THE CONSTITUTION AND

THE ENVIRONMENT
 Doctrine of
Incorporation
Art icle II, Se ct ion 2. The Philippine s
re nounce s war as an ins t r ume n t of
n at ion al policy, adop ts the ge ne rally
accepted principles of international law as
part of the law of the land and adheres to
the policy of pe ace, equalit y, just ice,
freedom, cooperation, and amity with all
nations.
 INTERNATIONAL COMMITMENTS

Vienna Convention for the Protection of Ozone

Layer
Montreal Protocol on the Protection of the Ozone
Layer
Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic
Pollutants
Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary
Movement of Hazardous Wastes and their Disposal
 INTERNATIONAL COMMITMENTS

Rotterdam Convention on the Prior

Informed Consent Procedure for Certain
Hazardous Chemicals and Pesticides in
International Use
United Nations Conference on
Environment and Development (UNCED)
Philippine Agenda 21 (PA 21)
 INTERNATIONAL COMMITMENTS
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC)
In general, the convention discussed the following important points:
Recognized that there was a problem
Sets a specific goal
Puts the onus on developed countries to lead the way

Directs new funds to climate change activities in developing

countries
Keeps tabs on problems and what’s being done about it
Charts the beginnings of a path to strike a delicate balance
Kicks off formal consideration of adaptation to climate change
 INTERNATIONAL COMMITMENTS
The Kyoto Protocol
It “operationalizes” the Convention (UNFCCC). It
commi ts indus t r ialize d coun t r ie s to s tabilize
greenhouse gas emissions based on the principles of
the Convention
Sets binding emission reduction targets for 37
industrialized countries and the European community
in its first commitment period. Overall, these targets
add up to an average five per cent emissions
reduction compared to 1990 levels over the five-year
period 2008 to 2012
 right to a balanced and
healthful ecology

Article II, 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.
 Oposa vs. Factoran,
G.R. No. 1010183, 30 July 1993

While the right to a balanced and

healthful ecology is to be found under the
Declaration of Principle s 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.
 Oposa vs. Factoran,
G.R. No. 1010183, 30 July 1993

As a matter of fact, these basic rights

nee d no t e ve n be w r i t te n in t he
Constitution for they are assumed to
exist from the inception of humankind.
 Oposa vs. Factoran,
G.R. No. 1010183, 30 July 1993
Locus Standi
This case, however, has a special and novel
element. Petitioners minors assert that they
represent their generation as well as generations
yet unborn.
Their personalit y to sue in behalf of the
succeeding generations can only be based on the
concept of “intergenerational responsibility”
insofar as the right to a balanced and healthful
ecology is concerned.
 Oposa vs. Factoran,
G.R. No. 1010183, 30 July 1993

Needless to say, every generation has a responsibility to the

next to preserve that rhythm and harmony for the full
enjoyment of a balanced and healthful ecology.
Put a little differently, the minors' assertion of their right to
a sound environment constitutes, at the same time, the
performance of their obligation to ensure the protection of
that right for the generations to come.
 MMDA vs. Concerned Residents of
Manila Bay,
GR No. 171947-48, December 18, 2008
The Cleaning or Rehabilitation of Manila Bay Can be Compelled
by Mandamus

Generally, the writ of mandamus lies to require the execution of

a ministerial duty.

A ministerial duty is one that requires neither the exercise of

official discretion nor judgment. It connotes an act in which
nothing is left to the discretion of the person executing it. It is a
simple, definite duty arising under conditions admitted or
proved to exist and imposed by law. Mandamus is available to
compel action, when refused, on matters involving discretion,
but not to direct the exercise of judgment or discretion one way
or the other.
 MMDA vs. Concerned Residents of
Manila Bay,
GR No. 171947-48, December 18, 2008

Petitioners obligation to perform their duties as defined by

law, on one hand, and how they are to carry out such duties,
on the other, are t wo different concepts.
While the implementation of the MMDAs mandated tasks
may entail a decision-making process, the enforcement of
the law or the very act of doing what the law exacts to be
done is ministerial in nature and may be compelled by
mandamus.
 MMDA vs. Concerned Residents of
Manila Bay,
GR No. 171947-48, December 18, 2008
Secs. 17 and 20 of the Environment Code Include
Cleaning in General
Sec. 17 requires them to act even in the absence of a specific
pollution incident, as long as water quality has deteriorated to
a degree where its state will adversely affect its best usage.
This section, to stress, commands concerned government
agencies, when appropriate, to take such measures as may be
necessary to meet the prescribed water quality standards.
In fine, the underlying duty to upgrade the quality of water is
not conditional on the occurrence of any pollution incident.
 MMDA vs. Concerned Residents of
Manila Bay,
GR No. 171947-48, December 18, 2008

• The cleanup and/or restoration of the Manila Bay is

only an aspect and the initial stage of the long-term
solution.

• It thus behooves the Court to put the heads of the

petitioner-department-agencies and the bureaus and
offices under them on continuing notice about, and to
enjoin them to perform, their mandates and duties
towards cleaning up the Manila Bay and preser ving
the quality of its water to the ideal level.
 MMDA vs. Concerned Residents of
Manila Bay,
GR No. 171947-48, December 18, 2008

• Under what other judicial discipline describes as

con t i nui ng m andamus, t he C o urt m ay, unde r
extraordinary circumstances, issue directives with
the end in view of ensuring that its decision would
not be set to naught by administrative inaction or
indifference.
 RESIDENT MARINE MAMMALS OF THE
PROTECTED SEASCAPE TANON STRAIT vs. Sec.
Angelo Reyes, G.R. No. 180771, April 21, 2015

In our jurisdict ion, locus standi in

environmental cases has been given a
more liberalized approach.
 RESIDENT MARINE MAMMALS OF THE
PROTECTED SEASCAPE TANON STRAIT vs. Sec.
Angelo Reyes, G.R. No. 180771, April 21, 2015

it has been consistently held that rules

of procedure "may be re t roacti vely
app lie d t o ac t io n s p e n di ng a n d
unde termined at the time of their
passage and will not violate any right of
a person who may feel that he is
adversely affected, inasmuch as there is
no vested rights in rules of procedure."
 RESIDENT MARINE MAMMALS OF THE
PROTECTED SEASCAPE TANON STRAIT vs. Sec.
Angelo Reyes, G.R. No. 180771, April 21, 2015

Moreover, even before the Rules of

Proce dure for Env ironme n tal Case s
became effective, this Court had already
taken a permissive position on the issue
of locus standi in environmental cases.
 RESIDENT MARINE MAMMALS OF THE
PROTECTED SEASCAPE TANON STRAIT vs. Sec.
Angelo Reyes, G.R. No. 180771, April 21, 2015

In light of the foregoing, the need to give

the Resident Marine Mammals legal
standing has been eliminated by our
Rules, which allow any Filipino citizen, as
a steward of nature, to bring a suit to
enforce our environmental laws.