Lnv|ronmenta| Cases |n the h|||pp|nes

Irreparab|e damage to future generat|ons

ln Lhe landmark case of Cposa v Iactoran (224 SCkA 792 1993) several
mlnors represenLed by Lhelr parenLs flled a complalnL agalnsL Lhe SecreLary of Lhe
ueparLmenL of LnvlronmenL and naLural 8esources (uLn8) Lo compel hlm Lo cancel
all Llmber llcense agreemenLs ln Lhe counLry as well as Lo sLop lssulng new ones
1he complalnL asserLed LhaL conLlnued felllng of Lrees ln hlllpplne ralnforesLs
would lead Lo deforesLaLlon and consequenL lrreparable damage noL only Lo Lhe
complalnanL mlnors buL Lo fuLure generaLlons as well 1he lower courL dlsmlssed
Lhe complalnL on Lhe ground LhaL Lhe plalnLlffs falled Lo allege wlLh sufflclenL
deflnlLeness a speclflc legal rlghL Lhey were seeklng Lo enforce and proLecL Cn
appeal ln Lhe Supreme CourL LhaL argumenL was re[ecLed and Lhe courL ruled LhaL a
denlal or vlolaLlon of Lhe rlghL Lo a balanced and healLhful ecology by anoLher who
has a duLy Lo respecL or proLecL Lhe same glves rlse Lo a cause of acLlon ln Lhls
case Lhe granLlng of Llmber llcense agreemenLs by Lhe uLn8 allegedly done wlLh
grave abuse of dlscreLlon gave rlse Lo such cause of acLlon
rof||gate waste of the countrys forest resources
1he Supreme CourL has also been mosL acLlve ln Lhe proLecLlon of Lhe
counLrys foresL resources ln smae| v Deputy Lxecut|ve Secretary (190 SCkA 673
684 1990) Lhe courL Look [udlclal noLlce of Lhe profllgaLe wasLe of Lhe counLrys
foresL resources whlch has noL only resulLed ln Lhe lrreverslble loss of flora and
fauna pecullar Lo Lhe reglon buL has produced even more dlsasLrous and lasLlng
economlc and soclal effecLs 1he dellcaLe balance of naLure havlng been upseL a
vlclous cycle of floods and droughLs has been Lrlggered and Lhe supply of food and
energy resources requlred by Lhe people serlously depleLed
rocedura| remed|es
1he CourL has been vlgllanL ln ensurlng LhaL procedural remedles are noL
used Lo LhwarL Lhe goals of envlronmenLal proLecLlon ln aat et a| v Court of
Appea|s et a| (266 SCkA 167 1997) lL was held LhaL replevln a speclal acLlon Lo
recover movable properLy cannoL be used Lo recover properLy whlch ls Lhe sub[ecL
maLLer of an admlnlsLraLlve forfelLure proceedlng ln Lhe uLn8 pursuanL Lo Lhe
8evlsed loresLry Code of Lhe hlllpplnes recognlzlng LhaL Lhe sulL for replevln ls
never lnLended as a procedural Lool Lo quesLlon Lhe orders of conflscaLlon and
forfelLure lssued by Lhe uLn8 pursuanL Lo Lhe auLhorlLy glven Lo lL under Lhe
loresLry Code
Interpretat|on of facts
ln Lhe lnLerpreLaLlon of facLs Lhe CourL has noL glven ln Lo Lhe LempLaLlon
of maklng halrspllLLlng dlsLlncLlons Lo Lhe deLrlmenL of envlronmenLal proLecLlon
Pence ln Mustang Lumber Inc v Court of Appea|s et a| (2S7 SCkA 430 1996)
Lhe CourL lnLerpreLed Lhe Lerm Llmber Lo lnclude lumber slnce excluslon of Lhe
Lerm lumber from Lhe penal provlslons of Lhe 8evlsed loresLry Code would defeaL
Lhe very purpose of Lhe law le Lo mlnlmlze lf noL halL lllegal logglng LhaL has
denuded hlllpplne foresLs 1he CourL sald lnsofar as possesslon of Llmber wlLhouL
Lhe requlred legal documenLs ls concerned SecLlon 68 of Lhe loresLry Code makes
no dlsLlncLlon beLween raw or processed Llmber nelLher should we
rov|nc|a| body to enact urgent|y needed |eg|s|at|on to pretect the env|ronment
1he CourL has afflrmed Lhe lmporLanL role of Lhe local governmenL ln
envlronmenLal proLecLlon ln 1ano et a| v Socrates et a| (278 SCkA 1S4 1997)
1he CourL upheld Lhe valldlLy of several governmenL ordlnances whlch ln essence
almed Lo prohlblL cyanlde flshlng 1he CourL commended Lhe leglslaLlve bodles of
Lhe ClLy of uerLo rlncesa and Lhe rovlnce of alawan for exerclslng Lhe requlslLe
pollLlcal wlll ln enacLlng urgenLly needed leglslaLlon Lo proLecL and enhance Lhe
marlne envlronmenL Lhereby sharlng ln Lhe Perculean Lask of arresLlng Lhe Llde of
ecologlcal desLrucLlon lL expressed Lhe hope LhaL oLhe local governmenL unlLs
would be roused from Lhelr leLhargy and adopL a more vlgllanL sLand ln Lhe baLLle
agalnsL Lhe declmaLlon of hlllpplne flshery and aquaLlc resources Lhe legacy Lo
fuLure generaLlons
Deve|op|ng the f|e|d of env|ronmenta| protect|on
1he CourL has Lo keep up wlLh Lhe consLanL developmenL of Lhe fleld of
envlronmenLal proLecLlon ever aLLempLlng Lo lnLerpreL LradlLlonal legal concepLs ln
llghL of emerglng Lrends ln envlronmenLal law 1he kega||an doctr|ne LhaL all
agrlculLural Llmber and mlneral lands of Lhe publlc domaln and oLher naLural
resources of Lhe hlllpplnes belong Lo Lhe SLaLe musL be reconclled wlLh Lhe
concepL of naLlve LlLle and Lhe ancesLral domaln clalms of lndlgenous culLural
communlLles 1he LradlLlonal concepLs or properLy ownershlp should lncreaslngly
accommodaLe Lhe responslblllLy Lo proLecL Lhe envlronmenL ConvenLlonal noLlons
of value musL lncorporaLe Lhe concepL of envlronmenLal cosLs ln Lhe area of
lnLernaLlonal convenLlons Lhe CourL musL flnd ways of recognlzlng and breaLhlng
llfe lnLo lnLernaLlonal commlLmenLs even as ls ofLen Lhe case ln Lhe absence of
lmplemenLlng leglslaLlon