FUNDAMENTAL

ENVIRONMENTAL
PRINCIPLES
August 17, 2021
Article 2, Section
16 of the 1987
Constitution:

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.
• “While the right to a balanced and healthful
ecology is to be found under the Declaration of
Principles 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.
• “Such a right belongs to a different category of
rights altogether for it concerns nothing less than
self-preservation and self-perpetuation … the
advancement of which may be said to predate all
governments and constitutions. As a matter of
fact these basic rights need not be written in the
Constitution for they are assumed to exist from
the inception of humankind.”
• “If they are now explicitly mentioned in the fundamental
charter it is because of the well-founded fear of the
framers that unless the rights to a balanced and healthful
ecology and to health are mandated as state policies by
the constitution itself, thereby highlighting their
continuing importance and imposing upon the state a
solemn obligation to preserve the first and protect and
advance the second, the day would not be too far when all
else will be lost not only for the present generation, but
also those to come – generations which stand to inherit
nothing but parched earth incapable of sustaining life”
(Oposa vs. Factoran 224 SCRA 792)
 Other Cases

• MOST REV. PEDRO D. ARIGO et al, petitioners vs.

SCOTT H. SWIFT, et al., respondents (G.R. No. 206510,
September 16, 2014)
• RESIDENT MARINE MAMMALS OF THE
PROTECTED SEASCAPE TAÑON STRAIT et al.,
petitioners vs. SECRETARY ANGELO REYES, et al.,
respondents (G.R. No. 180771 and G.R. No. 181527, April
21, 2015)
 Arigo vs. Swift

• Petition for the issuance of a Writ of Kalikasan with prayer

for the issuance of a Temporary Environmental Protection
Order (TEPO) under the Rules of Procedure for
Environmental Cases (Rules), involving violations of
environmental laws and regulations in relation to the
grounding of the US military ship USS Guardian over the
Tubbataha Reefs.
• In the landmark case of Oposa v. Factoran, Jr., the Supreme Court
recognized the "public right" of citizens to "a balanced and healthful
ecology which, for the first time in our constitutional history, is
solemnly incorporated in the fundamental law." The Court declared
that the right to a balanced and healthful ecology need not be written
in the Constitution for it is assumed, like other civil and political rights
guaranteed in the Bill of Rights, to exist from the inception of
mankind and it is an issue of transcendental importance with
intergenerational implications. Such right carries with it the correlative
duty to refrain from impairing the environment.
• The Court ruled that not only do ordinary citizens have
legal standing to sue for the enforcement of environmental
rights, they can do so in representation of their own and
future generations.
• The liberalization of standing first enunciated in Oposa,
insofar as it refers to minors and generations yet unborn, is
now enshrined in the Rules which allows the filing of a
citizen suit in environmental cases. The provision on
citizen suits in the Rules "collapses the traditional rule on
personal and direct interest, on the principle that humans
are stewards of nature."
 Resident Mammals Case
• The petitioners in the first case were collectively referred to as the
"Resident Marine Mammals" - the toothed whales, dolphins, porpoises,
and other cetacean species, which inhabit the waters in and around the
Tañon Strait. They were joined by the so-called “Stewards" who
empathize with, and seek the protection of the aforementioned marine
species.
• The second petition was filed by a non-governmental organization
representing the interests of fisherfolk, along with individual
representatives from fishing communities impacted by the oil
exploration activities.
• Even before the Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases became
effective, the Court had already taken a permissive position on the
issue of locus standi in environmental cases. In Oposa, the Court
allowed the suit to be brought in the name of generations yet unborn
"based on the concept of intergenerational responsibility insofar as the
right to a balanced and healthful ecology is concerned." Furthermore,
the Court said that the right to a balanced and healthful ecology, a
right that does not even need to be stated in our Constitution as it is
assumed to exist from the inception of humankind, carries with it the
correlative duty to refrain from impairing the environment.
• 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. It is worth noting here that the Stewards are
joined as real parties in the Petition and not just in
representation of the named cetacean species. The Stewards,
having shown in their petition that there may be possible
violations of laws concerning the habitat of the Resident Marine
Mammals, are therefore declared to possess the legal standing to
file the petition.
D.

Section 15, Article II: The State shall protect and

promote the right to health of the people and instill
health consciousness among them.
 A.Section 2, Article
XII, 1987 Constitution:

“All lands of the

public domain,
waters, minerals, coal,
petroleum, and other
mineral oils, all forces
of potential energy,
fisheries, forests or
timber, wildlife, flora
and fauna,
and other natural resources
are owned by the State.
With the exception of
agricultural lands, all other
natural resources shall not
be alienated. xxx”
 Who is the state
referred to in the
Constitution?

State is a community of
persons more or less
numerous, permanently
occupying a definite
portion of territory,
independent of external
control, and possessing an
organized government to
which the great body of
inhabitants render
habitual obedience. (Bernas,
Joaquin, The Constitution of the Republic of
http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=filipino+people&id=5B141C9D3B75345497
the Philippines, A Commentary, Volume II,
C8D692D976F8652B1723B8&FORM=IQFRBA#view=detail&id=42881960C22F4AAEB
First Edition, 1988, p.3) B3F595D01F7CE3028397C1F&selectedIndex=38
If we are the owner of these resources it is
our responsibility to protect them.
 B. Section 1, Article XII (par. 2 and 3)

• The State shall protect the nation’s marine

wealth in its archipelagic waters, territorial sea,
and exclusive economic zone, and reserve its
use and enjoyment exclusively to Filipino citizens.
• The Congress may, by law, allow small-scale
utilization of natural resources by Filipino
citizens, as well as cooperative fish farming, with
priority to subsistence fishermen and fishworkers
in rivers, lakes, bays, and lagoons.
 Article XIII SECTION 7.

• The State shall protect the rights of subsistence

fishermen, especially of local communities, to the
preferential use of local marine and fishing resources, both
inland and offshore. It shall provide support to such
fishermen through appropriate technology and
research, adequate financial, production, and marketing
assistance, and other services. The State shall also
protect, develop, and conserve such resources. The
protection shall extend to offshore fishing grounds of
subsistence fishermen against foreign intrusion. xxx
 Section 3, Article XII
• Lands of the public domain are classified into
agricultural, forest or timber, mineral lands, and
national parks. xxx. Alienable lands of the public
domain shall be limited to agricultural lands. Private
corporations or associations may not hold such alienable
lands of the public domain except by lease, for a period
not exceeding twenty-five years, renewable for not
more than twenty-five years, and not to exceed one
thousand hectares in area. Citizens of the Philippines
may lease not more than five hundred hectares, or
acquire not more than twelve hectares thereof by
purchase, homestead, or grant.
• Taking into account the requirements of
conservation, ecology, and development, and
subject to the requirements of agrarian reform,
the Congress shall determine, by law, the size of
lands of the public domain which may be
acquired, developed, held, or leased and the
conditions therefor.
 Section 4, Article XII

• The Congress shall, as soon as possible, determine by

law the specific limits of forest lands and national
parks, marking clearly their boundaries on the ground.
Thereafter, such forest lands and national parks shall
be conserved and may not be increased nor diminished,
except by law. The Congress shall provide, for such
period as it may determine, measures to prohibit
logging in endangered forests and watershed areas.
 E.Section 1,Article
XIII, 1987
Constitution.

“The Congress shall give highest

priority to the enactment of
measures that protect and enhance
the right of all the people to human
dignity, reduce social, economic, and
political inequalities, and remove
cultural inequities by equitably
diffusing wealth and political power
for the common good.
To this end, the State shall regulate
the acquisition, ownership, use, and
disposition of property and its
increments.”
http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/59962000/jpg/_59962543_juxtaposition.jpg
Section 22, Article II,
1987 Constitution.
The State recognizes
and promotes the rights
of indigenous cultural
communities within the
framework of national
unity and
development.”
• SECTION 5, ARTICLE XII. The State, subject to the
provisions of this Constitution and national development
policies and programs, shall protect the rights of
indigenous cultural communities to their ancestral lands
to ensure their economic, social, and cultural well-being
Republic Act No. 8371 or Indigenous
Peoples Rights Act (IPRA)
• the law that recognizes, protects and promotes the rights of indigenous
cultural communities/indigenous peoples
• rights of ICCs/IPs to their ancestral domains by virtue of Native Title are
recognized and respected. The formal recognition is embodied in a
Certificate of Ancestral Domain Title (CADT), which recognizes the title of
the concerned ICCs/IPs over the territories identified and delineated.
• Free and Prior Informed Consent - the consensus of all members of the
ICCs/IPs to be determined in accordance with their respective customary
laws and practices, free from any external manipulation, interference and
coercion, and obtained after fully disclosing the intent and scope of the
activity, in a language and process understandable to the community
Thank you!
• Presentation credit: Atty. Ronely Bisquera-Sheen, DOI-ITAP