Problem Based Approaches in Public International Law Herhof vs.

Glans-Saranggani On 2006, the then Mayor Ramos of Glans-Saranggani allowed by the City Council to enter into contract with Herhof for the installation of the waste-to-energy facility. Included in the contract a provision that Glas-Saranggani should provide one thousand tons of waste for the continued operation of the facility, however, GlansSaranggani was not able to provide such volume of waste, thus it enters into contracts of importation of waste with other countries in order to meet the said requirements. Due to public clamour, the president issued an Executive Order banning the importation of waste, consequently, Glans-Saranggani was not able to meet the volumes needed for the operation of the waste facility, fearing for penalty, it rescind the contract with Herhof, which leads Herhof to sue the Philippine government . The issue is whether or not the LGU- Glans Saranggani is liable to Herhof for rescinding the contract. Glans-Saranggani stands that it is not liable to Herhof due to the following reasons; Glans-Saranggani as the protector of the general welfare of the people and pursuant to its police power justifiably rescinded the contract; we cannot deny that the waste to energy facility emits toxics/ chemicals which are detrimental to the health of its citizen as well as to the neighbouring community, as these emissions pollutes the air and water resources as well as contributes to the degradation of the environment and on Climate Crisis. The former city councils were not able to consider the cost-benefits of the contracts they entered into with Herhof. Assuming arguendo that, the objectives of the program is to reduce the waste and promotes tourism in the city, Glans-Saranggani cannot sacrifice the welfare of its people only to give-in to the will of other countries to just dump their waste in the city. The fact that Glans Saranggani already acknowledge that the contract did not benefited its people, but just worsened the situation and even put risk to the health of its people is sufficient reason for them to rescind the contract.

Under the WTO, there is an agreement by the members recognizing the government/member states rights to take sanitary and phytosanitary measures necessary to protect human, animal or plant life or health and should not arbitrarily or unjustifiably discriminate between Members where identical or similar conditions prevail. It is expected that Members would accept the sanitary and phytosanitary measures of others as equivalent if the exporting country demonstrates to the importing country that its measures achieve the importing countrys appropriate level of health protection. The continuance of the operation of the waste facility grossly violates the fundamental rights of the people to a balance and healthful ecology as generally accepted international norms and as embodied in the Philippine constitution. Thus, there is an exigent, necessary, justifiable reason for Mayor Santos to rescind the contract. Furthermore as embodied in the principle of stewardship- humans as steward of our finite earth have the responsibility to conserve and protect nature and are tasked to come up with solution to ecological problems that are mainly caused by human activities.