James Shemron C. Corro
Juris Doctor candidate- III
Main essay written : 22 November 2018 , Further Edits: 9 June 2019
“Despite having some of the best environmental laws in the word, the Philippines is still not able to reap the benefits of having such legislation.[1]”
The Philippine Constitution protects the environment by incorporating its sustainability as a necessity for an individual to fully exercise his rights as a human being. In other words the environment is an attachment to the individual rights of the person. In order for a person to fully exercise and advance his or her rights, the state has to cater to the policy for its protection and sustainability.
This is clear cut from the constitutional provisions. If we read each constitutional provision which relate to the environment carefully, one would note that there is always a human dimension attached in correlation to its preservation. Take for example Sec. 16 of Article II on the Declaration of State Policies which states that:
“SECTION 16. The State shall protect and advance the right of the people to a balanced and healthful ecology in accord with the rhythm and harmony of nature.”[2]
Section 16 is the basis for the “writ of kalikasan”, In the landmark case of Oposa vs. Factoran[3] the court recognized the concept of intergenerational responsibility insofar as the right to a balanced and healthful ecology is concerned. It interpreted the “rhythm and harmony” in the provision, to indispensably include the judicious disposition, utilization, management, renewal and conservation of the country’s natural resources. To this end, the judiciary recognized the performance of the obligation to ensure the protection of the right to a balanced and healthful ecology for future generations to come.
To put emphasis, the court states that the right to a balanced and healthful ecology carries with it the correlative duty to refrain from impairing the environment.
The
reason why I pointed this out is because, while insofar the Philippines
attaches the obligation to protect and conserve the environment in correlation
to the right of the individual to a balanced and healthful ecology; Other
states have already taken the next step to establishing and awarding
inalienable rights to nature. [4] A
Good example of that would be Ecuador. Ecuador is the first country to
recognize Rights of Nature in its Constitution.[5]
Chapter Seven of its Constitution is entitled the “Rights of nature”; Article
71 of its Constitution provides:
“Article 71. Nature, or Pacha Mama, where life is reproduced and occurs, has
the right to integral respect for its existence and for the maintenance and
regeneration of its life cycles, structure, functions and evolutionary
processes.”[6]
The Ecuadorian Constitution does not treat nature as property attached to the individual for the full exact fulfilment of his or her rights but is a body of its own, with its own set rights. These rights include the right for its existence, regeneration and restoration. The effect is, the ecosystem itself can be named as the defendant.
This is important because if we take a look into the writ of kalikasan and its requisites, it is imperative that there is an infringement on the human dimension. One of the requisites of the writ is that “the actual or threatened violation involved will lead to an environmental damage of such magnitude as to prejudice the life, health or property of inhabitants in two or more cities or provinces.[7] Needless to say if there is no prejudice to the life, health or property of inhabitants the writ cannot be issued.
Another difference in our Paradigm is the difficulty in obtaining relief from the courts because a party to a case may only be a natural or juridical person or entities authorized by law that may be parties in a civil action.[8] A good example of that would be in the case of “Resident Marine Mammals vs. Reyes”[9] In this case the Court specifically enunciated that the provisions on the Rules of Court as well as substantive law cannot be stretched to accommodate Marine Mammals or Animals. The fine point of the court is that it is impossible for animals to tell humans what their concerns are and petitions invoking a right and seeking legal redress before this court cannot be a product of guesswork. Service Contract 46 however was struck down as unconstitutional, not because it affected the environment or the animals, but because it directly affected the source of livelihood of fishermen, primarily felt through the significant reduction of their fish harvest.
This is the difference between the Philippine Constitution and the 2008 Ecuadorian Constitution, While as the Ecuadorian Constitution recognizes that nature has inalienable and actionable rights itself, the Philippine Constitution requires the justification of endangerment on the personal property or life of the individual. There is a stark contrast to the approach of the two states, one recognizes nature as a body itself while the other recognizes nature as a mere extension in the exercise of his or her rights.
The move to incorporate rights of nature into a national constitution is, in itself, a powerful paradigm shift.[10] On December 2010, following the practices of Ecuador, Bolivia passed the Law on Mother Earth recognizing that the environment is entitled to separate and distinct incorporeal rights. Chapter III of the statute establishes the rights of mother earth and the succeeding chapters enumerate the state obligations and responsibilities of the people.
The two approaches of recognizing nature as a personality itself like Bolivia and Ecuador and nature as an extension of exercise of human rights like the Philippines in my opinion are not mutually exclusive.
I believe that there exists a middle ground in both, like in New Zealand, where a former national park has been granted personhood, and a river system is expected to receive the same soon.[11] Personhood means, among other things, that lawsuits to protect the land can be brought on behalf of the land itself, with no need to show harm to a particular human. This approach is different from Ecuador and Bolivia because it does not incorporate the rights to the law and constitution itself but utilizes the existing legal national framework to grant already existing rights to specific natural entities.
I believe that a somewhat similar method can be implemented in the Philippines. That is, the creation of juridical entities, the sole purpose of organization is the conservation and protection of specific natural entities. Nothing in the corporation code disallows this.[12] However it is still quite different from the paradigm set by New Zealand because whatever suit is brought for its benefit must be brought under the name of the Corporation. And in our Rules of Court, specifically Section 2 of Rule 3 of the Rules of Court, Sec. 2. Parties in interest provides that a real party in interest, is the party who stands to be benefited or injured by the judgment in the suit, or the party entitled to the avails of the suit. Unless otherwise authorized by law or these Rules, every action must be prosecuted or defended in the name of the real party in interest.
This provision has two requirements: 1) to institute an action, the plaintiff must be the real party in interest; and 2) the action must be prosecuted in the name of the real party in interest. Interest within the meaning of the Rules of Court means material interest or an interest in issue to be affected by the decree or judgment of the case, as distinguished from mere curiosity about the question involved. One having no material interest to protect cannot invoke the jurisdiction of the court as the plaintiff in an action. When the plaintiff is not the real party in interest, the case is dismissible on the ground of lack of cause of action.[13]
But this begs the question, if a non-natural person like a corporation can be recognized as an entity having rights, then why not the environment? This was the question that Christopher D. Stone’s Essay, “Should Tree have Standing- Toward Legal Rights for Natural Objects” tried to answer.[14] To quote:
“The world of the lawyer is peopled with inanimate right-holders: trusts, corporations, joint ventures, municipalities, Subchapter R partnerships,12 and nation-states, to mention just a few….We have become so accustomed to the idea of a corporation having “its” own rights, and being a “person” and “citizen” for so many statutory and constitutional purposes, that we forget how jarring the notion was to early jurists.”
In
his essay he forwards the premise that the environment should have rights but
that is not to say that it should have every right imaginable.
He asserts that it is not an argument that streams and forests cannot have
standing because they cannot speak because Corporations cannot speak either;
nor can states, estates, infants, incompetents, municipalities or universities.
In the status quo, Lawyers already customarily speak for ordinary citizens. One
should handle legal problems of natural objects as one does the problems of
legal incompetents.
Stone’s view is in stark contrast to what was one of the fine points in Resident Mammals vs. Reyes[15] which declined to give standing to animals since it is impossible for animals to tell humans what their concerns are and petitions invoking a right and seeking legal redress before the court cannot be a product of guesswork.
Nevertheless, In Resident Marine Mammals vs. Reyes, The court did point out to Stone’s essay, by advancing the idea of guardianship. Guardianship, as practiced in America, as the court defines it is a well-established system by which nonhuman animals may obtain judicial review to enforce their statutory rights and protections. With court approval, animal advocacy organizations may bring suit on behalf of nonhuman animals in the same way court-appointed guardians bring suit on behalf of mentally-challenged humans who possess an enforceable right but lack the ability to enforce it themselves.[16] What the court requires is a long known standing history of advocacy.
What may be similar to Guardianship in America in our jurisdiction may be the principle of human stewardship over the environment, this is expressed in Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases, Specifically Section 5.
SEC. 5. Citizen suit. – Any Filipino citizen in representation of others, including minors or generations yet unborn, may file an action to enforce rights or obligations under environmental laws. Upon the filing of a citizen suit, the court shall issue an order which shall contain a brief description of the cause of action and the reliefs prayed for, requiring all interested parties to manifest their interest to intervene in the case within fifteen (15) days from notice thereof. The plaintiff may publish the order once in a newspaper of a general circulation in the Philippines or furnish all affected barangays copies of said order.[17]
Hence, The Supreme court by giving a parallel alternative to the American remedy deems it fit that there is no necessity or practical requirement to implead and feign representation on behalf of animals and to do so with betray the anthropocentric view of environmental advocacy. To emphasize, the court says that:
“There is no way that we, humans, can claim to speak for animals let alone present that they would wish to use our court system, which is designed to ensure that humans seriously carry their responsibility including ensuring a viable ecology for themselves, which of course includes compassion for all living things.”
Our rules on standing are sufficient and need not be further relaxed.”
In conclusion,
Philippine Environmental Laws and the provisions concerning the environment in
our Constitution have been hailed as one of the best in the world, but only
insofar as it benefits to our extension of rights in the environment.
[1] Environmentalists lament govt’s inability to fully implement green laws, GMA News Online, http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/story/305051/news/nation/environmentalists-lament-govt-s-inability-to-fully-implement-green-laws/ (last visited Nov 22, 2018).
[2] Section 16, Article II, 1987 Philippine Constitution.
[3] Oposa vs. Factoran, Jr. G.R. No. 101083, July 30, 1993
[4] Environmentalists lament govt’s inability to fully implement green laws, GMA News Online, http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/story/305051/news/nation/environmentalists-lament-govt-s-inability-to-fully-implement-green-laws/ (last visited Nov 22, 2018).
[5] Ecuador adopts Rights of Nature in Constitution, The Rights of Nature, http://therightsofnature.org/ecuador-rights/ (last visited Nov 22, 2018).
[6] 2008 Ecuador Constitution Chapter Seven, Article 71
[7] Seogvia vs. The Climate Change Commission, G.R. No. 211010, March 7, 2017
[8] Rule 3, Section 1 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure
[9] Resident Marine Mammals of the Protected Seascape Tanon Strait vs. Reyes, GR 180771, April 21, 2015
[10] Laurence Delina, Nature’s place in PH Constitution, https://opinion.inquirer.net/110817/natures-place-ph-constitution (last visited Nov 22, 2018).
[11] Bryant Rousseau, In New Zealand, Lands and Rivers Can Be People (Legally Speaking), The New York Times, December 21, 2017, https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/14/world/what-in-the-world/in-new-zealand-lands-and-rivers-can-be-people-legally-speaking.html (last visited Nov 22, 2018).
[12] Corporation Code of the Philippines
[13] Goco vs. Court of Appeals, GR No 157449, April 6, 2010
[14] Should Trees Have Standing- Toward Legal Rights for Natural Objects, Christopher D. Stone, Southern California Law Review 45 (1972)
[15] Resident Marine Mammals of the Protected Seascape Tanon Strait vs. Reyes, GR 180771, April 21, 2015
[16] Animal Lovers Volunteer Ass’n v. Weinberger, 765 F.2d 937, 938 (9th Cir., 1985).
[17] Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases, Section 5
James International Law Blog 