On The Contribution Of "Minors Oposa V. Secretary Of The Department Of Environment And Natural Resources" To Environment Legislation

“Minors Oposa V. Secretary of the Department of Environment andNatural Resources” is one of the most famous cases in the history of thePhilippine Supreme Court. After several years, as a significant decisionin environmental protection history, this case has continued earningpraises from all over the world.Forty-five children who are represented by their parents, togetherwith the Philippine Environmental Network, Inc. claim that their rightsof using and enjoying the natural resources were violated because of thedegradation of the tropical rainforests. They pray for the judgmentordering the Secretary of Environment and Natural Resources to cancel allexisting timber license agreements in the country and to stop approvingany new timber license agreements. The defendant dismisses the petitionby arguing that the plaintiffs have no cause of action and the issue isa political question. The trial court grants the motion. The children thenfile a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court, asking the SupremeCourt to set aside the trial court’s order dismissing the case. In TheSupreme Court’s opinion: the petitioners have no difficulty inrepresenting their generation and their future generations, and moreover,the right to a balanced and healthful ecology demands every citizenespecially the government officials to protect the environment, whichlays the basis of any person’s standing to sue. At last, The Supreme Courtset aside the order of the trial court and remands the case for trial.Some scholars advocate that since this case has broaden the scopeof who can file a case among the Philippine citizens, that is,acknowledging standing to sue for future generations not being ruled bythe Philippine Law, supposed to have made great contribution to the legislation. In fact, the Philippines’ rules on standing are alwayslenient. To a larger extent, the case only mirrors the Supreme Court’spersisting in its liberal tradition. The defendant make it clear that theywill face many difficulties if they dismiss the plaintiffs’ standing tosue, and it’s wise for them to give up proposing this argument becauseeven if the plaintiffs filed the case only on behalf of themselves wouldthe Supreme Court recognize their standing to sue.The Supreme Court acclaims that the rights of future generationsshould be protected, this novel theory titillates many environmentalist.But the fact is that this is also useless in the resolution of the case.Although the supreme court has recognized that the petitioners has theright to sue for the sake of their own benefits and also their futuregeneration’s interests, it’s not equal to the supreme court’s allowingfuture generations to sue on their own. Since the plaintiffs’ benefitsare consistent with their future generation’s interests, there is no needfor the future generations to sue alone.In the protection of the environment, this case has made no differencesince the government has done nothing referring to the plaintiffs’ wants.The Supreme Court has ordered the case to be remanded for trial, suggestingthe plaintiffs adding all those who hold timber license agreements asdefendants. However, the plaintiffs stop to sue. The result isdisappointing because none of the TLAs has been cancelled. The statisticsof2001shows that there still exists eighteen available timber licenseagreements, covering813,949hectares of forestland. No signals prove theimprovement of the environmental situation.Despite of those weaknesses, this case should still be celebrated,not for the Supreme Court’s remarks about intergenerationalresponsibility or the Supreme Court’s supporting the petitioners to suefor their future generations, but because it holds that the constitutional provision on the right to a balanced and healthful ecology is an actionableright. The decision of the case has transformed a constitutional politicalguideline to a specific legal environmental right, seizing thisactionable right in hand can the victims file a case to the court, makingthe Environment and Natural Resources Department who are in charge of theusage、exploitation、reservation and management of national resources bethe defendant. What the case has contributed to us is offering a causeof action for environmental protection.It’s a pity that this cause of action is unreasonable. According tothe Philippines law, if the Philippines Supreme Court wants to supportthe plaintiffs’ cause of action, the first thing he should do is toillustrate the issuing of the timber license agreements is a violationto the people’s right to a balanced and healthy ecology, and even if theSupreme Court has done so, the defendant could also use the provision ofArticle of12(Constitution1987) to dispute, at that time, what the courtcould do? The truth is that a constitutional right is hard to be put intoreal use, but neither the petitioners nor the court has advanced a specificright to in favor of the plaintiffs’ claim, the constitutional provisionon the right to a balanced and healthful ecology is fundamental but notspecific enough to become the base of the plaintiffs’ claim, the onlyone result this case would end in is to fail. Just as Justice Felicianosays:“the laws cited by the Supreme Court showing the existence of acause of action, such as Executive Order No.192, series of1987, theAdministrative Code, and the Philippine Environmental Policy, all theseare as general and abstract as the constitutional statements of basicpolicy in Article II, Sections16and15. The Philippine Environment Codewas merely “a compendious collection of more ‘specific environmentmanagement policies’ and ‘environment quality standards’, it onlyidentifies the government agencies charged with the formulation and implementation of guidelines and programs dealing with air, water, landuse, and natural resources management. The Court’s combining thesubstantive standards of the Constitution with the remedy sought by thechildren should be subjected to closer examination.” The cases afterMinors Oposa V. Secretary of the Department of Environment and NaturalResources justify this opinion, for instance, the Henares v. LandTransportation Franchising and Regulatory Board and Metropolitan ManilaDevelopment Authority v. Concerned Citizens of Manila Bay.