kepekatan ditentukan di

bawah Peraturan 11(1)(b) dan Peraturan 12(1)(b), yang dibaca bersama Peraturanperaturan Kualiti Alam

Sekeliling (efluen perindustrian) 2009.

Keputusan Mahkamah

Kim Hin Ceramic didenda RM20,000 setelah mengaku bersalah atas tuduhan dan turut berdepan

hukuman enam bulan penjara sekiranya gagal membayar denda.



7

INTERNATIONAL CASES

CASE STUDY 3: Lyng v. Northwest Indian Cemetery Protective Association.

Case Brief

Location: : Hoopa Valley Indian Reservation

Type of Offence: It was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled on the applicability

of the Free Exercise Clause to the practice of religion on Native American sacred lands, specifically in the

Chimney Rock area of the Six Rivers National Forest in California. This area, also known as the High

Country was used since time immemorial by the Yurok, Karuk, and Tolowa tribes as a religious site.

Parties Involved

Judges : Sandra Day O'Connor *Rehnquist Court (1987-1988)

Plaintiff : Richard E. Lyng, Secretary of Agriculture, et al., Petitioners

Respondent : Northwest Indian Cemetery Protective Association

Advocates : Marilyn B. Miles (Argued the cause for the respondents), Andrew J. Pincus (Argued the

cause for the petitioners

Case Facts

Case Summary :

The United States Forest Service was considering building a paved roadway that would cut through the

Chimney Rock area of the Six Rivers National Forest. It was also considering timber harvesting in the

area. A study commissioned by the Forest Service reported that harvesting the Chimney Rock area

would irreparably damage grounds that had historically been used by Native Americans to conduct

religious rituals. After the Forest Service decided to construct a road, the Northwest Indian Cemetery

Protective Association took action against Secretary of Agriculture Richard Lyng.



8

Case Detail :

In 1982, the United States Forest Service drew up a report known as the Environmental Impact

Statement (EIS) that examined the environmental impact of constructing a road through and possibly

harvesting timber in the Six Rivers National Forest. Due to the religious importance of the area, the

study found that if the U.S. Forest Service’s plans went forward, the damage done to the land would be

severe and irreparable. Therefore, the report advised against both the road and timber harvesting.

Additionally, the EIS suggested possible alternative routes that avoided key religious sites. However, this

recommendation and the rest of the report was rejected by the U.S. Forest Service. The report

commissioned by the United States Forest Service recognized that the construction of the road would

destroy the religion of the American Indian tribes.

American Indian groups (led by the Northwest Indian Cemetery Protective Association) and the State of

California sued for an injunction, challenging both the road building and timber harvesting decisions.

The court issued a permanent injunction that prohibited the Government from constructing the

Chimney Rock section of the road or putting the timber harvesting plan into effect, holding, inter alia,

that such actions would violate respondent Indians' rights under the Free Exercise Clause of the First

Amendment and would violate certain federal statutes.

The Trial Court found for Northwest Indian Cemetery Protective Association and issued an injunction.

The USFS appealed. The Appellate Court affirmed and the USFS appealed again bringing the case to the

U.S. Supreme Court.

As a case before the U.S. Supreme Court, Lyng v. Northwest Indian Cemetery Protective was argued on

November 30, 1987. The petitioner, Richard E. Lyng, the U.S. Secretary of Agriculture at the time,

claimed that constructing a road and harvesting timber through lands considered sacred by Native

American tribes violated the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment of the United States

Constitution.[3] The respondent in the case was the Northwest Indian Cemetery Protective Association,

et al.

With the claim at hand, the U.S. Supreme Court decided to rule on the question of whether the First

Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause prohibited the government from harvesting or developing the

Chimney Rock Area



9

Judges Process

After much deliberation, the holding of the court was released on April 19, 1988. In a vote of 5-3

(Anthony M. Kennedy did not participate), the court ruled that “construction of the proposed road does

not violate the First Amendment regardless of its effect on the religious practices of the respondents

because it compels no behavior contrary to their belief”.

In support of the decision, Justice Sandra Day O’Connor cited Bowen V. Roy (1986), a previous U.S.

Supreme Court case that involved a family who did not wish to give their child a social security number

for religious reasons. Also argued with regard to the Free Exercise Clause, this holding of the court in this

case was that the government could not change its system and make an exception for an individual

because of religiously based reasons. Judging by the parallels in this case with that of Lyng, Justice O’

Connor found that although damage would certainly be done to the Six Rivers/Chimney Rock area, the

road construction and timber harvesting would not force individuals to violate their beliefs or be denied

of the equal rights shared by other citizens of the United States.[6] In deciding the case, the Supreme

Court had to determine whether a government action would cause a "substantial burden" on religion.

Since the United States Forest Service's report had recognized that the religion of tribes would

effectively be irreparably harmed, the tribes had a strong argument that they met this element of the

law.

Court Judgements

However, the Supreme Court set out new requirements for proving substantial burden. The Court stated

that a substantial burden only exist where the government imposes a sanction (fine or imprisonment) or

denies a benefit to individuals that they would otherwise be entitled to receive. Since this case involved

neither, the decision found that no substantial burden existed.

Justice William J. Brennan Jr. disagreed with the majority opinion and, with a citation of the case

Sherbert v. Verner (1963), declared that the holding of Lyng stripped Native Americans of their

Constitutional protection against threats to their religious practices.

The United States Supreme Court reversed and allowed the road to be built.



10

The Supreme Court cited Bowen v. Roy (476 U.S. 693 (1986)) and, it is found that the Free Exercise

Clause affords an individual protection from certain forms of governmental compulsions, but it do es not

afford an individual a right to dictate the conduct of the government's internal procedures.

*After the case was decided, Congress intervened and designated the area a "wilderness" under the

Wilderness Act, and the road was not built. The Act protected the High Country, by adding it to the

Siskiyou Wilderness Area.



11

REFERENCES

1. http://www.utusan.com.my/utusan/info.asp?y=2008&dt=0103&pub=Utusan_Malaysia&sec=M

ahkamah&pg=ma_04.htm

2. http://www.utusan.com.my/utusan/Selatan/20120615/ws_03/Kilang-lepas-sisa-industri-

didenda

3. http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/485/439

4. http://www.webpages.uidaho.edu/~rfrey/329lyng.htm

http://www.utusan.com.my/utusan/info.asp?y=2008&dt=0103&pub=Utusan_Malaysia&sec=Mahkamah&pg=ma_04.htm

http://www.utusan.com.my/utusan/info.asp?y=2008&dt=0103&pub=Utusan_Malaysia&sec=Mahkamah&pg=ma_04.htm

http://www.utusan.com.my/utusan/Selatan/20120615/ws_03/Kilang-lepas-sisa-industri-didenda

http://www.utusan.com.my/utusan/Selatan/20120615/ws_03/Kilang-lepas-sisa-industri-didenda

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/485/439