Environmental Law Cases 1.Sarwodi Abdul Ghani VS Jabatan Alam Sekitar 2.Kilang jubin lepas sisa industri. 3.Lyng v. Northwest Indian Cemetery Protective Association.

1. 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

2. 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. Environmental Lawsuit
Land Law and Planning Regulations
Environmental Lawsuit | 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,yangdi manakandungannya 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
Mengikutfaktakes,semasapemeriksaandilakukan 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 PepejalTerampai iaitu2,900 mg/l melebihi hadkepekatanyang dibenarkan iaitu 100mg/l
dan turut terdapat kandungan COD iaitu 10,300mg/l melebihi had kepekatan yang dibenarkan iaitu
200mg/l.

4. Environmental Lawsuit
Land Law and Planning Regulations
Environmental Lawsuit | 4
Proses Penghakiman
Syarikatitudidakwa 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
SyarikatitudidakwadenganPeraturan11(1)(b) danPeraturan12(b),Peraturan-PeraturanKualiti Alam
Sekeliling(EfluenPerindustrian) 2009, AktaKualiti AlamSekeliling,1974 dan bolehdihukumdi bawah
Peraturan32, Peraturan-PeraturanKualitiAlamSekeliling(EfluenPerindustrian) 2009, akta sama.
PengarahUrusan,Tan SienNian, mewakili syarikatitumengakubersalahdandikenakandenda
sebanyakRM24,000 dan jikagagal membayarsamanakan dikenakanhukumanpenjaraselamatiga
bulan.

5. Environmental Lawsuit
Land Law and Planning Regulations
Environmental Lawsuit | 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.
JenisKesalahan: KimHinCeramic(Seremban) Sdn.Bhd.telahmelepaskanefluenperindustrianke 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.Kilangitumelepaskanefluenperindustrianke dalamperairandaratandengankandunganmelebihi
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
sebanyak56,280 miligram/literiaitumelebihi hadpiawai 100 mg/l yangditetapkan.Selain itu, zink yang
mempunyai kepekatan sebanyak 13 mg/l iaitu melebihi had piawai 2 mg/l yang ditetapkan. Juga

6. Environmental Lawsuit
Land Law and Planning Regulations
Environmental Lawsuit | 6
penggunaanminyakdangrisyangmempunyai kepekatansebanyak12 mg/l iaitumelebihihad piawai 10
mg/l yang ditetapkan.Jugabesi yangmempunyai kepekatansebanyak80mg/l iaitumelebihi hadpiawai
5 mg/l yangditetapkandanOksigenKimiaYangDiperlukan(COD) yangmempunyai 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
efluenperindustrian ke dalam perairan daratan dengan kandungan melebihi kepekatan ditentukan di
bawahPeraturan11(1)(b) dan Peraturan12(1)(b),yangdibaca bersamaPeraturanperaturanKualiti 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. Environmental Lawsuit
Land Law and Planning Regulations
Environmental Lawsuit | 7
INTERNATIONAL CASES
CASE STUDY 3: Lyng v. Northwest Indian Cemetery Protective Association.
Case Brief
Location: : Hoopa Valley Indian Reservation
Type of Offence:Itwas a UnitedStatesSupreme Courtcase inwhichthe Court ruledonthe applicability
of the Free Exercise Clause tothe practice of religiononNative Americansacredlands,specificallyinthe
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 UnitedStatesForestService wasconsidering 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. Environmental Lawsuit
Land Law and Planning Regulations
Environmental Lawsuit | 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
studyfoundthat if the U.S. ForestService’splanswentforward,the damage done to the land would be
severe and irreparable. Therefore, the report advised against both the road and timber harvesting.
Additionally,the EISsuggestedpossible alternative routesthatavoidedkeyreligioussites.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.
AmericanIndiangroups(ledbythe NorthwestIndianCemeteryProtectiveAssociation) 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
ChimneyRock 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 Courtaffirmedandthe USFS appealed again bringing the case to the
U.S. Supreme Court.
As a case before the U.S. Supreme Court,Lyngv. 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 respondentinthe case wasthe NorthwestIndianCemetery 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. Environmental Lawsuit
Land Law and Planning Regulations
Environmental Lawsuit | 9
Judges Process
After much deliberation, the holding of the court was released on April 19, 1988. In a vote of 5-3
(AnthonyM.Kennedydidnotparticipate),the courtruledthat“constructionof 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 Courtcase that involvedafamilywhodidnot wish to give their child a social security number
for religiousreasons.Alsoarguedwithregardtothe Free Exercise Clause,thisholdingof the courtin 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’
Connorfoundthat althoughdamage wouldcertainly be done to the Six Rivers/Chimney Rock area, the
road constructionandtimberharvestingwouldnotforce individualstoviolate theirbeliefsor be denied
of the equal rights shared by other citizens of the United States.[6] In deciding the case, the Supreme
Court hadto 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 Courtsetoutnew requirementsforprovingsubstantialburden.The Courtstated
that a substantial burdenonlyexistwherethe governmentimposesasanction(fineorimprisonment)or
deniesabenefittoindividualsthattheywouldotherwise be entitledtoreceive.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. Environmental Lawsuit
Land Law and Planning Regulations
Environmental Lawsuit | 10
The Supreme Court cited Bowen v. Roy (476 U.S. 693 (1986)) and, it is found that the Free Exercise
Clause affordsanindividualprotectionfromcertainformsof governmental compulsions,butit does 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. Environmental Lawsuit
Land Law and Planning Regulations
Environmental Lawsuit | 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