Environmental activism by the Philippine Supreme Court: initiatives and impediments

Abstract

Environmental law innovation is a feature of jurisprudence in the Philippines, which is world famous for the decision of its Supreme Court in 1993 in the case Oposa v Factoran – which is often, somewhat erroneously, perceived as having conferred legal standing on generations of people as yet unborn. Other environmental initiatives of the Supreme Court are also well-known. Further, the Court has promulgated decisions that incorporate the ideas of ‘intergenerational equity’ and ‘continuing mandamus’ as environmental tools. The Court has also promulgated ‘Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases’ to provide, among other things, for faster responses to be taken to environmental emergencies through the Writ of Kalikasan (‘kalikasan’ meaning ‘nature’). These initiatives, however, have not been as successful in practice as it was hoped they would have been. The Court’s doctrines are commonly misunderstood and have faced opposition, even from within the Court itself; and the Writ of Kalikasan has been conservatively applied by courts, which allows continuing environmental trauma to occur. This article examines the gaps in both case law and the Rules of Procedure and makes recommendations for improving the Supreme Court’s rules.