Bon

United Perrigima’s Federal Government adopted the ​Federal Law on

Pesticides​, which permanently bans “the production, stock-piling, use or distribution
of the ‘2018 cheaper version of pesticides’”1. It is not disputed that indeed, the law
seems to specifically prohibit such formulation of pesticide. On its face, the law
seems violative of the equal protection of laws principle as it unjustly specifies only
one kind of formulation of pesticide, to the exclusion of others, that may be
prejudicial to the interest of Rosapest Inc., and others who will seek to use such
formula.

As seen in the Universal Declaration on Human Rights, all are equal before
the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law.(ft) .
Illustrative is the case of ​People v. Cayat2. In the said case, it states that the guaranty
of equal protection of the laws is not violated by legislation if such is based on
reasonable classification. For the classification, to be reasonable, it (1) must rest on
substantial distinctions; (2) must be germane to the purpose of the law; (3) must not
be limited to existing conditions only; and (4) must apply equally to all members of
the same class.

It is the argument of the government that this argument for the law’s invalidity
is not correct and argues instead for its validity. The most contested requisite given
above is admittedly the third, but all four will be briefly discussed.

First, the distinction is undeniably based on substantial distinctions. Such

formulation of the pesticides are prejudicial to the environment. The effects seen in
the thousands of harks which were found dead on the shores of IP, Mousia, Wasun
Republic and the Republic of Grootman, fishing tourism in IP even dramatically
declined, and the stocks of other fish and sea birds such as penguins also decreased.
An investigation by UP’s federal authorities revealed that the harks and other animals
living in the sea were dying from chemical deposits in the sea.3 Second, the law’s
purpose as seen its preamble4, ​is to establish a remedy to the effects of the toxic
pesticides. Essentially, the prohibition of the formulation is germane to attain such
purpose.

Third, and most highlighted, the government argues that this law applies not
only for existing conditions. For one, the law does not only seek to remedy the
already damaged environment as a result of the use of said toxic pesticides, but also to
prevent the further use of such pesticides, specifically that certain formulation. In

1
​Compromis, ⁋​ 20​.
2
​People v. Cayat, G.R. No. 45987, [May 5, 1939], 68 PHIL 12-22).
3
​Compromis, ⁋​ 12​.
4
​Supra.
 connection with the last requirement for a valid distinction, the law does not prohibit
Rosapest Inc. from producing, stock-piling, using or distributing the product solely or
individually, but also others who may seek to perform the aforementioned acts. It
applies to all who seek the benefits of such pesticides, at the cost of the environment’s
well-being, which the State has interest in protecting. From the foregoing, the
specific prohibition of the ‘2018 cheaper version of pesticides’ is therefore valid and
justified.

Kareen

The ​Federal Law on Pesticides (FLP) is a valid exercise of the Federal Government
of United Perrigma’s (UP) duty to protect the environment. ​1972 Stockholm
Declaration of the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment
recognizes the protection and improvement of the human environment as a major
issue which affects the well-being of peoples and economic development throughout
the world; it is the urgent desire of the peoples of the whole world and the duty of all
Governments. Principle 2 of the said declaration states:

“The natural resources of the earth, including the air, water, land, flora
and fauna and especially representative samples of natural ecosystems,
must be safeguarded for the benefit of present and future generations
through careful planning or management, as appropriate.”5

Principle 4 of the same declaration continues by stating “Man has a special

responsibility to safeguard and wisely manage the heritage of wildlife and its habitat,
which are now gravely imperilled by a combination of adverse factors. Nature
conservation, including wildlife, must therefore receive importance in planning for
economic development.”

The above-mentioned provisions justify the adoption of the FLP by United

Perrigma to prevent the unnecessary deaths of harks and penguins caused by the
Rosapest Inc.’s chemical deposits in the sea that are necessary for the production of
the ‘2018 cheaper version of pesticides’.

Principle 6 of the 1972 Stockholm Declaration further provides, “The

discharge of toxic substances or of other substances and the release of heat, in such
quantities or concentrations as to exceed the capacity of the environment to render
them harmless, must be halted in order to ensure that serious or irreversible damage is
not inflicted upon ecosystems. The just struggle of the peoples of ill countries against
pollution should be supported.”

5
Stockholm Declaration on Human Environment, Principle 2 (1972).
 The continued production, stock-piling, distribution and use of the ‘2018
cheaper version of pesticides’ necessarily causes devastation to the environment by
releasing toxic substances in the sea. Therefore, its production should be immediately
stopped in order to prevent such devastation and the deaths of fishes and sea birds. It
is only right the Federal Government of United Perrigma adopted the FLP to preserve
the environment for future generations in order to achieve a developed economy.

Ysay -​ RIGHT OF THE STATE TO CONDUCT EAI (in conjunction with precautionary
measure?) AND OTHER RELATED MEASURES TO ENSURE PROTECTION OF
ENVIRONMENT

In recent years, the relationship between human rights and environmental issues has become
more evident, albeit, subject of debates. This linkage was first established and put in place
under the 1972 Stockholm Declaration on the Human Environment, which stipulates that man
has a ‘fundamental right to freedom, equality, and adequate conditions of life, in an
environment that permits a life of dignity and well-being and he bears a solemn responsibility
6
to protect and improve the environment for present and future generations.’

Although explicit provisions concerning the right to healthful environment are limited, if not
nil, in international law, such right can be inferred from several international human rights
instruments. Few of which are the Universal Declaration on Human Rights (UDHR),
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), and International (ICESCR),
over which the Federal Government of United Perrigma (UP) is a signatory. Similar
provisions in UDHR and ICCPR protects the right to life and adequate standard of living of
every individual, which by inference includes the right to environment. The ESCR
Committee on its General Comment 14 on the ​Highest Attainable Standard of Health
established that the right to health is an ‘inclusive right extending not only to timely and
appropriate health care but also to underlying determinants of health such as ​food and
7
nutrition and ​a healthy environment​. Further, in its General Comment 15 on the right to
water, the same committee made mention that environmental hygiene as a fundamental aspect
of the right to health includes taking precautionary steps to ensure that natural water
8
resources ​are protected from harmful substances​.

Notwithstanding the scarcity of legally binding and explicit provisions under international
law on the protection of environment, several cases were still decided by regulatory bodies

6
​Stockholm Declaration on Human Environment, Principle 1 (1972).
7
​ N Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR), ​General Comment No. 14: The Right to the
U
Highest Attainable Standard of Health (Art.12 of the Covenant),​ 11 August 2000, E/C.12/2000/4, available at
https://www.refworld.org/docid/4538838d0.html​ [accessed 4 March 2020]
8
​UN Committee on Economic, 20 January 2003, E/C.12/2002/11, available at
https://www.refworld.org/docid/4538838d11.html​ [accessed 4 March 2020]
siding towards the environment, in conjunction to people’s related rights. One of the
celebrated cases under the African System was ​The Social and Economic Rights Action
9
Centre v. Nigeria, ​where the African Commission emphasized that the right to a clean and
safe environment is critical to the enjoyment of economic, social and cultural rights. ​This
right, it held, requires a state to take reasonable measures to prevent pollution and
ecological degradation, to promote conservation and to secure an ecologically sustainable
development and use of natural resources. The duty to respect the right to a clean
environment largely entails non-interventionist conduct of the state, such as refraining
from carrying out, sponsoring or tolerating any practice, policy or legal measures violating
the integrity of any individual (emphasis supplied). The Commission stated that compliance
with the right to a clean environment encompasses a whole wide range of ​Environmental
Impact Assessment (EIA) which includes undertaking or at least permitting independent
scientific monitoring of threatened environments, and requiring and publicising
environmental and social impact studies prior to any major industrial development. The
Commission held that the Nigerian Government, having failed to discharge these duties, is
liable.

Marivic
Continuous use of ‘2018 cheaper version of pesticides’ has negative health impacts as
it causes environmental pollution and degradation. Thus, the Federal Government
adopted the April 2020 Federal Law on Pesticides (FLP). As stated in the FLP
preamble, the devastation to the environment and the unnecessary deaths of harks and
penguins were due to the use of toxic pesticides.

UP’s Federal Law on Pesticides (FLP) does not violate Rosario family and others’
human rights. Instead, it took measures to balance its people's ​right to a balanced and
healthful ecology with its people’s right to life.

UP’s Constitution contains substantive rights similar to those in the International

Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the International Covenant on
Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR).

10
Article 12 (2) of the ICESCR provides:

2. The steps to be taken by the States Parties to the present Covenant to

achieve the full realization of this right shall include those necessary for:

9
The Social and Economic Rights Actions Centre, et.al. v. Nigeria, Communication 155/96 (27 May 2002).
10
​International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. (1976). Retrieved 2020, from
https://www.ohchr.org/en/professionalinterest/pages/cescr.aspx
 (b) The improvement of all aspects of environmental and industrial hygiene;

UP is also a State Party to all human rights treaties in the UN framework. In 1990 the
UN General Assembly declared that 11"all individuals are entitled to live in an
environment adequate for their health and well-being". The United Nations
Commission on Human Rights also adopted a resolution in 1990, entitled 12
"Human Rights and the Environment", which again reaffirmed the relationship
between preservation of environment and the promotion of human rights.

The Charter on Environmental Rights and Obligations drafted by the United

Nations Economic Commission for Europe ("UNECE") affirms the right of
everyone to an environment adequate for general health and well-being and the
responsibility to protect and conserve the environment for present and future
generations.13 By virtue of the Doctrine of Intergenerational Responsibility therefore,
precautions should be taken so as to meet equitably physical and environmental
needs of present and future generations.

Thousands of harks were found dead on the shores of IP, Mousia, Wasun Republic
and the Republic of Grootman. Fishing tourism in IP dramatically declined. The
stocks of other fish and sea birds such as penguins also decreased. The Federal
Government and some scientists found that the catastrophe was a result of the use of
the cheap pesticides produced by Rosapest Inc. The World Conference on Human
Rights recognizes that illicit dumping of toxic and dangerous substances and waste
potentially constitutes a serious threat to the human rights to life and health of
everyone.

Right to a clean environment is as fundamental as Right to life. It is as important as

other human rights and in fact, dependent upon these other human rights.
Preservation, conservation, and restoration of the environment are necessary for the
enjoyment of the rights to health and to food. In reality, Healthy environment is a
basic human necessity.

When our environment is harmed, our basic human right to health is compromised as
well. Right to clean environment, as a universal and inalienable right and an integral
part of fundamental human rights, is a basic human necessity. Human beings should
be concerned for sustainable development, and that they are entitled to a healthy and
productive life in harmony with Nature.

11
​United Nations General Assembly Resolution 45/94, 14 December 1990.
12
Resolution 1990/41, 6 March, 1990.
13
Draft UNECE Charter on Environmental Rights and Obligations, adopted 29-31, 1990, quoted in D.
Shelton, "Human Rights, Environmental Rights, and the Right to Environment", 28 Stanford Journal of
International Law (Stanford California), (1991), Vol. 103, at fn. 84.
James
By virtue of precautionary principle as reiterated in the Rio declaration on
environment and development principle 15;

Principle 15: In order to protect the environment, the precautionary approach

shall be widely applied by States according to their capabilities. Where there
are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty
shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent
environmental degradation.

In the case ​of ​Greenpeace Southeast Asia (Philippines), et. al. vs. Environmental Management
Bureau of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources, et. al the court states that if the
situation or event calls for immediate action to protect the environment it should be given its
way as what the court stated in the case mentioned above “which indicates that lack of
scientific certainty is no reason to postpone action to avoid potentially serious or irreversible
harm to the environment.”14 the court does not require that an actual damage arises before the
government executes an action. ​"when human activities may lead to threats of serious and
irreversible damage to the environment that is scientifically plausible but uncertain, actions
shall be taken to avoid or diminish the threat”15 The court used the phrase, “may lead to
threats ” which would mean that an actual damage or effect is not required because the
greater evil that the law wanted to avoid is the irreversible damage that such human action
might bring to the environment. For it will be too late for humankind to act if they are to wait
for actual damage.

Nickha

Rosapest Inc. opined that the provisional instruction16 violated IP people’s right to food.17 The
human right to food is recognized by the ​Universal Declaration of Human Rights (​ UDHR)18
in the context of the right to an adequate standard of living. It is also recognized by the

14
​Greenpeace Southeast Asia (Philippines), et. al. vs. Environmental Management Bureau of the Department of
Environment and Natural Resources, et. al
15
Id.
16
​Compromis, ​⁋14.
17
​Id, ​⁋16.
18
​Universal Declaration of Human Rights. G.A. Res. 217A, U.N. GAOR, 3d Sess., 1st plen. mtg., U.N. Doc.
A/810 art. 25 (1) (Dec. 12, 1948).
International Convention on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (​ ICESCR)19, and is
addressed twice: under the fundamental right to be free from hunger and under the right to
adequate food.

CESCR General Comment No. 12 provides the following components of the right to food:
availability, adequacy, accessibility, and sustainability.20 It also provides that food should be
safe for human consumption and free from adverse substances.21 In a UN Report, it provided
that pesticides are responsible for biodiversity loss and water and soil contamination and
negatively affects the productivity of croplands resulting in threats to future food production.
22
Pesticide exposure impacts the enjoyment of the right to adequate food and the right to
health. The right to food obligates States to implement protective measures to make sure that
food is safe, free from pesticides and qualitatively adequate.23

Admittedly, the banning of the use of the ‘2018 version of pesticides’ may result in food
price increases as a result of lower food production, however these may be offset by the
decrease in other losses due to pesticide damage,24 which are also borne by individuals other
than those who benefited from its use.25 The right to adequate food embraces the notion that
its realization must not interfere with the enjoyment of other human rights. Arguments which
suggest that pesticides help safeguard the right to food clash with the right to health, in the
view of the negative health impacts associated with the use of certain pesticides.26 The
continued reliance on hazardous pesticides is a short-term solution that compromises the right
to adequate food and health for the present and future generations.27

It is thus submitted that the use of the ‘2018 version of pesticides’ would be detrimental in
the long run for the health of the citizens of UP. The right to food is not equated to the right
to be fed but connotes a broader meaning. By banning the use of the ‘2018 version of
pesticides’, the State is performing its mandate to protect its citizens and the environment
from the long-term harmful effects of pesticides.

Gab
● The government's undertaking was a valid exercise of Police Power. Recognition and
yielding to it has been widely accepted and recognized by most civilized states.

19
​International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights​, 16 December 1966, 993 U.N.T.S. 3 art (11)
(entered into force ​3 January 1976).
20
​CESCR General Comment No 12: The Right to Adequate Food (Art. 11),​ E/C.12/1999/5 (12 May 1999) ⁋8.
21
​Id, ​⁋10.
22
​UN Human Rights Council, ​Report of the Special Rapporteur on the right to food,​ 24 January 2017,
A/HRC/34/48 ⁋41.
23
​Id,​ ⁋5.
24
​DAVID PIMENTEL & HUGH LEHMAN, THE PESTICIDE QUESTION: ENVIRONMENT,
ECONOMICS, AND ETHICS, at 6 (1993)
25
​Id, a​ t 9.
26
​UN Human Rights Council, ​Report of the Special Rapporteur on the right to food​, 24 January 2017,
A/HRC/34/48 ⁋42.
27
​Id,​ ⁋2.
 Several tests are employed to legitimize the state's exercise of this awesome power.
Under the intrinsic validity test, a regulation is to be recognized validly when there is
a lawful objective present under such law where pervasive effects to the right of
others might be apparent or manifest. However, it will still trump those rights because
the regulatory law is fogged by a lawful objective. The nobleness of the intention of
the law is given weight by the Courts as long as it does not violate due process and
equal protection.

The government’s undertaking was a valid exercise of Police Power. Recognition and
yielding to it has been widely accepted and recognized by most civilized states to be an
inherent power of the government. To legitimize the state’s exercise of this power, it must
comply with the due process clause. American Jurisprudence has sought to evolve the scope
of due process and was later on expanded into two, to wit: “Substantive Due Process” and
“Procedural Due Process.” Substantive due process demarcates the line between the acts that
courts hold to be subject to government regulation or legislation and the acts that courts place
beyond the reach of governments. It is to be distinguished from procedural due process. The
distinction arises from the words “of law” in the phrase “due process of law.28”

To determine the validity of a law and whether it complies with substantive due process, the
Courts usually look first to see whether the right is a fundamental right by examining whether
it is rooted in the Constitution, history or traditions. If the right is not a fundamental right, the
Court applies a “rational basis test:” if the violation of the right can be rationally related to a
legitimate government purpose, the law is then valid. If the court establishes that the right
being violated is a fundamental right, it applies the “strict scrutiny test” whether the law is
necessary to achieve a compelling state interest and whether the law is narrowly tailored to
address that interest. In such a case, it weighs the government’s interest against the
individual’s interest when certain constitutional issues are before it. For individual rights that
are not considered one.29

The Hark judgement led the Federal Government to order the cessation of the production of
the 2018 cheaper version of pesticides. The basis of the Hark judgement in ruling in favor of
the environment was premised on the hark’s right to a clean environment, and the
Constitutional Court recognized its legal personality too. By logical consequence, this
environmental right should likewise extend to humans inhabiting in the affected area and the
constituent in the Federal Country, and by extension therefore, everyone has legal personality
to enforce such right in the Constitutional Court, considering that the harks were allowed. It
was held in a Philippine case that every generation has the right to a balance and healthful
ecology and this right covers children of all generations for ultimately, they will be the
beneficiary of the environment and depriving them of this now violates their constitutional

28
Sandefur, Timothy (2010). The Right to Earn a Living: Economic Freedom and the Law. Washington, D.D.:
Cato Institute. Pp. 90-100.
29
​Railway Express Agency v. People of State of New York, 336 U.S. 106, 112 (1949)
right to a good environment.30 This case was subsequently confirmed by the Philippine
Supreme Court that indeed in Kilosbayan v. Morato, where it held that although it was a state
policy, it was likewise a right for the wordings grants it to be so.31

There can be no violation of due process for the following reasons: (1) it satisfies rational
basis test and (2) strict scrutiny test. It is submitted that the prohibition of the production of
the 2018 cheaper pesticides is a valid exercise of police power for there is valid and
legitimate government aim in doing so. Discussed is why there is satisfaction of the rational
basis test and thus, there can be no violation of due process. Accordingly, the right to a
balanced ecology and healthful environment is right. The government in its exercise of police
power sought to enforce this by banning the pesticides since the result of the production
damaged that environmental plain of the fish and seabirds decreasing their population in the
area, undisputedly, it is a case environmental in nature and the scientific findings of the
government that the cheap pesticides are the cause of such, was enough cause for it to impose
the restraining order.32 Certainly, the maintenance of a good environment is a legitimate
governmental aim for the scarcity of our resources should be balanced at all cost, and the
government should not allow the clear showing of rape of the mother nature.

Lastly, it is submitted that under the strict-scrutiny test, the regulation of the government
passes. The environment as accepted by most civilized nations is vested with public interest.
To assume the social-welfare benefits from the production of a raw environment provides a
better outcome when the raw environment possesses good quality.33 The benefits that can be
given by the environment warrants that it be vested with public interest because the benefits
contribute to the wealth of the nation, and the environment itself is a wealth of the nation. As
applying the strict scrutiny test, there should be compelling state interest, and indeed, the
stability and quality of a good environment is one of those. The imposition of the Federal
Government to halt the cheaper pesticide productions fall within this ambit. For the
continuance of such will thoroughly damage the environmental plain, likewise, the order is in
pursuant of the Hark judgement and anchored on a scientific examination. These evidence in
the hand of the government outweighs the personal interest of people for the latter interest
should yield to the government’s aim of a stable and balanced ecology and environment. No
substantive due process is therefore violated.

Procedural due process has also not been violated for one, there was a notice given to them.
What they should have done is file a restraining case in Court to preserve their economic
right.

30
​Oposa v. Factoran, G.R. No. 101083, 30 July 1993.
31
​G.R. No. 118910 (Resolution), 16 November 1995.
32
​Paragraph 19 of the Compromis
33
​Springer, et. al. Environmental Quality as a Public Good in: Economics of the Environment (2008).
Economics of the Environment Journal, ISBN 978-3-540-73706-3
The Government ban on the ‘2018 cheaper version of pesticides’ is a valid exercise of
its police power. (GAB)
● Specifically prohibiting the ‘2018 cheaper version of pesticides’ is not
violative of the equal protection of law principle.

The Government has the obligation to take measures to ensure environmental

protection (YSAY, JAMES, KAREEN, MARIVIC)
● Right to conduct an Environmental Impact Assessment
● The Precautionary Principle

The act of the Government is in line with its mandate to uphold the right of its
citizens (MARIVIC)

● Right to food must not interfere with enjoyment of other human rights

Rosapest Inc. opined that the provisional instruction violated IP people’s right to food. The
human right to food is recognized under international law. CESCR General Comment No. 12
provides the following components of the right to food: availability, adequacy, accessibility,
and sustainability. It also provides that food should be safe for human consumption and free
from adverse substances. In a UN Report, it provided that pesticides are responsible for
biodiversity loss and water and soil contamination and negatively affects the productivity of
croplands resulting in threats to future food production. Pesticide exposure impacts the
enjoyment of the right to adequate food and the right to health. The right to food obligates
States to implement protective measures to make sure that food is safe, free from pesticides
and qualitatively adequate.

● Right of its citizens to a balanced and healthful ecology

● Right of its citizens to earn a living