I was a bit confused by this message. It is reported as though this were
a recent decision, but I don't believe it is.
There is no date in the message itself, apparently from Albert A.
Bartlett, but there is mention there of "June 30" within the message.
Could you tell me what year that date refers to, as well as what the legal
citation is itself?
The reason I ask is that there is a report of what appears to be the same
decision being made in 1993 in: Oposa vs. Factoran, Jr., Supreme Court (of
the Philippines) Reports Annotated. Vol. 224, July 30, 1993, p. 802f.
Is this decision of July 30 1993 and the decision of June 30 mentioned by
Mr. Bartlett the same? They certainly seem to be the same, judging by what
is contained after the words, "The Court stated that:....."
If the two are the same, why is this reported as a new decision when it is
in fact almost a decade old?
Nonetheless, it is a very important judicial action, not only for the
Philippines but potentially for the judiciaries of all courts, as Bartlett
makes clear. It does give representatives of future generations legal
standing to argue in court on behalf of future generations in certain
situations. This is an enormously important right, for the first time
admitted by a court of law, I believe.
It must of course be added that the decision of the Philippines Supreme
Court was made much easier by the fact that, unlike the US Constitution
for example, "Section 16, Article II of the 1987 Constitution [of the
Philippines] explicitly provides: 'SEC. 16. 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.' (para) This right unites
with the right to health which is provided for in the preceding section of
the same article: 'SEC 15. The State shall protect and promote the right
to health of the people and instill health consciousness among them.'"
(Ibid., p. 804).
Still, there must be some way to find such rights under the American
Constitution and common law, as well as in the UK, Canada, and all of the
other common law jurisdictions. Someday, some judge will, I too hope.
Jim Dator
Hawaii Research Center for Futures Studies
University of Hawaii
On Mon, 12 Apr 1999, Steve Kurtz wrote:
> Passing along a very interesting article sent by Al Bartlett.
>
> Steve
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Dear Friends,
>
> Here is an interesting item from the Philippines.
>
> With best wishes, I am,
>
> Sincerely yours,
>
> Al
>
> Albert A. Bartlett: Professor Emeritus of Physics
> University of Colorado, Boulder, 80309-0390
>
> STANDING TO SUE IN THE PHILIPPINES: A Victory for Future Generations
>
> In a decision that may eventually change the way the world views environmental
> issues, the Supreme Court of the Philippines has
> ruled that the three children of E-LAW Philippines Board Member Antonio Oposa,
> along with 41 other children, have standing to
> sue on behalf of their generation and subsequent generations. Oposa is an
> attorney with the Philippines Ecological Network and is
> representing the children in trying to cancel all existing timber license
> agreements between timber interests and the Philippine
> Department of Environment and Natural Resources. The E-LAW network provided
> supporting materials that Oposa used in
> making his case to the Philippine courts. E-LAW U.S. congratulates Tony on his
> path-breaking and salutes his courage in filing the suit.
>
> The July 30 decision held that minors have standing to represent their own and
> future generations under the doctrine of
> intergenerational equity. The Court stated that: "This case...has a special
> and novel element. Petitioners' minors assert that they
> represent their generation as well as generations yet unborn. We find 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 on 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, as hereinafter expounded, considers the
> `rhythm and harmony of nature.' Nature means the
> created world in its entirety. Such rhythm and harmony indispensable include,
> inter alia, the judicious disposition, utilization,
> management, renewal and conservation of the country's forest, mineral, land,
> waters, fisheries, wildlife, off-shore areas and other
> natural resources to the end that their exploration, development and
> utilization be equitably accessible to the present as well as
> future generations. Needless to say, every generation has a responsibility to
> the next to preserve that rhythm and harmony for the
> full enjoyment of a balanced and healthful ecology. Put a little differently,
> the minors' assertion of their right to a sound
> environment constitutes, at the same time, the performance of their obligation
> to ensure the protection of that right for generations to come."
>
> The Court further stated that, "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 -- aptly and fittingly
> stressed by petitioners -- the advancement of which may even be
> said to predate all governments and constitutions. As a matter of fact, these
> basic rights need not even 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 its 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 would be lost not only for the present generation, but also for those to
> come -- generations which stand to inherit nothing but
> parched earth incapable of sustaining life."
>
> According to E-LAW U.S. Board President Michael Axline, a professor at the
> University of Oregon School of Law, the opinion
> will have far-reaching consequences. "This opinion for the first time
> recognizes the interconnectedness of the present and the
> future in legal terms," Axline said. "Courts in the United States should study
> the opinion closely, not only because it is well
> reasoned, but also because it demonstrates a wisdom to which all judges should
> aspire."
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
