Click here
Standing Together: The Fight for Asbestos Safety in Indonesia
In the heart of Indonesia, a battle for public health and democratic freedom is unfolding. Three ordinary citizens—Ajat Sudrajat, Leo Yogapratama, and Dhiccy Sandewa—face extraordinary challenges as they stand against powerful industry interests trying to silence their advocacy for proper asbestos hazard labeling. This isn't just about product labels; it's a test of free speech, democratic space, and our collective right to live safely.
Support the Advocates
The David vs. Goliath Battle
The Activists
At the center of this story are three individuals who chose not to remain silent about the dangers of asbestos, a material recognized worldwide as toxic and carcinogenic. Ajat Sudrajat, Leo Yogapratama, and Dhiccy Sandewa serve as activists of the Consumer Protection Foundation (LPKSM Yayasan Yasa Nata Budi), The Indonesian Ban Asbestos Network (INA-BAN) member, a civil society organization dedicated to protecting Indonesian consumers.
Their Mission
Their journey began with a simple but crucial mission: ensure that asbestos products in Indonesia carry proper hazard warnings. This led them to challenge Ministry of Trade Regulation No. 25/2021, specifically Appendix B point 5, which failed to mandate adequate labeling for asbestos products like roofing materials.
The Victory
Using legal and constitutional channels, they filed a judicial review petition with the Supreme Court. Their advocacy was successful—on March 19, 2024, the Supreme Court ruled in their favor, confirming that asbestos is indeed hazardous and requires proper labeling.

Key Victory
On March 19, 2024, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the consumer advocates, confirming that asbestos is hazardous and requires proper warning labels.
This victory should have been a step forward for public health in Indonesia. Instead, it triggered a powerful backlash from industry interests determined to protect their profits at the expense of public safety.
The SLAPP Attack: Silencing Through Litigation
Following the Supreme Court victory, the Fiber Cement Manufacturers Association (FICMA), representing asbestos producers and importers, launched a legal action against exactly the same organizations that brought the Labelling case to the Supreme Court. On July 18, 2024, they filed a civil lawsuit against Indonesia-Ban Asbestos Network, LPKSM Yasa Nata Budi and three individual activist (Ajat, Leo and Dhiccy), claiming "unlawful acts" for "discrediting white asbestos (Chrysotile)" through their judicial review petition.
Disproportionate Demands
FICMA demanded damages of 1% per month from Rp7.985 trillion (approximately $520 million) and a daily fine of Rp5 million, plus public apologies in national media.
Intimidation Tactics
The activists noted that the financial demands were "greater than our lifetime wages as workers in Indonesia," clearly designed to intimidate and drain resources.
Forum Shifting
FICMA strategically shifted the forum from constitutional review (Supreme Court) to civil court (District Court), transforming a public health issue into a private dispute.
This lawsuit bears all the hallmarks of a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (SLAPP)—a legal tactic designed not to win on legal merits, but to intimidate, weaken resolve, and drain the resources of targeted individuals or organizations advocating for public interest issues.
Understanding SLAPP Tactics
Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPPs) are civil lawsuits or countersuits filed by powerful entities against individuals or organizations voicing public interest issues. Their primary goal isn't to win based on legal substance but to intimidate, demoralize, and drain resources from their targets.
Disguise as Civil Claims
SLAPPs are often disguised as ordinary civil claims like defamation or unlawful acts to exploit the legal system for non-legal purposes—silencing criticism.
Create "Chilling Effect"
The ultimate goal is to create a "chilling effect" that extends beyond immediate targets, deterring others from engaging in public discussion for fear of legal retaliation.
Transform Public to Private
SLAPPs strategically transform legitimate public interest advocacy, like filing litigation or petitioning government agencies, into private disputes to silence public advocates.
In the case against Ajat, Leo, Dhiccy, LPKSM and Ina-Ban, FICMA's lawsuit perfectly demonstrates these characteristics, targeting legitimate advocacy with disproportionate demands and shifting the forum from constitutional review to civil litigation.
This lawsuit is a classic example of how industry leverages weaknesses in legal systems, a pattern also evident at the international level. For over 20 years, the global asbestos industry has repeatedly blocked efforts to list Chrysotile asbestos under the Rotterdam Convention by exploiting a consensus requirement in its decision-making process
A Procedural Maze: Jurisdictional Battles
1
December 27, 2023
LPKSM files Judicial Review petition against Ministry of Trade Regulation No. 25/2021 with the Supreme Court (Case No. 6 P/HUM/2024).
2
March 19, 2024
Supreme Court grants LPKSM's petition, confirming asbestos is hazardous and requires proper labeling.
3
July 18, 2024
FICMA files civil lawsuit against Ina-Ban, LPKSM, Ajat, Leo and Dhiccy at Central Jakarta District Court (Case No. 417/Pdt.G/2024/PN.Jkt.Pst).
4
February 12, 2025
District Court issues Interlocutory Decision, rejecting FICMA's lawsuit based on absolute competence exception.
5
February 25, 2025
FICMA appeals the Interlocutory Decision.
6
April 23, 2025
Jakarta High Court overturns District Court decision, declaring District Court has jurisdiction.
7
May 20, 2025
LPKSM, Leo, Ajat and Dhiccy files Cassation appeal against High Court's Interlocutory Decision.
8
July 7, 2025
District Court controversially continues proceedings despite pending Cassation appeal on jurisdictional issues.
The procedural journey of FICMA's lawsuit has been marked by contradictory decisions and procedural inconsistencies that highlight systemic vulnerabilities in Indonesia's legal framework.
The Courage to Stand: Recognizing Human Rights Defenders
"The financial demands are "greater than our lifetime wages as workers in Indonesia."
~ Dhiccy Sandewa
"I feel mentally exhausted, and this not only affects me but also my family"
~Ajat Sudrajat
"I feel that what the asbestos industry association has done has curbed my freedom"
~ Leo Yogapratama
The FICMA lawsuit against Ajat, Leo, Dhiccy, Ina-Ban and LPKSM is a deliberate and organized attack on legitimate public participation. It is a classic manifestation of SLAPP tactics aimed at using legal processes as instruments to suppress critical voices and shift focus from public health issues to private disputes.
Ajat, Leo, Dhiccy, Ina-Ban and LPKSM's struggle highlights deep vulnerabilities in Indonesia's legal system, including legislative gaps in anti-SLAPP protection and judicial inconsistencies that allow legal processes to be misused. The heavy financial and psychological burden borne by these activists demonstrates how litigation can be weaponized to silence and suppress dissent.
It is important to affirm that the courage, perseverance, and sacrifice of Leo, Ajat, and Dhiccy make them worthy of recognition as Human Rights Defenders in Indonesia. This recognition not only honors their individual courage but also sends a powerful message to SLAPP perpetrators and society that public advocacy cannot be silenced by abuse of legal process.
CALL TO ACTION: Protect Public Space and Citizens' Rights from Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPP)
The Supreme Court's decision to mandate hazard labeling on asbestos-containing products was a crucial legal victory for public safety. However, the Ministry of Commerce's failure to enforce the ruling, coupled with FICMA's countersuit against activists who champion this cause, highlights a significant challenge. This situation not only endangers activists but also erodes the democratic space for legitimate public participation.
Demands to Indonesia-State Institutions
1
To the Judiciary (Supreme Court and General Courts):
  • The Supreme Court must provide clear guidelines to all courts on how to handle lawsuits that exhibit characteristics of SLAPP.
  • Judges at all levels must be trained to identify such lawsuits and dismiss them at an early stage to protect human rights defenders and civil society.
2
To Policymakers (Parliament and Government):
  • We demand that the discussion and enactment of a comprehensive, cross-sectoral anti-SLAPP law be prioritized.
  • This legislation must extend beyond environmental protection to cover all forms of legitimate public participation.
3
To the Indonesian Ombudsman:
  • We urge the Ombudsman to immediately investigate the maladministration committed by the Ministry of Trade for its non-implementation of the Supreme Court's decision.
A Demand for International Convention Reform
Advocacy and Rotterdam Convention Reform:
  • We call on all stakeholders to take action to push for the reform of the Rotterdam Convention.
  • The convention must be reformed to address the undue influence that industry has exerted on UN conventions and hazardous chemical regulations more broadly.
A Call for Collective Action and Solidarity
Public Awareness and Solidarity:
  • We call on all parties to raise public awareness about both the dangers of asbestos and the threat that SLAPP lawsuits pose to democratic space.
  • Media engagement, public education campaigns, and building solidarity networks are crucial to create pressure for policy change and provide moral and material support to targeted activists.
International Engagement:
  • We call on international human rights organizations and trade unions, to help us defend the right to know of hazardous materials in our workplaces and homes, to help us defend this threat to civil space.
Conclusion: Join the Fight!
Ultimately, success in this case will depend on a synergistic combination of persistent legal action to force implementation of the Supreme Court's decision, administrative oversight, and sustained public pressure. This case serves as an urgent call for proactive legal reform to strengthen the rule of law and democratic space for all citizens.
Upholding Justice, Securing Health
The fight for asbestos safety and against SLAPP lawsuits in Indonesia is a pivotal battle for justice, public health, and democratic integrity. It demands a united front from policymakers, the judiciary, civil society, and the international community. By upholding legal decisions, enacting comprehensive anti-SLAPP laws, and raising public awareness, we can protect human rights defenders and ensure a safer, more just future for all.