Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
RIGHTS
Questionnaire for the Background Paper on
Human Rights and the Environment
PART 1:
II
(entitled
1 of 15
a. OPOSA, et al. vs. FULGENCIO S. FACTORAN, JR. et al. (G.R. No. 101083,
July 30, 1993)
This is a landmark case on the issue of the right to environment specifically
on the protection of the rainforests. This case, wherein the Supreme Court
held that the right to environment is both an "inter-generational responsibility"
and "inter-generational justice," provided the benchmark for all subsequent
cases dealing with the environment.
Synopsis:
This is a case filed by several minors, represented by their
parents, against the Department of Environment and Natural Resources to
cancel existing timber license agreements in the country and to cease from
issuing new ones. The petitioners claim that the refusal to cancel the timber
license agreements contravened the Constitutional policy of the State to
protect and advance the right of the people to a balanced and healthful
ecology in accord with the rhythm and harmony of nature, and that it was
contrary as well to natural law and violative of their right to self-preservation
and perpetuation. Moreover, the minor plaintiffs claim to represent their
generation as well as generations yet unborn.
Finding for the petitioners, the Supreme Court made the following epic
pronouncements:
While the right to a balanced and healthful ecology is to be found
under the Declaration of Principles and State Policies and not under the Bill of
Rights, it does not follow that it is less important than any of the civil and
political rights enumerated in the latter. Such a right belongs to a different
category of rights altogether for it concerns nothing less than self-preservation
and self-perpetuation, the advancement of which may even be said to predate
governments and constitutions. As a matter of fact, these basic rights need
not even be written in the Constitution for they are assumed to exist from the
inception of humankind. If they are now explicitly mentioned in the
fundamental charter, it is because of the well-founded fear of its framers that
unless the rights to a balanced ecology and to health are mandated as state
policies by the Constitution itself, thereby highlighting their continuing
importance and imposing upon the state a solemn obligation to preserve the
first and protect and advance the second, the day would not be too far when
all else would be lost not only for the present generation, but also for those to
come generations which stand to inherit nothing but parched earth
incapable of sustaining life.
The right to a balanced and healthful ecology carries with it the
correlative duty to refrain from impairing the environment.
b. HENARES, et al. vs. LAND TRANSPORTATION AND FRANCHISING
REGULATORY BOARD (LTFRB) G.R. No. 158290, October 23, 2006
This petition focuses on one fundamental legal right of petitioners, their right
to clean air. While the Supreme Court recognized the right of the petitioner, it
however, ruled that the lack of legislation on the matter served as a restriction
on the prayer to grant mandamus.
Synopsis:
Petitioners challenge the Supreme Court to issue a writ of
mandamus commanding respondents Land Transportation Franchising and
Regulatory Board (LTFRB) and the Department of Transportation and
2 of 15
3 of 15
4 of 15
5 of 15
beautiful environment and civic and other communal activities of the town can
be held.
c. SOCIAL JUSTICE SOCIETY, ET AL. V. ATIENZA, JR., GR No. 156052,
March 7, 2007)
In this most recent case on environment, the Supreme Court recognized the
delegated police power of local government units to promote the order,
safety, and health, morals, and general welfare of the society.
SYNOPSIS: Ordinance No. 8027, approved by Manila City Council on
November 28, 2001 and effective December 28, 2001, reclassifies portions of
Pandacan and Sta. Ana from industrial to commercial and directs the owners
and operators of businesses disallowed under Section 1 to cease and desist
from operating their businesses within six months from the ordinances
effectivity. Among the businesses in the area are the so-called Pandacan
Terminals of Caltex, Petron, and Shell.
Ordinance No. 8027 was enacted by the City of Manila right after the
Philippines, along with the rest of the world, witnessed the horror of that
September 11, 2001 attack on the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center in
New York City. The objective of the ordinance is to protect the residents of
Manila from the catastrophic devastation that will surely occur in case of a
terrorist attack on the Pandacan Terminals.
Subsequently, the petitioners filed with the High Court an original
action for mandamus praying to compel Mayor Atienza to enforce said
ordinance and to order the immediate removal of the terminals of the oil
companies.
The Supreme Court granted the petition and ordered the immediate
removal of the terminals of the said oil companies. The Court held that there
is nothing that legally hinders [Mayor Atienza] from enforcing Ordinance No.
8027. Further, the Supreme Court said that,
The Local Government Code imposes upon Atienza the duty, as city
mayor, to enforce all laws and ordinances relative to the governance of the
city. One of these is Ordinance No. 8027. As the chief executive of the city,
he has the duty to enforce Ordinance No. 8027 as long as it has not been
repealed by the Sanggunian or annulled by the courts. He has no other
choice. It is his ministerial duty to do so.
Ordinance No. 8027 was enacted right after the Philippines, along with
the rest of the world, witnessed the horror of that September 11, 2001 attack
on the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center in New York City. The
objective of the ordinance is to protect the residents of Manila from the
catastrophic devastation that will surely occur in case of a terrorist attack on
the Pandacan Terminals. No reason exists why such a protective measure
should be delayed.
The Court described Ordinance No. 8027 as a measure enacted
pursuant to the delegated police power of local government units to promote
the order, safety, and health, morals, and general welfare of the society.
6 of 15
d. In some cases, the Supreme Court allowed the payment of just compensation
to private persons whose properties were destroyed due to environmental
hazards. (National Power Corporation vs. Pobre, G.R. No. 106804, August
12, 2004)
PART 2:
1. How has the right to life been interpreted by various actors (e.g. your
Commission, the Courts) in your country? What positive obligations have
been placed on the State to protect this right?
3 Right to Life according to the Commission on Human Rights
The Commission on Human Rights defines the right to life in
consonance with the Universal Declaration on Human Rights, the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights as well as relevant
international instruments. It is the supreme right from which no derogation is
permitted even in time of public emergency which threatens the life of the
nation. 1 The right to life is defined in its broadest sense to include, among
others, the arbitrary taking of life, the abolition of death penalty, the right
against torture and other cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment, the right
against enforced disappearance, the right of unborn children, the right to
water, the right to food, the right to livelihood, the right to health and such
other rights as may be related to the right to life.
3 Right to Life according to the Constitution
All previous Constitutions of the Philippines, including the first one
ordained at Malolos in 1899, guarantee that "no person shall be deprived of
life, liberty or property without due process of law."
This primary right of the people to enjoy life life at its fullest, life in
dignity and honor is not only reiterated by the 1987 Charter but is in fact
fortified by its other pro-life and pro-human rights provisions. Hence, the
(1987) Constitution values the dignity of every human person and guarantees
full respect for human rights (Article II, Section 11); expressly prohibits any
form of torture (Article III, Section 12, paragraph 2) which is arguably a lesser
penalty than death; emphasizes the individual right to life by giving protection
to the life of the mother and the unborn from the moment of conception
(Article II, Section 12) and establishes the people's rights to health (Article II,
Section 15), a balanced ecology (Article II, Section 16) and education (Article
II, Section 17). 2
3 Right to Life according to the legal system/courts
1 Article 4, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights cited in General Comment No. 6: The right to life,
paragraph 1
2 People of the Philippines vs. Leo Echagaray, G.R. No. 117472, February 7, 1997
7 of 15
8 of 15
9 of 15
Title
Short Title
R. A. No. 9367
10 of 15
Sagay
The
Fisheries
National
Integrated
protected
Areas
System Act of 1992
Presidential
Decree No. 705
May 19, 1975
Revised
Code
Ecological
Solid
Waste Management
Act of 2000
Marine
Reserve Law
Philippine
Code of
1998
Forestry
of
the
Philippines
11 of 15
Philippine
Clean
Water Act of 2004
Presidential
Decree
No.
1067
December 31,
1976
Presidential
Decree No. 979
PROVIDING
FOR
THE
REVISION
OF
PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO. 600 GOVERNING
MARINE POLLUTION
Presidential
Decree No. 825
PROVIDING
PENALTY
FOR
IMPROPER
DISPOSAL OF GARBAGE AND OTHER FORMS
OF UNCLEANLINESS AND FOR OTHER
PURPOSES.
Presidential
Decree
No.
1152
Philippine
Environment Code
Title - Air Quality
Management
Presidential
Decree
No.
1151 June 6,
1977
Environmental
protection
Presidential
Decree
No.
1586
Executive order
No.
446
September 26,
1997
Presidential
Decree No. 984
National
Pollution
Control Decree of
1976.
Toxic
Substances
and Hazardous and
Nuclear
Wastes
Control Act of 1990
12 of 15
PART 3:
13 of 15
of the cases, the role of the Commission and the outcome of the cases.
Please provide copies of any submissions and court decisions.
In one case, the Commission has intervened on the issue of the rights of
indigenous peoples. The issue on environment, however, has been dealt with
indirectly since the case involved ownership, exploitation and use of ancestral
lands.
In CRUZ vs. SECRETARY OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL
RESOURCES (G.R. No. L-135385, December 6, 2000), the Commission filed a
Motion to Intervene and/or to Appear as Amicus Curiae.
The case revolved on the issue of the constitutionality of the Indigenous
Peoples Rights Act (IPRA). Petitioners assail, among others, the constitutionality
of certain provisions of the IPRA and its Implementing Rules on the ground that
they amount to an unlawful deprivation of the States ownership over lands of the
public domain as well as minerals and other natural resources therein, in violation
of the regalian doctrine embodied in Section 2, Article XII of the Constitution.
The CHR asserts that the IPRA Law is an expression of the principle of
parens patriae and that the State has the responsibility to protect and guarantee
the rights of those who are at a serious disadvantage like indigenous peoples.
Interesting in this case is the fact that it was dismissed due to an impasse
among the Supreme Court Justices. The votes were equally divided (7 to 7) and
the necessary majority was not obtained, the case was redeliberated upon.
However, after redeliberation, the voting remained the same. Accordingly,
pursuant to Rule 56, Section 7 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the case was
dismissed.
5. Has your Commission addressed the effect of environmental harms on the
rights to life and health in its annual reports or in any other reports? If so,
please provide a copy of the relevant sections.
In the period when the complaints are filed with the Commission, these
become part of the statistics on human rights violations as reported.
6. Does your Commission work in collaboration with civil society, including
the private sector, government or U.N. agencies or multilateral donors,
such as the World Bank, on the issue of environmental harms affecting the
rights to life and health? If so, in what way?
So far, the Commission has not done any collaborative work with any
agency, whether international or domestic, on the issue of the environment.
7. Has your Commission proposed legislation or regulations relating to
environmental harms that affect the rights to life and health, or helped to
develop a national policy?
No legislation on environment has yet been proposed by the Commission
though it acted as resource person in instances of legislative investigations on
environmental harms.
14 of 15
However, considering that the Congress will open soon, the Commission
is looking into including environmental issues in its proposed legislative agenda
for the 14th Congress.
8. What jurisdiction does your Commission have over the activities of nonState actors? Has your Commission undertaken any activities to address
environmental harms caused by non-State actors that are affecting the
rights to life or health?
The Commission, under the Constitution, may investigate, on its own or
upon complaint any human rights violation including the rights to life, health and
the environment. Further, it may conduct research, training and education on the
said rights. Finally, it may monitor compliance with international instruments
relating to the same.
PART 4:
1.
Current Situation
2.
The global environmental hazards that continue to happen as well as the impending
threats have alarmed everyone. Awareness and concern for the environment has
pleasantl y increased even among Filipinos.
15 of 15