Noel S.

Sala JD1A

AFTER OPOSA: AN ANALYSIS OF

ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS AND ENVIRONMENTAL RIGHTS IN THE PHILIPPINES

I. What happened after Oposa?

II. Conditions gave rise to the research question.

In 2013, the Philippines was hit by a super typhoon Haiyan which claimed thousands of

lives and massive destruction to properties and the environment. Most people, including

those in the scientific field, believe that the typhoon was a result of global warming and

climate change. Activist from all over the world calls for a stricter environmental

regulations and actions to mitigate the impacts of climate change. The key players of

which are the environmental activists, but the year 2017 was the deadliest year for

environmental activism. That year 207 activists were killed, with Brazil, the Philippines

and Colombia named as the most dangerous countries (Al jazeera). Environmental

activists must receive support from the state and guarantee their protection. The

government, especially that of the Philippines, must take cognizance of the present

environmental problems and develop solutions thereto. The full enforcement of

environmental rights is a necessity.

The Indigenous People group suffered much through the results of mining, their

ancestral domains affected and their displacement from their lands. Numerous mining

companies has endangered the mountains, forests and riverbanks just to search for

precious gems, stones and golds and other minerals. Logging companies on the other
hand has rendered the forest lands denuded. Thus resulting to landslides and floodings

during the rainy seasons.

[Link] ideal situation should have been.

The state shall guarantee the full enforcement of the constitutional mandate and

develop required policies to protect the environment and the environmental rights of the

people. Provide for support and encourage the care for the environment. Be deeply

involved in crafting policies to provide environmental solutions.

IV. The possible reasons.

The government neglect the environment and prioritized economic well-being of the

State. The government’s inclination and favorable accommodation of the business

tycoons. The judicial restraint of the judiciary when it comes to environmental cases.

The lack of enforcement of the constitutional mandate.

[Link] to address the problems.

Enactment of environmental laws, the promulgation of Oposa v. Factoran and some

other analogous measures taken by the government. The Oposa case lay down the

framework to guide other environment related cases but the impact remains to be seen.

Numerous laws in the countries relating to environment was passed but those lack

implementation and is not flexible to meet the changing needs of the people.
VI. Related Studies

In 2018, scientists of Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) warned that the world

has just 12 years left to limit the global temperature rise to 1.5 degrees Celsius, any higher and

the risk of draughts, floods, and extreme weather will soar (Al Jazeera, Media and climate

change).

.In 2008, Bruckerhoff, J. argued that “a right to healthy environment should actually

guarantee a healthy environment, not just an environment that satisfies minimal health

hazards for humans but it should protect nature’s biodiversity.” He further suggested

that it can only be done through workable constitutional-rights framework. In addition, he

calls for a less anthropocentric approach when it comes to environmental rights.

The 1987 Constitution of the Philippines contains an environmental right provision

states that “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” (Article 2,

Section 16). The constitutional provision was first tested in court in the famous Oposa

v. Factoran case. The said case has not enjoyed a precedential value since only eight

Supreme Court cases has cited it.

In 2003, Gatmaytan, D. looked to the one of the most famous and celebrated cases in

the history of the Philippine Supreme Court i.e., Oposa v. Factoran. Children from all

over the country filed a case to compel the Secretary of the Department of Environment

and Natural Resources to cancel all existing Timber License Agreements and to prevent

him from renewing or processing any new applications. The suit was based on the novel
theory of intergenerational justice - the children claimed that they represented not only

their generation, but also generations yet unborn. This article shows that Oposa adds

barely anything new either to Philippine jurisprudence or to the cause of environmental

protection, and that it has faded from the practice of la w because it does not strengthen

the legal arsenal for environmental protection. Oposa, for all the praise it has earned,

did not affect government conduct in the protection of the environment.

In their study in the Panglao Islands, Husana, D. & Kikuchi, T (2013) found that tin the

analysis and measurement of physico-chemical parameters of the groundwater

revealed a high levels of human-induced contaminants. This subterranean pollution was

attributable to the leakage of septic tanks, artificial application of disinfectants as well as

infiltration of saltwater from the ocean due to over-extraction of groundwater in order to

meet the increasing demand for water.

VII. Problems unanswered.

The following questions are not answered:

1. What is the state of environmental rights in the country;

2. How far did the government go to address problems related to environmental rights;

and

3. What happened after the Supreme Court decided on the Oposa case?

Objectives

The main objective of the study is to determine the actual state of environmental rights

in the Philippines.

Specifically, it aims to:

environmental rights;

2. Determine the decisions behind the decided environmental cases by the Supreme

Court; and

3. By utilizing the findings of the environmental think tanks, NGOs, and the IGOs,

determine the state of the Philippine environment and environmental rights.

4. The data gathered will be used as bases for amending environmental laws in the

Philippines.

References

Bruckerhoff, J. (2008). Giving nature constitutional protection: A less anthropocentric

interpretation of environmental rights. Texas law review 86 (3) pp. 615-646.

Mitchell, C. (July 2018). 2017 was deadliest year for environmental activism. Al Jazeera

[Link]

[Link]

Gatmaytan, D. B. (2003). The illusion of intergenerational equity: Oposa v. factoran as

pyrrhic victory. Georgetown International Environmental Law Review, 15(3), 457.

Retrieved from [Link]

Al Jazeera. Media and climate change: Why we need a total overhaulRetrieved from

[Link]

[Link]