State protection of nature and our right

Dominador Awiten . 

THERE is a Jan. 28 news item by the City News Service of San Diego, California entitled “Judge Upholds State Protections For Endangered Gray Wolves under the California Endangered Species Act.” The judgment of Superior Court Judge Eddie Sturgeon is a  rejection of the petition for declaratory relief filed by the Pacific Legal Foundation on behalf of the California Cattlemen’s Association and California Farm Bureau Federation that  challenged the animals’ designation by the State’s Fish and Game Commission as wildlife at risk of extinction.

The court found that threats to the wolves necessitate their protection and that the game commission has the discretion to protect native species that have been present historically based on visitation by even one animal, given scientists’ projections that more will likely arrive.

“The commission’s determination was based on scientific evidence and is entitled to deference,” the judgement said. 

The stated rationale underlying the judgment is similar to the doctrine of primary administrative jurisdiction in Philippine jurisprudence, whereby legal controversies are entrusted by law to be resolved by administrative agencies. The leading case of Ang Tibay versus Court of Industrial Relations (G..R. L-46496, February 27, 1940) laid down the “cardinal requirements in administrative proceedings” that have rendered administrative due process as a separate and  distinct mode of dispute resolution.  

This is a welcome development, encouraging those who work for the continued protection of nature against  the narrow commercial interests that are characteristic of the rent-seeking behavior of big business and their nefarious collaborators in government.

The happy news  is reminiscent of the legal victory of pro-environment advocacy against the destruction of our forest resources due to unabated logging. The 1993 Supreme Court decision in the case of Oposa versus Factoran is now a landmark ruling, recognized as a watershed in our legal annals and a major contribution to international environmental law.

The petition for a judicial injunction to stop the Secretary of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources from issuing timber license agreements (TLA)  was filed before the Makati Regional Trial Court. The petitioners, minor children represented by their parents Antonio and Rizalina Oposa, asserted that they “represent their generation as well as generations yet unborn” and that they were invoking their right to a healthy environment pursuant to Sections 15 and 16 of Article II of the 1987 Constitution of the Philippines.

The Makati RTC dismissed the petition for being a political question (a policy issue that may be resolved by Congress and the Executive Department as political branches of the government) and for being an impairment of the contractual obligation that is embedded in the TLA.

The Supreme Court reversed the Makati RTC.

In the decision penned by then Associate Justice (later Chief Justice) Hilario Davide Jr., the Court favorably admitted the petition as a class suit for appropriate determination by the Court, the petitioning minor children being properly represented by their parents.

The Court found no difficulty in ruling that they can, for themselves, for others of their generation and for the succeeding generations, file a class suit. Their personality to sue in behalf of the succeeding generations can only be based on the concept of intergenerational responsibility insofar as the right to a balanced and healthful ecology is concerned. Such a right is in accord with the promotion of the “rhythm and harmony of nature.”

The Court further held that every generation has a responsibility to the next to preserve that rhythm and harmony for the full enjoyment of a balanced and healthful ecology.  In sum, the right of the petitioners to a balanced and healthful ecology is as clear as DENR’s duty to protect and advance the said right.  In turn, the present generation has an inter-generational responsibility to preserve the environment for the benefit of future generations.

Since then,  Antonio Oposa was commended here and abroad for his distinguished advocacy for the protection of the environment and our right to the  enjoyment of the benefits from its conservation and flourish . In 2008, Antonio Oposa was awarded by the Center for International Environmental Law for his contributions to the development and implementation of international environment law in our country and internationally.