Jacob L.

Caipang September 18, 2017

Summary and Reaction Paper

The Right To A Balanced and Healthful Ecology:

The Constitutional policy on the environment is made, remade, interpreted and

The constitutional policy on the environment is not only what the Constitution says it is
the interpretation which prevails in a process characterized by conflict among a plurality of
participants.

The Oposa vs. Factoran is our first case which expressly interprets the constitutional right
to a balanced and healthful ecology. It deals with the issue of how to value our natural resources
not only with respect to the present but for the future generations. As what Justice Florentino
Feliciano describes it is one of the most important cases decided by this Court in the last few
years. The seminal principles laid down in this decision are likely to influence profoundly the
direction and course of the protection and management of the environment, which of course
embraces the utilization of all the natural resources in the territorial base of our polity. There are
implications in this case; first, the Supreme Court recognizes the constitutional right to a sound
and healthful ecology as a self-executory and actionable right, independent of specific legal
rights. Second, the case liberalizes standing at least with respect to environmental disputes. The
concept of class suit recognized in this case departs from our normal understanding of the term.
The explicit recognition of the right of future generations to be represented by present
generations based on petitioners claim.

It is noted that Oposa goes beyond United States environmental jurisprudence which
requires that specific, material injury must still be alleged before an action can be filed because
in the U.S. environmental cases has long been settled which always predicated on the
complainants allegation that the action will cause her injury whether economic, conservational,
recreational, or aesthetic. The constitutional policy at this point looks as operational code
because the result in this case is not the cancellation of any timber license agreement but to
dispose of what was basically a procedural issue.
 In analyzing the operational code of the Judiciarys role in the environmental protection,
the practical question is to ask what the judiciary needs so that its involvement in such disputes
would be efficient, scientifically and equitable.

We cannot deny that in the use of natural resources, the actual cost to the whole society is
usually not counted. When we allow our loggers for example to extract our timber resources
while imposting ridiculously low forest charges, we fail to make them pay not only for the actual
value of the extracted resources but also for the ecological damage their activities inflict on our
natural resource base including among others the loss of biological diversity, the costs of soil
erosion and climate changes, and the deaths and destruction resulting from flash floods. Or when
we allow an industrial firm to pollute the air or water, we do not usually count the costs to our
health system and to the productivity of the affected populace. In the concept of sustainable
development it is to present without compromising the ability to meet those of the future. The
Commission on Environment and Development explains why the present generation is faced
with this responsibility we borrow environmental capital from future generations with no
intention or prospect of repaying. They may damn us for our spendthrift ways, but they can never
collect on our debt to them. We act as we do because we can get away with it: future generations
do not vote; they have no political or financial power; they cannot challenge our decisions.

The other dispute is on how to measure and compare the costs and benefits of
ecologically harmful activities and the costs and benefits of preventing or regulating such
activities. The problem is that the cost-benefit analysis requires the valuation of all the goods that
are relevant to a particular environmental issue. But until now the economists have not really yet
agreed on how to value ecological goods such as biodiversity or a stable climate. Also,
environmental disputes are often manifested as a conflict of specific rights between conflicting
users just like the dispute between commercial users and forest communities.

In dealing with environmental disputes there are four perspectives that the judiciary or
any other participant in the environmental decision process may adopt singly or in combination.
These are:

First, a Command and Control strategy, the government through the DENR establishes
and enforces modes of forest utilization through such measures as annual allowable cut and
reforestation requirements. The justification for the Regalian Doctrine where all the natural
resources in the territory belong to the State and therefore private ownership or title must
emanate from the State. There is a need to protect ancestral lands, usually located in upland
forest zones, from ecological misuse and degradation. The implication is that the time-
immemorial occupants are incapable of utilizing upland forest resources in an ecologically sound
manner.

Second, is a Market Based Perspective, it is premised on the proposition that the best way
of realizing the goals of environmental policy is to use economic-incentives to encourage
sustainable and ecologically-friendly activities or economic sanctions to discourage
unsustainable and pollutive actions just like the use of taxation and subsidies. Also, other
mechanism favoured by those who advocate market-based environmental based strategies is
emissions trading.

Third, is Community Based Resource Management (CBRM), in this system it can range from
the right of the community to be consulted before any development project is imposed on it to
actually recognizing community control and management of natural resources. Recognizing
these systems would also mean developing and accepting common property regimes in our legal
system. There are four reasons why community based resource management systems may be
more economically feasible and desirable. First, it can be relatively less costly to maintain and
enforce, and better adapted to local conditions. Second, common use rights may contribute to
social stability at the same time that they promote efficient adaptation to changing resource
availability over time. Third, such a system provides a hedge against individual failure.
Fourth, the opportunity costs associated with changing established practices are high.

Lastly, Pollution Prevention, environmental policy should just prohibit as many forms of
pollution as possible. This is justified economically under the principle that all pollution is a
wasted resource.

The executive and legislative branches have significant roles in the area of the
environment. In many cases, many environmental decisions by the DENR are made on the basis
of political exigency rather than a rigorous economic and scientific analysis of issues. Most
environmental decisions must in the final analysis be political; the space for irrational external
interventions such as corruption and undue political influence becomes much larger when
ignorance or acceptance of the conventional characterizes a bureaucracy. Commercial users are
confronted legally and often physically by communities of direct users. To have a balance and
healthful ecology one way is to maintain and support the programs just like social forestry and
control or resources and the communitys right to monitor and enforce environmental norms is
increasing.

Upon reading the article made by Antonio G.M. La Vina entitled The Right To A
Balanced and Healthful Ecology: The Odyssey of A Constitutional Policy I totally agree of
what he has written. Often times what has been articulated policy or the law is not implemented
totally or partially, it seems that there is a gap especially in dealing with environmental problems
in our society.

The plurality of the participants as what the author said has an impact why there is no
definite interpretation to our constitutional policy because each participant such as Judiciary,
Congress and the Executive Branch, industry and other commercial users of natural and
ecological resources, communities of direct users of said resources, non-governmental
organizations, and international entities such as multilateral financing institutions have different
interest on how to use our natural resources. One may have another perspective between his co-
participants in utilizing and achieving a balanced and healthful ecology.

It is true that we fail to make our loggers pay. We now reap the fruit of irresponsible
logging by our loggers may be because of corruption and undue political influence. Most of the
time there is no strict implementation of our laws such as reforestation before they (loggers) may
again cut trees and also, the number of trees that are cut exceeds in number than the allowable
legal number of trees in their permit. It results to landslide, flash floods and worsts are the death
of innocent people, ultimately it adds to the problems of the government because of that acts.
The author has a good point in saying that in order to discourage an entity we may use a market-
based approach. For instance, if the government want to prevent overlogging, he may heavely
tax or he may give inventives for non-extensive or excessive cutting of the trees.

There are consequences in developing our society. The building of infrastructure, it opens
opportunity of work to the people but on the other side because of this building in next few years
may also pollute the air we breathe as well as the water if there will be no proper implementation
of laws. As what the author says, emissions trading is a kind of mechanism that is premised on
the right of industries to pollute up to a certain level that the state considers allowable.
Urbanization also is one of the consequences in developing and making cities in the provinces
which lead to the environmental disputes later on.

The four approaches that the author suggested to the Judiciary is a way for the them to be
more equipped in deciding cases which involved environmental disputes considering that there
are plurality of participants and unlike in the U.S we have no settled rule with regards to the
environment. In overall, what Antonia G.M. La Vina had discussed gives us additional
knowledge and information as well as hope in order to have the right to a balanced and healthful
ecology. Thus, environment is part of our daily life and to abuse our natural resources is also to
deny our future generations to live to a balanced and healthful ecology.