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-