A POSITION PAPER TO THE PROPOSED RIGHTS OF NATURE BILL

As discussed by Atty. Macki Maderazo

Submitted by: HENNESSY D. MUGA, JD-2

The main highlight of Atty. Macki Maderazo’s discussion was the

passage of Rights of Nature Bill. House Bill No. 5603 or the “Rights of Nature Act”
was the second version of RON bill to be filed. Last October of year 2019, Senator
Risa Hontiveros had her own version in the Senate of the Philippines. For a period
of almost two (2) months, both houses of the Philippine Congress filed their own
versions of this bill. This proves to show of how ground breaking this bill is if passed
into a law.

Atty. Maderazo has been a strong advocate for environmental protection. By

being a legal counsel to Philippine-Misereor Partnership Inc. (PMPI) and an active
environmental lawyer, he stands as one of the representative of nature before the
court of law. And I quote:

“We want to recognize nature as a distinct entity with legal personality,” says Macki
Maderazo, the PMPI’s legal counsel. “When you say it has a legal personality then
a person can represent nature before a court of law and can seek damages or
prosecute persons who committed violations under the bill,” he adds.

Environmental activists and lawyers like Atty. Maderazo are leading initiators
for the enactment and passage of this groundbreaking move towards protecting
the Philippine ecosystem. Their aim is to push for a legal protection towards the
environment, strengthen indigenous people’s rights over ancestral domain lands,
and hold individuals, government and corporations accountable for environmental
abuses and lapses. Indeed, this shall be a historic moment for nature’s advocates
if these rights of nature shall be legally put into a Philippine law.

The concept in the Philippine setting, of lobbying rights of nature into a law
and getting support from lawmakers is part of the growing movement worldwide
and of how other countries actively stand for environmental protection.

Ecuador was the first country in 2008 to successfully recognize the nature’s
rights in its constitution. Adding to the list is the country of Bolivia which passed a
law of its Mother Nature’s Rights in year 2010. In Argentina, year 2014, a captive
orangutan was granted non-human person rights. Also in the same year, the Indian
Supreme Court ruled that all non-human animals have both statutory and
constitutional rights in India. That was followed by a 2015 decision from the Delhi
High Court that birds have the fundamental legal right to fly. In 2017, a Māori tribe
in New Zealand won unprecedented legal recognition of its river, the Whanganui,
as a living entity by the state. And in a 2018 decision from the Uttarakhand High
Court that identified members of the entire animal kingdom as persons. The
Constitution of the Portuguese Republic in its 7th Revision, April 25, 1976, sets out
the government duties. In its Art. 66 (2) which states that: In order to ensure
enjoyment of the right to the environment within an overall framework of
sustainable development, acting via appropriate bodies and with the involvement
and participation of citizens, the state shall be charged with: a) Preventing and
controlling pollution and its effects and the harmful forms of erosion; b) Conducting
and promoting town and country planning with a view to a correct location of
activities, balanced social and economic development and the enhancement of the
landscape; c) Creating and developing natural and recreational reserves and parks
and classifying and protecting landscapes and places, in such a way as to
guarantee the conservation of nature and the preservation of cultural values and
assets that are of historic or artistic interest; d) Promoting the rational use of natural
resources, while safeguarding their ability to renew themselves and maintain
ecological stability, with respect for the principle of inter-generational solidarity; e)
Acting in cooperation with local authorities, promoting the environmental quality of
rural settlements and urban life, particularly on the architectural level and as
regards the protection of historic zones; f) Promoting the integration of
environmental objectives into the various policies of a sectoral nature; g)
Promoting environmental education and respect for environmental values; h)
Ensuring that tax policy renders development compatible with the protection of the
environment and the quality of life. These are just few of those nations worldwide
which are actively participating in the recognition of nature’s inherent rights to exist,
thrive and evolve. The notion that nature has rights and value is reiterated in
international laws in many countries.

Basically, the interesting part here is to know the underlying provisions of

this Rights of Nature (RON) Act on a legal aspect and in the country’s setting. But
to define in general this question, what is this RON Act? Digging further to its
details, this bill was being lobbied to in order to recognize nature that it should have
its own legal rights just like humans. RON is the recognition and honoring of the
ecosystem including trees, oceans, animals and mountains to have their own legal
rights. And that this representation would be capable of pushing for another level
of protection to the ailing environment. How does it work? The bill shall push a
legal framework that will recognize ecosystems as rights bearing entity that can
file a case in court to protect itself against violators. Such cases will be filed via a
representative or guardian who maybe an advocate for the most affected
communities.

Apparently, there already exists previous legal representations in Philippine

court for environmental issues and damages brought by malpractices of private
and government entities. One Supreme Court ruling in favor of the petitioners
happened last 2017. A group of environment lawyers led by Benjamin Cabrido Jr.
filed a case against the Japan Petroleum Exploration Co. Ltd. (JAPEX) over its oil
exploration, development and exploitation activities in the Tañon Strait, the
country’s largest marine protected area, between the islands of Cebu and Negros.
Among the petitioners named in the case were “Resident Marine Mammals,”
including “toothed whales, dolphins, porpoises, and other cetacean species
inhabiting Tañon Strait represented by human beings in their capacity as legal
guardians of the lesser life-forms and as responsible stewards of God’s creations.”

After an eight-year legal battle, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the
petitioners and declared null and void the service contract between JAPEX and
the energy department. The court justified its ruling on apparent violations of the
1987 Constitution, the National Integrated Protected Systems Act (NIPAS) and the
Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) decree. But the ruling held that animals
have no “legal personality” and thus could not be represented by lawyers. (G.R.
No. 180771)

Talking about the impact of said act if passed into a law, what may consider
be its strengths, weakness, threats and opportunities in the over-all perspective.
In a legal approach, the bill’s unique proposition provides for legal provisions
recognizing the Rights of Nature, sometimes referred to as Earth Jurisprudence
basing on the country’s constitutions, statutes, and other local laws. As mentioned
above, there already exist rulings in court which favor into the petitioners lobbying
for nature’s rights. And these decisions were based on the existing Philippine laws
related on recognizing non-human animals as subjects for legal rights.
Furthermore, this bill can widely address the problem of climate change that has
predominantly affecting our nation and the entire world. The rights of nature
movement spearheading since the past decades, has started to gain power as a
possible tool to combat climate change impacts.

The weakness that this act may be facing while on the process of its passage
are those highly influential individuals who opt to destruct nature due to
commercialism. Modern projects are brewing in every corner especially in highly
urbanized settings. Businessmen whose aim is to modernize one specific location
can do whatever it takes even just to destroy existing natural habitat. The
government on the other hand may be placed into a dilemma whether to protect
nature or to initiate commercial developments. Since modernization may create
jobs to the constituents, and as well as prosper the economic standing.

Next are the opportunities. This RON can maintain a dynamic balance
between the rights of humans and those of other members of the Earth community
on the basis of what is best for Earth as a whole. It can promote restorative justice
which focuses more on restoring damaged relationships of the nature and
individuals rather than focusing more on punishment. It recognizes all members of
the Earth community as subjects before the law, with the right to the protection of
the law and to an effective remedy for human acts that violate their fundamental
rights. The bill, should it pass into law, will create a paradigm shift in existing
human-centered environmental laws and make individuals, governments and
corporations more responsible and accountable when dealing with nature. This
can adequately represent the connectedness between indigenous peoples and
their ancestral domains. Furthermore, educational activities on the rights of Nature
are on the increase in the professional and public spheres to advance Earth
Jurisprudence. Also adding to the discussion, new policies, guidelines and
resolutions are increasingly pointing to the need for a legal approach that
recognizes the rights of the Earth to well-being.

The tide is turning to what we call the importance of “human existence.”

Because of those groups who are strong advocates and are actively participating
in enshrinement of rights of nature, it is clear to say that Filipinos now are into the
environmental standing. Most of Filipino individuals today have their sense of
concern to the value of nature’s life. Most especially during these trying times that
the nation and the entire world is facing. Global pandemic and other disasters that
we face from time to time may be attributable to the mishandling of nature’s gifts.
People may tend to overuse the importance of what nature can give or offer. Thus,
numerous environmental abuse and displacement provides threat to the growing
population.

The Rights of Nature ideology takes the view that human beings need to
stop treating nature as objects or property, and change their perception of nature
as being connected with human beings. The human life, for our generation and for
future ones, is only sustainable when the environment is protected.

-END-