Developments in Philippine:

Access to Environmental Justice

BY

RISA HALAGUEA1

Risa Halaguea is a court attorney at the Supreme Court of the Philippines and
serves as

the secretary for the Courts Manila Bay Advisory Committee.Effectius

[2]

The Philippine judiciary is currently riding a wave of change in providing access to

justice. It is but apt that it has been actively pursuing this transformation in the area
of

environmental justice because of the countrys unique situation. The Philippines is

home to

tremendous biodiversity and its waters lay claim to the Amazon of the Seas.
However, it is

also one of the developing countries most vulnerable to climate change.

Problematic solid

waste management, pollution, deforestation and illegal fishing practices combine to

decrease

the countrys natural lustre. As a response to various environmental issues,

lawmakers have

enacted more than a hundred bills, even going to the extent of creating a special
presidential

commission on climate change. While these laws are beneficial and timely,
progress in the

countrys environmental protection efforts may be said to be manifestly more

significant

through an unlikely source the judiciary.

The Philippines Constitution provides that [t]he State shall protect and advance
the

right of the people to a balanced and healthful ecology in accord with the rhythm
and

harmony of life.

This edict first gained global attention in the landmark case of Oposa v.

Factoran, Jr.

wherein the Supreme Court allowed petitioners, who were minors, to represent

themselves as well as generations yet unborn. The minors were seeking the
cancellation of

existing timber license agreements in order to stall the rampant and destructive
logging

activities in the country. The Courts decision, which liberalized locus standi, was
hailed as

much-needed for the state of Philippine forests and marked a turning point in
environmental

jurisprudence.

In the more recent case of MMDA v. Concerned Residents of Manila Bay

, a preview

of things to come was seen when the Court issued the countrys first ever writ of
continuing

mandamus, compelling a dozen government agencies to do their respective duties

in cleaning

up Manila Bay. Citing the Oposa decision, the Court reiterated that the right to a
balanced

and healthful ecology need not even be written in the Constitution for it is assumed,
like other
civil and political rights guaranteed in the Bill of Rights, to exist from the inception
of

mankind and it is an issue of transcendental importance with intergenerational

implications.

The case is considered unique in that the Court has continuing jurisdiction over the
case for as

long as the concerned government agencies have not achieved their mandate to
preserve,

Sec. 16, Art. II, 1987 Philippine Constitution.

G.R. No. 101083, July 30, 1993, 224 SCRA 792.

G.R. Nos. 171947-48, December 18, 2008, 574 SCRA 661.

Id. Developments in Philippine Access to Environmental Justice

[3]

rehabilitate and protect Manila Bay. The government agencies are required to
submit

quarterly reports on their clean-up progress based on their respective duties.

From 2007-2009, the Philippine Supreme Court sought to strengthen the courts role

as the protector of the peoples rights.

The Court zeroed in on civil, political, socioeconomic, and environmental rights

that it considered as the circle of human rights. These
developments were welcomed at a time when extrajudicial killings, costly litigation
and poor

law enforcement scarred the nation. The Court was seen as departing from its
traditional role

as the passive branch of the government into being a judiciary more responsive to
the hard

realities of the day.

The past few years have seen the Court continuing its mission of protecting peoples

rights, beyond jurisprudence, with innovations meant to speed up and improve the

administration of environmental justice. After consultations with different

stakeholders, what

came to light was the problem of clogged courts and the number of pending
environmental

cases. It was noted that there was no shortage of environmental laws but low
enforcement of

these laws was a significant concern.

Environmental cases ballooned to more than 3,000 as

of 2009. More telling was the fact that a measly three percent of these cases had
been

resolved. In response to the twin problems of judges unfamiliarity with new and
complex

environmental laws and the growing number of pending environmental cases, 117
green

courts were created, with first and second level court judges tasked to handle and
undergo

intensive training for environmental cases.

The promulgation last year by the Rules of Procedure on Environmental Cases

9

is also

viewed as a novel answer to the problem plaguing the courts. The objectives of the
Rules

were: 1) To protect and advance the constitutional right of the people to a balanced
and

healthful ecology; (2) To provide a simplified, speedy and inexpensive procedure for
the

enforcement of environmental rights and duties recognized under the Constitution,

existing

laws, rules and regulations, and international agreements; (3) To introduce and
adopt

innovations and best practices ensuring the effective enforcement of remedies and
redress for

See Chief Justice Reynato S. Puno, Environmental Justice: Establishing A Judicious

Judicial Framework,

Speech delivered at the Forum on Environmental Justice, 16 April 2009, University of

Cordilleras, Baguio City,

Philippines.

Id.

SC Adm. Order 23-08, Designation of special courts to hear, try and decide
environmental cases, January 28,

2008.

A.M. No. 09-6-8-SC, Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases, April 29,
2010.Effectius
[4]

violations of environmental laws; and (4) To enable the courts to monitor and exact

compliance with orders and judgments in environmental cases.

The Rules feature innovations such as the Writ of Kalikasan, or Nature, and the Writ

of Continuing Mandamus, which was earlier issued in the Manila Bay clean-up case.
The

Writ of Kalikasan was issued for the first time against a company that had a leak in
its

pipeline, which caused health problems to the petitioners. The writ, which is directly
brought

before the Court or to the Court of Appeals, provides a faster resolution time for the

petitioners and exempted them from the payment of regular docket fees.

The Philippine judiciarys recent foray into new rules of procedure meant to

strengthen access to justice has continued an old debate on the thin line between
judicial

authority and judicial activism. Any resolution to the issue, however, will benefit
from an

honest look at the complex realities of the Philippine situation.

Risa Halaguea

Published as part of the Effectius Newsletter, Issue 11, (2011)