Oposa vs. Factoran Case Digest (G.R. No.

101083, July 30,

1993)
FACTS:
The plaintiffs in this case are all minors duly represented and joined by their parents. The first complaint
was filed as a taxpayer's class suit at the Branch 66 (Makati, Metro Manila), of the Regional Trial Court,
National capital Judicial Region against defendant (respondent) Secretary of the Department of
Environment and Natural Reasources (DENR). Plaintiffs alleged that they are entitled to the full benefit,
use and enjoyment of the natural resource treasure that is the country's virgin tropical forests. They
further asseverate that they represent their generation as well as generations yet unborn and asserted
that continued deforestation have caused a distortion and disturbance of the ecological balance and have
resulted in a host of environmental tragedies.
Plaintiffs prayed that judgement be rendered ordering the respondent, his agents, representatives and
other persons acting in his behalf to cancel all existing Timber License Agreement (TLA) in the country
and to cease and desist from receiving, accepting, processing, renewing or approving new TLAs.
Defendant, on the other hand, filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that the complaint had no cause of
action against him and that it raises a political question.
The RTC Judge sustained the motion to dismiss, further ruling that granting of the relief prayed for would
result in the impairment of contracts which is prohibited by the Constitution.
Plaintiffs (petitioners) thus filed the instant special civil action for certiorari and asked the court to rescind
and set aside the dismissal order on the ground that the respondent RTC Judge gravely abused his
discretion in dismissing the action.
ISSUES:
(1) Whether or not the plaintiffs have a cause of action.
(2) Whether or not the complaint raises a political issue.
(3) Whether or not the original prayer of the plaintiffs result in the impairment of contracts.
RULING:
First Issue: Cause of Action.
Respondents aver that the petitioners failed to allege in their complaint a specific legal right violated by
the respondent Secretary for which any relief is provided by law. The Court did not agree with this. The
complaint focuses on one fundamental legal right -- the right to a balanced and healthful ecology which is
incorporated in Section 16 Article II of the Constitution. The said right carries with it the duty to refrain
from impairing the environment and implies, among many other things, the judicious management and
conservation of the country's forests. Section 4 of E.O. 192 expressly mandates the DENR to be the
primary government agency responsible for the governing and supervising the exploration, utilization,
development and conservation of the country's natural resources. The policy declaration of E.O. 192 is
also substantially re-stated in Title XIV Book IV of the Administrative Code of 1987. Both E.O. 192 and

Administrative Code of 1987 have set the objectives which will serve as the bases for policy formation,
and have defined the powers and functions of the DENR. Thus, right of the petitioners (and all those they
represent) to a balanced and healthful ecology is as clear as DENR's duty to protect and advance the
said right.
A denial or violation of that right by the other who has the correlative duty or obligation to respect or
protect or respect the same gives rise to a cause of action. Petitioners maintain that the granting of the
TLA, which they claim was done with grave abuse of discretion, violated their right to a balance and
healthful ecology. Hence, the full protection thereof requires that no further TLAs should be renewed or
granted.
After careful examination of the petitioners' complaint, the Court finds it to be adequate enough to show,
prima facie, the claimed violation of their rights.

Second Issue: Political Issue.

Second paragraph, Section 1 of Article VIII of the constitution provides for the expanded jurisdiction
vested upon the Supreme Court. It allows the Court to rule upon even on the wisdom of the decision of
the Executive and Legislature and to declare their acts as invalid for lack or excess of jurisdiction because
it is tainted with grave abuse of discretion.

Third Issue: Violation of the non-impairment clause.

The Court held that the Timber License Agreement is an instrument by which the state regulates the
utilization and disposition of forest resources to the end that public welfare is promoted. It is not a contract
within the purview of the due process clause thus, the non-impairment clause cannot be invoked. It can
be validly withdraw whenever dictated by public interest or public welfare as in this case. The granting of
license does not create irrevocable rights, neither is it property or property rights.
Moreover, the constitutional guaranty of non-impairment of obligations of contract is limit by the exercise
by the police power of the State, in the interest of public health, safety, moral and general welfare. In
short, the non-impairment clause must yield to the police power of the State.
The instant petition, being impressed with merit, is hereby GRANTED and the RTC decision is SET
ASIDE.

Oposa vs Factoran
Natural and Environmental Laws; Constitutional Law: Intergenerational Responsibility
GR No. 101083; July 30 1993
FACTS:
A taxpayers class suit was filed by minors Juan Antonio Oposa, et al., representing their
generation and generations yet unborn, and represented by their parents against Fulgencio
Factoran Jr., Secretary of DENR. They prayed that judgment be rendered ordering the
defendant, his agents, representatives and other persons acting in his behalf to:
1. Cancel all existing Timber Licensing Agreements (TLA) in the country;
2. Cease and desist from receiving, accepting, processing, renewing, or appraising new
TLAs;
and granting the plaintiffs such other reliefs just and equitable under the premises. They
alleged that they have a clear and constitutional right to a balanced and healthful ecology
and are entitled to protection by the State in its capacity as parens patriae. Furthermore,
they claim that the act of the defendant in allowing TLA holders to cut and deforest the
remaining forests constitutes a misappropriation and/or impairment of the natural
resources property he holds in trust for the benefit of the plaintiff minors and succeeding
generations.
The defendant filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on the following grounds:
1. Plaintiffs have no cause of action against him;
2. The issues raised by the plaintiffs is a political question which properly pertains to
the legislative or executive branches of the government.
ISSUE:
Do the petitioner-minors have a cause of action in filing a class suit to prevent the
misappropriation or impairment of Philippine rainforests?
HELD:
Yes. Petitioner-minors assert that they represent their generation as well as generations to
come. The Supreme Court ruled that they can, for themselves, for others of their generation,
and for the succeeding generation, file a class suit. Their personality to sue in behalf of
succeeding generations is based on the concept of intergenerational responsibility insofar as
the right to a balanced and healthful ecology is concerned. Such a right considers the
rhythm and harmony of nature which indispensably include, inter alia, the judicious
disposition, utilization, management, renewal and conservation of the countrys forest,
mineral, land, waters, fisheries, wildlife, offshore areas and other natural resources to the
end that their exploration, development, and utilization be equitably accessible to the
present as well as the 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 the
generations to come.

Republic of the Philippines

Congress of the Philippines
Metro Manila
Fourteenth Congress
Second Regular Session

Begun and held in Metro Manila, on Monday, the twenty-eight day of July, two thousand eight.
Republic Act No. 9512

December 12, 2008

AN ACT TO PROMOTE ENVIRONMENTAL AWARENESS THROUGH ENVIRONMENTAL

EDUCATION AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the Philippines in Congress
assembled::
Section 1. Title. - This Act shall be known as the "National Environmental Awareness and
Education Act of 2008".
Section 2. Declaration of Policy. - Consistent with the policy of the State to protect and advance
the right of the people to a balanced and healthful ecology in accord with the rhythm and harmony of
nature, and in recognition of the vital role of the youth in nation building and the role of education to
foster patriotism and nationalism, accelerate social progress, and promote total human liberation and
development, the state shall promote national awareness on the role of natural resources in
economic growth and the importance of environmental conservation and ecological balance towards
sustained national development.
Section 3. Scope of Environmental Education. - The Department of Education (DepEd), the
Commission on Higher Education (CHED), the Technical Education and Skills Development
Authority (TESDA), the Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD), in coordination
with the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR), the Department of Science
and Technology (DOST) and other relevant agencies, shall integrate environmental education in its
school curricula at all levels, whether public or private, including in barangay daycare, preschool,
non-formal, technical vocational, professional level, indigenous learning and out-of-school youth
courses or programs. Environmental education shall encompass environmental concepts and
principles, environmental laws, the state of international and local environment, local environmental
best practices, the threats of environmental degradation and its impact on human well-being, the
responsibility of the citizenry to the environment and the value of conservation, protection and
rehabilitation of natural resources and the environment in the context of sustainable development. It
shall cover both theoretical and practicum modules comprising activities, projects, programs
including, but not limited to, tree planting; waste minimization, segregation, recycling and

composting; freshwater and marine conservation; forest management and conservation; relevant
livelihood opportunities and economic benefits and other such programs and undertakings to aid the
implementation of the different environmental protection law.
Section 4. Environmental Education and Activities as Part of National Service Training
Program. - The CHED and the TESDA shall include environmental education and awareness
programs and activities in the National Service Training Program under Republic Act No. 9163, as
part of the Civic Welfare Training Service component required for all baccalaureate degree courses
and vocational courses with a curriculum of at least two (2) years.
Section 5. Declaration of Environmental Awareness Month. - Pursuant to the policy set forth in
this Act, the month of November of every year shall be known as the "Environmental Awareness
Month" throughout the Philippines.
Section 6. Interagency and Multi-sectoral Effort. - The DepEd, CHED, TESDA, DENR, DOST and
other relevant agencies, in consultation with experts on the environment and the academe, shall
lead in the implementation of public education and awareness programs on environmental protection
and conservation through collaborative interagency and multi-sectoral effort at all levels.
The DENR shall have the primary responsibility of periodically informing all agencies concerned on
current environmental updates, including identifying priority environmental education issues for
national action and providing strategic advice on the environmental education activities. The DepEd,
CHED, TESDA, DENR, DOST, DSWD and barangay units shall ensure that the information is
disseminated to the subject students.
The DOST is mandated to create programs that will ensure that students receive science-based
quality information on environmental issues to encourage the development of environment-friendly
solutions, devices, equipment and facilities.
Section 7. Capacity-Building. - The DepEd, CHED and TESDA, in coordination with the DENR and
other relevant agencies, shall undertake capacity-building programs nationwide such as trainings,
seminars, workshops on environmental education, development and production of environmental
education materials, and teacher-education courses and related livelihood programs.
Section 8. Separability Clause. - If any part, section or provision of this Act shall be held invalid or
unconstitutional, the other provisions shall not be affected thereby.
Section 9. Repealing Clause. - All other acts, laws, executive orders, presidential issuances, rules
and regulations or any part thereof which are inconsistent with this Act are hereby repealed or
modified accordingly.
Section 10. Effectivity. - This Act shall take effect fifteen (15) days after its publication in the Official
Gazette or in at least two (2) newspapers of general circulation.

Laudato Si and the Legal Framework for Environmental

Protection and Advocacy in the Philippines
Posted on September 30, 2015by Joel Tabora, S.J.

[Address to Membership Meeting of the National Convention of the Catholic

Educational Association of the Philippines, Manila, SMX Mall of Asia, September 29,
2015. My thanks to Atty. Faye Risonar Bello for research and to Bernie Jereza for
Powerpoint presentation.]
Just a little over five months ago, on April 24 , 2015, the Feast of the Holy Spirit, Pope
Francis published his encyclical Laudato Si!: On Care for Our Common Home. It is a
letter addressed to all inhabitants of this planet, seeking dialogue on the alarming
deterioration of our Planet earth. It is indisputably a powerful document that has caught
the attention of people throughout the globe. Its multi-layered message urges all to
come together to care for our common home, our Earth.
I will assume that you have held opportunity to read this document. Many of you have
already had convocations on it in your schools; others among you are already
integrating it in natural science, biology, environmental science, religious education,
philosophy, and theology courses. Many of you have already discovered: part of the
treasure of this encyclical is the inter-relatedness it articulates between four pillars: first,
our relationship with the Creator God (theology, spirituality), second, the current mode
of our productive system (consumerist technocratic economy), third, our experience of
environmental degradation (in terms of pollution, global warming, loss of biodiversity,
etc) and fourth, its impact on people, on human society, especially the poor (victims of
war, refugees, internal displacement, rural and urban poverty).
th

Should you not have had opportunity yet to read it, allow me to recommend
a prayerfulreading. In his recent trip to the U.S., which many consider to be the center
of global power on our planet, Pope Francis presented the message of Laudato Si! not
only to the joint session of the US Congress, but also before the largest assembly of

world leaders and diplomats in the history of the United Nations. His message was well
received; we too ought open ourselves to receive it gratefully.
Our task this evening is not to present the content of Laudato Si. Instead, in the light of
its texts, our task is to do a rapid check on whether laws in the Philippines favor or
disfavor the implementation of Laudato Si in the Philippines. Pope Francis says:
The establishment of a legal framework which can set clear boundaries and ensure
the protection of ecosystems has become indispensible, otherwise the new power
structures based on the techno-economic paradigm may overwhelm not only
our politics but alsofreedom and justice (LS, 53).
Does this legal framework exist? How goes it with our environmental laws? Can we be
satisfied that all is well in the light of Laudato Si? Or, as educators in Catholic schools,
colleges and university, do we have a duty not only to instruct and form our students,
our faculties, and ourselves, but to contribute to the implementation of Laudato Si. We
shall do this through appropriate research and community service, including
appropriate advocacy not only to sharpen our laws but to demand their implementation.
Themes/Issues explored by the Laudato Si
1.
The Need to Protect an Integral Ecology
Nature cannot be regarded as something separate from ourselves or as a mere
setting in which we live. We are part of nature, included in it and thus in constant
interaction with it. Recognizing the reasons why a given area is polluted requires a
study of the workings of society, its economy, its behaviour patterns, and the ways it
grasps reality. (LS 139)
In his encyclical, Pope Francis is explicit in his message that there is a need to protect an
integral ecology, (LS 53) not just for this generation, but also for future generations. For
him, an integral ecology is a common good that we should all strive to conserve. Doing
so would require among others, the establishment of a legal framework for the
protection and conservation of our ecology.
Reflecting on our own laws, we can stipulate for purposes of this discussion forum that
such a framework exists. But whether it has been properly implemented, or whether the
framework needs to be revised, merits our attention. Consider the following:

16, Article II of the 1987 Constitution provides that 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.
The case of Minors Oposa vs. Factoran, in volume 224 Supreme Court Reports
Annotated, page 792 (1993) provides that the right to a balanced ecology is an
enforceable legal right. The Supreme Court decided:
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-perpetuationaptly and fittingly
stressed by the petitionersthe advancement of which may 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 [balanced economy] and protect and advance
the second [health], the day would not be too far when all else would be lost not only
for the present generation, but also for those to comegenerations which stand to
inherit nothing but parched earth incapable of sustaining life.
The right to a balanced and healthful ecology carries with it the correlative
duty to refrain from impairing the environment.

Our legal framework is elaborated further in Presidential Decree 1151 (The

Philippine Environmental Policy) which lays down the national environmental

policies, national environmental targets, the right to enjoy a healthy environment,
the guideline for the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), and guidelines for
implementation bodies. PD 1151 is amplified by PD 1586 or the law which provides
in more detail the policy on the assessment of the environmental impact of any
proposed project. Springing also from PD 1151 is PD 2146, declaring what are
Environmentally Critical Areas and Projects.
In relation to PD 1151 is PD 1152 (The Philippine Environment

Code), which stipulates the management system to be adopted in the five areas of
air quality, water quality, land use, natural resources, and waste products.
The Regalian Doctrine and RBH 1

However, alongside this provision in the Constitution guaranteeing the right to a

healthy and balanced ecology, we also find the Regalian Doctrine enshrined in our
Constitution. Under the Jura Regalia theory (where everything belongs to the Crown,
now the State), the State can use and exploit our natural resources as it deems fit, even
enter into agreements for their use and exploitation.
Not content with what the Constitution has already allowed the Stateprovided,
legislators have proposed Resolution of Both Houses of Congress (RBH1).[i] It
calls for the amendments of the protective provisions of the 1987 Constitution (the socalled economic provisions) through a mere insertion in the Constitutional provisions
of the phrase unless otherwise provided by law a scenario that can very well open
the floodgates for laws having scant regard for the protection of a balanced and healthy
ecology, in the guise of pursuing economic development. A liberalization of restrictions
to Filipino ownership of nationalized industries will be even more liberalized, and the
certainty of alien nationals owning lands in the Philippines are justtwo of most
predictable effects of this proposed resolution.
(On a side note, as members of the CEAP, a national organization of catholic schools,
we should also be concerned about this proposed measure as it lists educational
institutions among those nationalized industries that need to be opened up in favor
of foreign companies/schools. In light of the tremendous birthing pains we have to
face in the coming K to 12 full implementation by 2016, this proposal will only add to
the stress that is already acutely felt by our schools, especially our small member
schools.)
Mining
Apart from the Regalian Doctrine giving virtual license to State to rape our natural
resources, our fragile ecology is also under threat of various economic development
projects like mining. Our current mining laws and policies i.e., Republic Act 7942 or
the Philippine Mining Act and its Implementing Rules and Regulations, also known
asDepartment Administrative Order No. 96-40, s. 1996, the National Policy Agenda on
Revitalizing Mining in the Philippines, also known as Executive Order 270 and
amended by EO 270-a, further strengthened by EO 79 s. 2012 cater more to the
exploration of mineral resources for purposes of bolstering the economy rather than
on the judicious utilization of a non-renewable resource and the preservation of the
environment.
It should alarm us that as of 18 September 2015, the Philippine government approved
and registered a total of 999* mining concessions (339 Mineral Production Sharing
Agreements, 6 Financial and Technical Assistance Agreements, 36 Exploration Permits,

196 Industrial Permits/Industrial Sand and Gravel Permits, 98 Mineral Processing

Permits, 143 Certificates of Accreditation, and 181 mining patents) and about 1,864
more mining applications currently under process[1].[ii] Seen in the context of a rich
biodiversity in an archipelagic country that is threatened by mining operations and set
against the backdrop of consumer-driven business entities paying little attention to the
ecological balance that must be preserved, we should be very concerned about this
development.
The existing Philippine mining policy is even misleading, considering that the
economic benefits our country gets from these various mining concessions are
truly minimalcompared to the profits that the foreign/domestic corporations will gain
from such a venture. According to Mines and Geosciences Bureau data as of July 2014,
the mining industry has only contributed a total of 0.7 percent to the countrys Gross
Domestic Product mere loose change compared to what the mining companies reap
from such extractions. This is a travesty! The Philippine mineral resources belong to the
Filipinos and should not be abused by opportunistic entities! Given a different
framework for its development and utilization, these very minerals, that we now give
away in unfair and inequitable contracts could help our nation, our environment and
our people develop a more positive and sustainable trajectory.
Our twenty (20) year old Philippine mining law and its policies deprived people of
access to land and other natural resources, stunted the domestic economy, and
destroyed the environment. It triggered some of the Philippines worst ecological
disasters, such as the Marcopper (1996) and Rapu-Rapu (2005) mine spills.
Nevertheless, under this law, the mining industrys losses pale in comparison with its
economic gains. Yet, mining areas are still among the poorest communities nationwide.
This law and the mining it permits are responsible for untold human rights violations;
many have been killed, sued, and harassed for their opposition. They have forced
indigenous communitiesthe last bastions of our precolonial heritageaway from their
ancestral lands through coercion, exigency, or collusion.[iii]
Can our existing EIS protect our fragile ecology?
The issue of mining is made even more problematic when seen in light of the current
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) system that we have and the manner by which
Environmental Compliance Certificates (ECCs) and the Free Prior and Informed
Consent (FPIC) of the indigenous peoples communities in the area are secured insofar
as they appear to be merely empty formalism and prone to political machinations and
bribery.

Any enhanced EIS system in the Philippines should take into account the impact of the
proposed project on the biodiversity and the cultural community thriving in the area.
We should likewise draw from the observation given by Pope Francis that an
environmental impact assessment should not come after the drawing up of a proposal of
a particular policy, plan or program. It should be part of the process from the beginning,
carried out in a way that is interdisciplinary, transparent, and free of all economic and
political pressure. (LS, par. 183)
Conservation of Biodiversity
Any discussion on a legal framework for the protection of an integral ecology also
necessitates looking at our laws that seek to conserve biodiversity. At the forefront, is
RA 7586 or the National Integrated Protected Areas System (NIPAS) Act of 1992 which
is the governments articulation of the Constitutional provision of securing for the
Filipino people of present and future generations the perpetual existence of all native
plants and animals through the establishment of a comprehensive system of
integrated protected areas as provided for in the Constitution.
RA 7586 gives the legal framework for the establishment and management of protected
areas in the Philippines. It defines protected areas as the identified portions of land
and/or water set aside by reason of their unique physical and biological significance,
managed to enhance biological diversity and protected against destructive human
exploitation. The establishment and management of protected areas are part of the
international commitments signed by the Philippine Government such as the
Convention on Biological Diversity, the Ramsar Convention, the World Heritage
Convention, the Convention on Migratory Species, and the ASEAN Agreement on the
Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources. The law is now on its 23rd year of
implementation.[iv]
Following the enactment of the NIPAS Act, several site-specific laws have also been
passed declaring other areas in the Philippines as protected areas. To cite as an example,
we have RA 9303 which declares Mt. Hamiguitan Range and its vicinities as a protected
area under the category of wildlife sanctuary and its peripheral areas as buffer zones.
Declaring a certain area as protected is significant insofar as the law mandates that
these areas be NO GO zones for economic development activities such as mining, large
agribusinesses like banana plantations and other infrastructure projects in order to
conserve biodiversity. Ancestral lands, if identified to be within the protected area,
continue to be recognized as such. Tenured migrants staying within the protected area

may be designated as stewards of the identified zones or habitable portions of the

protected area by the government. Anyone who violates or disregards the parameters set
within the protected area shall be subjected to fine and/or imprisonment depending on
the gravity of the act committed.
While it is comforting to know that areas declared as protected have increased over
the past few years, there is a need to examine the effectiveness of the NIPAS Act, its
implementing rules and regulations that somehow modified the provisions of the
NIPAS Act as well the other site-specific protected area laws, to determine whether it
has truly achieved its objective of protecting the key biodiversity sites in our country.
The reality of overlapping laws[v] and various government agencies using different
instruments result in: jurisdictional conflicts (between national and local, or even
between two local government units), inaccurate assessments of the metes and bounds
of protected areas, and can even create a scenario of development projects (i.e. mining,
construction) encroaching on protected areas. Given this, it comes as no surprise, for
example, that in the municipality of Tampakan, you would find an exploration permit
granted to Sagittarius Mines Inc. in an area that is supposed to have been declared a
watershed as well as an ancestral domain land.
We must heed the sobering words of Pope Francis in the Laudato Si (par. 34) when he
mentions that:
the degree of human intervention, often in the service of business interests and
consumerism, is actually making our earth less rich and beautiful, ever more limited
and grey, even as technological advances and consumer goods continue to abound
limitlessly. We seem to think that we can substitute an irreplaceable and irretrievable
beauty with something which we have created ourselves.
2.
Addressing Pollution and Climate Change
Humanity is called to recognize the need for changes of lifestyle, production and
consumption, in order to combat this warming or at least the human causes which
produce or aggravate it. (LS, 23)
In his latest encyclical, Pope Francis was very emphatic about the issue of pollution a
toxic by-product of our throwaway consumerist culture and how pollution only
exacerbates the global crisis of climate change. We must do something about it. In
analyzing the legal framework we have for the protection of our ecology, it is interesting
to note that we also have existing laws aimed at curbing pollution and addressing

climate change in our country. I cite among others: The Clean Air Act of 1998, The Clean
Water Act of 2004, The Solid Waste Management Act of 2000, the Toxic Substances and
Hazardous Wastes Control Act of 1990 and the Climate Change Act of 2009. The
challenge, it would appear, lies in the effective implementation of these laws.
Pollution
Relative to air pollution, while we do have a law regulating the same, it is silent
regarding an equally serious issue of aerial spraying of pesticides in the agricultural
sector. (Is this a case of a weak political will that acquiesces to the demands of what
Francis refers to as the all-powerful elite?)
Case in point. A 2006 study made by the Department of Health revealed that people
living in Hagonoy, Davao del Sur (where a large banana plantation is situated) showed
high levels of ethylenethiourea (ETU) in their blood samples. ETU and clorothalonil
were also found in high levels in the soil and air of the village and, because of chemical
drift, even in nearby areas. ETU is a breakdown product of Mancozeb, a fungicide widely
used by large scale banana growers but has been classified as carcinogenic by the State
of California and the Swedish pesticide regulatory authority.[vi]
We do, however, commend the law for paying attention to air pollution in the urban
sector as it tries to address increased motorization, congestion, population growth,
greenhouse gas emissions. But to this day, these problems have not also been
sufficiently addressed.
While there has been a phase-out of leaded gasoline since 2010 with the implementation
of the Clean Air Act, there is little if not scant support given by government and private
companies to fund and mainstream more eco-friendly transportation (i.e. the electricjeep or electric-cars) as well as the popularization of the use of green fuels especially for
public utility vehicles. There is also minimal support given to popularizing the
installation of emission reducing devices in the exhaust system of vehicles.
While the DENR has been brandishing its accomplishments regarding the reduction of
smoke belching, cases of rigged emission tests still abound, smoke belchers continue to
ply the streets.
In cities like Metro Manila, the most tangible source of air pollution comes from the
heavy traffic that eats up the time, energy and fuel of those plying the roads. Commuters
would surely agree that the present efforts in trying to address the traffic situation still
leave much to be desired. Banning vehicles with less than 3 passengers during rush
hour[vii] is no different from the existing coding scheme. There should be a more pro-

active effort on the part of government to improve mass transport systems as advocated
by Pope Francis as this is also one way to alleviate the steady rise of fuel emissions
coming from bumper-to bumper traffic situations.
As a powerful tool to aid in decreasing motorization in urbanized cities, local
government units should also take the lead by implementing green laws such as the
passage of ordinances that provide for pedestrian and bike lanes or to declare vehiclefree zones in their area, thus reducing mobile air pollution.
With respect to water pollution, while we do have a law that regulates pollution in our
waters with the adoption of the polluter pays policy in clean-up operations, it has been
observed that there is a tendency for errant companies to pass on the burden of paying
to their end-consumers by increasing the price of their services.
There is also increasing concern regarding watershed degradation (owing in part to
calamities such as flashfloods and the greater frequency of the El Nino phenomenon)
and the unmonitored extraction of groundwater by illegal users.[viii] (italics supplied.)
In addition, most of the sewage generated in our country is not treated. Major rivers and
waterways are also confronted with pollution and degradation due to the encroachment
of settlers.
The chronic shortage of water supply in Metro Manila (and other urban areas) and the
countryside has brought to the fore, the increased recognition of the adverse effects of
mans activities in the watersheds which has caused erosion and siltation problems in
the countrys rivers, lakes and reservoirs. Despite the apparently abundant sources of
water, water is becoming one of the critical resources in the Philippines.[ix]
Perhaps the most visible manifestation of our throwaway culture is our mounting
garbage/ solid waste problem that affects the socially excluded just as it quickly reduces
things to rubbish. (LS par. 22) While we do have a law that sets the framework on how
to manage our solid waste, it appears that proper implementation is the key to its
success.
The soul of our solid waste management law is segregation at source and segregation at
collection. On both fronts, the law meets challenges. Concerning segregation at source, it
has been observed that residents in some localities are not being educated about proper
segregation and recycling. Even barangays are reported to have not been doing anything
to address this problem. The usual complaint is always on the lack of funds to do all
these. As regards segregation at collection sites, there are also issues while there may
be residents compliant with the Ecological Solid Waste Management Act of 2001 (RA

9003), in some local government units, the garbage collection mixes up what has
already been segregated!
This is clearly contrary to what Pope Francis is asking of us, that we modify our
consumption in order to reduce the waste we generate and develop an effective system
of waste disposal and recycling; adopt a circular model of production capable of
preserving resources for present and future generations (LS par. 22) Sadly, our
industrial system, at the end of its cycle and production, has not developed the
capacity to absorb and reuse waste and by-products. (LS par. 22)
Still in relation to the garbage problem, is our governments inability to effectively
enforce laws regulating toxic substances, hazardous and nuclear wastes. You may be
familiar with the news involving the dumping by Canada of fifty (50) 40-footer
container vans of heterogeneous plastic scrap materials in the Port of Manila. Garbage
juice was reportedly leaking from those vans and posed extreme health hazards and
irreversible environmental problems. The Bureau Of Customs and the Department of
Environment and Natural Resources found that the shipment contained mixed
waste(non-recyclable plastics, used adult diapers, broken bottles and glasses, waste
paper, household/kitchen waste, etc.) clearly a mis-declaration of contents.
This imported garbage is a clear violation the Toxic Substances and Hazardous and
Nuclear Wastes Control Act of 1990 and its importation constitutes illegal
tradepursuant to the Basel Convention On The Control Of Transboundary Movements
Of Hazardous Waste And Their Disposal. In the said convention, the movement of
mixed waste between countries is prohibited. The primary objective of this treaty is to
protect human health and environment against the adverse effects of hazardous wastes.
Sadly, last March 2015, a new batch of imported garbage of about 48 container vans was
reported have been in the Philippine port since February 2014[x].
In the words of Pope Francis: the earth, our home, is beginning to look more and more
like an immense pile of filth. (LS par. 21)
Climate Change
For Pope Francis, the climate is a common good, belonging to and meant for all. (LS
par. 23) Owing to our lifestyle and consumption, there is a pressing global problem on
climate change with grave implications, the worst impact of which will be felt by
developing countries. Given this scenario, he reminds us that there is an urgent need to
develop policies so that in the next few years, the emission of carbon dioxide and other
highly polluting gases can be drastically reduced. (LS, par. 26)

In response to the call, our government passed the Climate Change Act six years ago.
Since then, there have been efforts to address the problem of climate change but since
the National Policy Plan on Climate Change was passed in 2011 and has only been
recently implemented, we have yet to see the full effects of the implementation of this
law.
But in reading the text of the law, there appears an organizational flaw in the sense
that it designates the President of the Philippines as the Chairperson of the Climate
Change Commission or the CCC (cf. section 5 of the Climate Change Act). Naming the
Chief Executive as the Head the CCC can prove problematic in terms of regularizing the
meetings of the CCC in order to effectively implement the National Policy Plan on
Climate Change. Section 6 of the law mandates that the CCC meet once every three (3)
months, or as often as may be deemed necessary by the Chairperson, but this has not
been faithfully complied. The likelihood of regularity of meetings and follow up of the
implementation of the National Action Plan is made even more remote if the President
is not inclined to make the issue of climate change a priority in his agenda.
In addition, there is a concern about the effectiveness of the monitoring and oversight
functions being performed at the national level if the existing structure were to be
maintained. Another concern worth taking note of is this: planning and implementation
of the action plan must be devolved to the local government level and the latter must be
able to draw on multiple sources of funding in order to effectively implement their
plans.[xi]
The Biofuels Act
One concrete measure our government has undertaken in order to curb greenhouse gas
emissions, even prior to the passage of the Climate Change Law, was its passage of the
Biofuels Act in 2006 (RA 9367). While the said law is a good initiative to lessen
greenhouse gas emissions by mandating that our fuels (whether diesel or gas) be mixed
with biofuels, the law itself places a cap on the percentile mixture (in an apparent effort
of lawmakers to appease the oil gasoline industry tycoons?).
Section 5 of this law sets the limit for bioethanol at 5-10% (vis--vis the 95-90%
gasoline) and 1-2% biodiesel (vis--vis the 99-98% diesel) as the legislated mixture. Any
violation of the prescribed mixture subjects the seller/user to penalties under section 1213 of the said Act. However, this minimal adjustment in fuel compared to our consumerdriven lifestyle we impacts only minimally on the drive to lessen greenhouse gas

emissions. In other countries, consumers can actually use 100% bioethanol or biodiesel
for their vehicles!
In the greater scheme of things, a better implementation of international agreements as
advocated by Pope Francis would truly have a tremendous impact in the local
implementation of the climate change law. When there is a sincere effort on the part of
the richer countries to internalize the concept of differentiated responsibilities by
shouldering the bigger portion of the ecological debt and at the same time, provide
support to the developing countries in the promotion of renewable and less polluting
forms of energy in the hope of reducing greenhouse gas emissions much can also be
done locally to effectively implement our existing Climate Change Act.
3.
Develop Clean and Renewable Sources of Energy
Pope Francis likewise cites in the Laudato Si that worldwide, there is minimal access to
renewable energy. The resort to renewable energy use is imperative as it is one of the
ways by which we can reduce the emission of carbon dioxide gases and other highly
polluting gases, for example, substituting Renewable Energy sources with the existing
trend that uses fossil fuels. (LS, par. 26)
Connected to this observation is the throwaway culture he questions, as it only seems to
benefit a few capitalist individuals at the expense of the excluded. He likewise makes
specific reference to the fact that the political will to change the status quo appears to be
difficult insofar as our government leaders are also entangled in arrangements with
these few individuals, resulting in a monopoly of industries that would have otherwise
benefited the greater majority of the population.
In the Philippines, this observation is readily apparent. Our existing laws on access to
energy and renewable energy, while noble in its intentions, apparently support the
interests of a few vis--vis the needs of the many.
I cite for instance, our Electric Power Industry Reform Act (EPIRA) which was supposed
to bring down electricity rates and improve the delivery of power supply to end-users by
encouraging greater competition efficiency in the electricity industry through
privatization.
The reality, however is clearly different from what the law intended. From the findings
from the 2008 Annual Poverty Indicators Survey, it was reported that two in every five
poor Filipino families do not have electricity in their homes. 36 percent of families in the

bottom 30% income stratum do not have electricity in their homes compared to 8
percent among families in the upper 70% income stratum. At the national level, 16
percent of all families do not have electricity. The regions with the highest percentages
of families without electricity are the Zamboanga Peninsula (33%)[xii] and the
Autonomous Region of Muslim Mindanao (ARMM) (43%).
While the EPIRA law was intended to protect the common good by institutionalizing the
Energy Regulatory Commission (ERC) as an active regulator, protecting public interest
by ensuring that providers of power services are viable and that consumers are charged
fair and reasonable rates, it appears to be susceptible to vested interests.[xiii] While it
was able to quickly resolve the complex rate setting issues of well-known power
companies like the Manila Electric Co. (MERALCO), the reverse appears to be the case
for other lesser known distribution utilities and electric cooperatives.
This has not worked.
When the ERC approved the Performance Based Rate (PBR) that replaced the earlier
return on rate base, it resulted in an increase in rate on the distribution side. While the
EPIRA allowed the ERC to adopt alternative rate setting methods, the law also
cautioned that the rate setting so applied must ensure a reasonable price of electricity
(section 43 [f] of RA 9136 a.k.a. the EPIRA law.)
Quoting an Opinion article published in the PDI: Under the PBR, a distribution utility
is allowed a return on investment on installed facilities and on future investments. The
future investments are not mandatory as long as the utility achieves a level of
performance. It will be penalized if it doesnt achieve this level of performance.[xiv]
The said article cites a situation: when MERALCO announces a multi-billion peso
capital investment, the consumers are hit twice they pay for it and give the utility a
return on investment that was already part of the rate base or historical costs. In the
first year thePerformance Based Rate (PBR) was adopted, MERALCO gained an
additional revenue of Php 8 Billion Pesos although it suffered a P300-million penalty
for non-performance. Businessmen would take that cost-benefit tradeoff anytime. The
PBR, which allows rate recovery on investments not yet made by MERALCO is
contradictory to section 25 of the EPIRA which says that retail rates shall be based on
the principle of full recovery of prudent and reasonable costs incurred. With the rising
cost of electricity, some resort to electrical theft by way of illegal connections out of
sheer desperation which further worsens the problem.

As regards access to renewable energy, while we may have a law that explicitly mandates
accelerating the exploration and development of renewable energy resources, there is
difficulty in mainstreaming the use and development of RE owing to several factors:
While section 9 of the Renewable Energy Act of 2008 (RA 9513): and section 6 of its
Implementing Rules and Regulations provide for a Green Energy Option, a program
that provides end-users the option to choose renewable energy resources as their
source/s of energy, the implementing rules and regulations which the Department of
Energy (DOE) in consultation with the National Renewable Energy Board (NREB) are
supposed to have formulated are not yet in place. In addition, sec. 9 of the law (still
section 6 of the IRR) also provides that the National Transmission Commission
(TRANSCO) or its successors-in-interest, Distribution Utilities and all relevant parties
are mandated to provide the mechanisms for the physical connection and commercial
arrangements necessary to ensure the success of the Green Energy Option but it would
seem that this has not been faithfully executed as well.
Apparently, the Green Energy Option is not in the interest of current energy providers
whose production is based on burning fossil fuels.
End-users wishing to avail of the green energy option have to comply with what is
provided for under section 10 of the law which states: The ERC, in consultation with the
National Renewable Energy Board (NREB) and the electric power industry participants,
shall establish net metering interconnection standards and pricing methodology and
other commercial arrangements necessary to ensure success of the net-metering for
renewable energy program within one (1) year upon the effectivity of this Act. It would
appear that this net metering standards and pricing methodology are not yet fully in
place as well.
The existing technology on solar energy as a possible renewable energy (RE) source has
one important setback. While solar is a good use-on-demand RE source, storing any
excess generation of solar power is costly. The batteries are not cheap and would
necessitate replacement every two years. More importantly, the used solar batteries pose
serious environmental hazards.
Pope Francis however recognizes that until greater progress is made in developing
widely accessible sources of renewable energy, it is legitimate to choose the less
harmful alternative or to find short-term solutions. (LS par. 164) But the ultimate

goal is really to progressively replace, without delay, our reliance on

technology that is based on the use of highly polluting fossil fuels.
Finally, the whole power/energy business is embroiled in politics and corruption, and
capitalists with vested interests take an active hand in influencing policymakers
something which impede the amendment of any existing legal framework for RE. This
demands a socio-cultural upheaval and a strong political will if reforms are to be made.
4.
Ensuring Universal Access to Clean and Safe Drinking Water
Pope Francis reiterates that fresh drinking water is an issue of primary importance,
since it is indispensable to human life and for supporting ecosystems (LS par. 28) and
notes that one particularly serious problem is the quality of water available to the poor.
In the Philippines, this call could not have come at a more appropriate time, seen in
light of the water shortages experienced in various parts of the country coupled with the
rising costs of water rates.
And yet, in the international community, the right to water has already been recognized
as fundamental human need, essential for life, and a prerequisite for the realization of
other human rights. Quoting from the said international document[xv]: Water is a
limited natural resource and a public good fundamental for life and
health. The human right to water is indispensable for leading a life in
human dignity.
The reality however, is that access to clean, safe and affordable drinking water is still
inadequate not only in the Philippines but all over the world. 884 million people do not
have access to improved sources of drinking water, while 2.5 billion lack access to
improved sanitation facilities. The lack of safe drinking water, sanitation, and hygiene
has resulted in serious diseases that kill millions of people each year. A child dies every
fifteen seconds from diarrheal diseases, which are most commonly related to
contaminated drinking water and inadequate sanitation. A vast majority of people who
lack access to adequate water and sanitation live in lesser-developed countries. For the
Asian Pacific region, access to safe drinking water is an especially significant issue; a
majority of countries in the region, a third of the population lack sufficient sanitation
services.
In the Philippines, the recent 2014 Annual Poverty Indicators Survey (APIS) conducted
by the National Statistics Office reveals that 85.5 percent of the 22.7 million families
comprising our population have access to safe water supply, but it is water coming from
the community water system piped into a dwelling, yard or plot, public tap, and

protected well. The remaining 14.5 percent of families (about 14.5 million Filipinos) use
unsafe sources of water from unprotected wells, springs, rivers, ponds, lakes, rain water,
and tanker trucks or peddlers. Today, that the poorest of the poor do not have access to
safe, clean, affordable drinking water remains an undeniable fact.
The Asian Development Bank has identified water as an essential component in
improving the lives of the AP-regions 900 million poor people. Given these numbers, it
should be no surprise that the issue of water has become important on the worlds
political stage. Interestingly, instead of adopting protective state measures to address
this issue, privatization of water utilities has become the central strategy both globally
and in the Asian Pacific region for dealing with the water crisis.[xvi] But while
privatization may have some benefits, it also has its disadvantages most of which are
acutely felt by the poor.
Manila, the capital city of the Philippines, serves as an important example of how
privatization has been implemented in Asia. The experience of privatization in Manila
shows how private sector involvement harms the human right to water through high
prices, inadequate access, and insufficient quality, which pose real threats to human
health.
As a result of the privatization efforts by the government of its public utilities, the water
rates drastically increased in Metro Manila. Between August 1997 and January 2007, it
was reported that the increase was as high as 357% for Maynilad and by 414.4% for
Manila Water. Aside from increased water rates, corporations are fast eating up
freshwater resources. Nestles mineral water plant in San Pablo City is being blamed by
local residents and farmers for the declining freshwater availability.[xvii] For the poor,
this only meant that access to safe and clean drinking water became even more
inaccessible. This also lends credence to the Pope Francis warning that the control of
water by large multinational businesses can become a major source of conflict in this
century. (LS, par. 31)
Access to clean and safe drinking water is made even more problematic when you factor
in water pollution owing to factories spilling toxic waste in rivers and other water
systems as well the toxic remnants of aerial and pesticide spraying seeping into our
groundwater, polluting the most readily available drinking water especially for the poor,
according to the 2014 Annual Poverty Indications Survey (APIS) results as shown above.

As a basic human right that ought to be made readily affordable and accessible for all,
the difficulty of obtaining clean and safe drinking water truly is unacceptable. We must
revisit our existing policies and determine to what extent can our government, in the
interest of the common good, step in and intervene (i.e. increase funds to provide clean
water and sanitary services among the poor.)
As a guide, UN General Comment No. 15 highlights that, in order to ensure that water is
affordable, states should adopt the necessary measures that may notably include
appropriate pricing policies such as free or low cost water. This is in consonance with
the call of Pope Francis to pay our social debt we owe the poor who lack access to
drinking water, because they are denied the right to a life consistent with their
inalienable dignity.(LS, par. 30)
5.
Justice for the Excluded
Pope Francis in his encyclical also makes specific reference of the need to show special
care for indigenous communities and their cultural traditions as they are not merely
one minority among others but should be regarded as principal dialogue partners,
especially when large projects affecting their land are proposed.
In 2007, the international community gave due recognition to the rights of the IPs
through the UN Declaration on the Rights of the Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP 2007)
which included, among others, the right to self-determination (art. 3), the right to lands,
territories and resources (arts. 25-30), right to be secure in the enjoyment of their own
means of subsistence and development and engage freely in all their traditional and
other economic activities (Art. 20), the right to free prior and informed consent (art.
10,11,19,28,29,32), the right to determine and develop priorities and strategies for
exercising their right to development and for the development and use of their lands,
territories and resources (art. 23, 32) and the right to culture and identity. (art. 2,3,5,79, 11-15, 24-25,31,33-36)
In the Philippines, affording protection to our indigenous communities was given legal
framework through the Indigenous Peoples Rights Act (IPRA) of 1997. It was supposed
to correct previous legislations that paved the way for the unlawful deprivation of lands
belonging to the indigenous communities as well to honor the time old jurisprudential
doctrine in Mateo Carino vs. Insular Government [xviii] where the Supreme Court held
that ancestral lands and domains were never part of the public domain or subject to
state ownership for the simple reason that these lands remained with the unconquered
indigenous peoples and remained as private lands owned by either clans or individuals.

However, while this is indeed the law, it limps in its implementation insofar as the
Regalian Doctrine inscribed in our 1987 Constitution still impedes the full recognition
and ownership (and its eventual utilization) of ancestral lands insofar as the natural
resource management system remains feudalmeaning that all lands of the public
domain, waters, minerals, coal, petroleum, and other mineral oils, all forces of potential
energy, fisheries, forests or timber, wildlife, flora and fauna, and other natural resources
are owned by the State. [xix]
While a strong law, the IPRA also has some weaknesses. Concerns have been raised
about the way in which it simplifies and standardizes concepts like indigenous peoples,
customary laws, and conceptions of ancestral domain. This glosses over the differences
among various indigenous communities in the Philippines. IPRA has also been
undermined by other laws on natural resources like the Mining Act, which results in
confusion in its implementation.[xx]
The IPRA has also come under fire owing to its provisions relative to the process of
securing free prior and informed consent (a.k.a. the FPIC). The FPIC, as the law
intended it, was supposed to be the consensus of all members of the ICCs/IPs which
consensus shall be determined in accordance with their respective customary laws and
practices, free from any external manipulation, interference or coercion, and obtained
from the community after fully disclosing the intent and scope of the activity in an
language and process understandable to the community. The FPIC is required for
development activities in a proposed area identified as ripe for the exploration,
development and exploitation of natural resources.
In reality, the FPIC process has been hugely criticized on account of the fact that consent
is frequently engineered and the indigenous communities are manipulated and
subverted by the government and project proponents through various means. In some
projects, the proponents provide the IPs with incomplete information, and oftentimes
the information provided is biased in favor of the project. In other instances, project
proponents through the connivance (?) or meekness (?) of some LGU officials, create
fake tribal councils (these are the non-representative indigenous leaders) in order to
grant favorable FPICs. These acts are merely some of the atrocities committed at the
community level which capitalize on the governments neglect of the indigenous
peoples. Because of these anomalies, the FPIC process has been perceived by many
affected indigenous peoples as merely a technicality that has to be complied with and
must be dispensed with the soonest. Some even criticized the government agency
handling FPIC processes the NCIP as biased, considering that it is a government

agency that is directly under the President whose policy favors development projects
such as mining.
An alarming development relative to this issue is the increased human rights violations
committed against members of indigenous communities in those areas where
exploration permits or mining concessions are granted by the government insofar as
these mining concessions are almost always within an area where there are ancestral
domains. In order to secure the safety of these mining operations, paramilitary groups
and even the military often act as guardians over the mining areas the latters
vigilance in watching over the interests of the miners oftentimes result in senseless
killings of our Lumad brothers and sisters.
This is contrary to what Pope Francis has been advocating in his encyclical. He urges
that the indigenous communities be treated as principal dialogue partners in any
development project that affects their land and not be regarded as a mere afterthought.
For them, land is not a commodity but rather a gift from God and from their
ancestors who rest there, a sacred space with which they need to interact if they are to
maintain their identity and values. When they remain on their land, they themselves
care for it best. Nevertheless, in various parts of the world, pressure is being put on
them to abandon their homelands to make room for agricultural or mining projects
which are undertaken without regard for the degradation of nature and culture. (LS
146)
Apart from the IPRA law, also relevant to this discussion is the on-going peace process
between the Government of the Philippines with the Moro Islamic Liberation Front that
led to the drafting of the Basic Law for the Bangsamoro now pending in Congress. With
the limited time that Congress has left, it is imperative to pass the BBL now. The nonattendance by our lawmakers in the sessions leading to a lack of quorum, displays a lack
of sincerity on their part to do their lawful function as statesmen/women and as
peacebuilders. It also reflects a level of insensitivity to the plight of our Bangsamoro
brothers and sisters who only wish to establish their identity and assert their right to
self-determination.
With the existing Autonomous Region of Muslim Mindanao having been seen as a failed
experiment by the government because it did not fully realize the concept of an
autonomous entity, it is incumbent upon our lawmakers to pass an authentic organic

law faithful to the principles enshrined in the Framework Agreement on the

Bangsamoro and the Comprehensive Agreement on the Bangsamoro, our Governments
commitment to the Bangsamoro people as this is also our response to Pope Francis
call to respect the rights of peoples and cultures, and to appreciate that the development
of a social group presupposes a historical process which takes place within a cultural
context and demands the constant and active involvement of local people from within
their proper culture. (LS 144)
Justice for the excluded demands that we not only take care of our Lumad sisters and
brothers in the uplands, and of the Bangsamoro people, it also asks of us to give due
regard for the poor that remain invisible in the world of rural and urban development.
As Pope Francis cites, the lack of housing is a grave problem in many parts of the world,
both in rural areas and large cities, since state budgets only cover a small portion of the
land. Moreover, Pope Francis also cites in detail that when the poor live in unsanitary
slums or in dangerous tenements, in cases where it is necessary to relocate them, in
order not to heap suffering upon suffering, adequate information needs to be given
beforehand, with choices of decent housing offered, and the people directly involved
must be part of the process.
Our government tried to address this grave problem with the enactment of their propoor legislations relative to housing (e.g. the Urban Development and Housing Act of
1992 [RA 7279]). However, as with previous laws already mentioned, its proper
implementation appears wanting insofar as it has not been able to eradicate lack of
affordable housing stock for the poor generated by appropriate land-use planning and
enlightened public housing finance for the poor. And while the law prescribes a
procedure for humane eviction of the urban poor, there are still some landowners who
willfully violate the same in furtherance not of a more humane city, but of their private
good, or pressure LGUs to do so in their stead. It might be high time to revisit existing
urban development laws and plans to see how housing for the poor could be regarded as
a commons a responsibility shared by all in furtherance of the common good.
One particular issue that Pope Francis was very sensitive about was the plight of
ourenvironmental refugees those internally displaced from their homes as a result of
ecological disasters and from various forms of developmental aggression. In the
Philippines, this reality is all too apparent with the occurrence of yearly natural disasters
as well as multiple development projects that result in the ouster of the poor (and

usually those coming from the indigenous communities) from lands they have regarded
as their homes. While it may be conceded that our Philippine Government came up with
projects that assist in minimizing displacement as a result of natural disasters (whether
it has been effective, however, is an entirely different matter), our government policies
however, are silent as regards displacement that results from developmental aggression.
Even more disappointing is the languishing in Congress (and the veto by the President
of its earlier version) of the law protecting the rights of internally displaced persons that
could have addressed this very problem. Quoting the exit report of UN Office of the High
Commissioner for Human Rights Special Rapporteur Dr. Chaloka Beyani: If passed the
Bill would constitute a landmark national law, based on the UN 1998 Guiding Principles
on Internal Displacement and best practices. It would provide a valuable domestic legal
elaboration of the rights of internally displaced persons and the primary responsibility
of the Government to protect them. It would help to remove existing administrative
gaps, obstacles and uncertainties and establish criminal responsibility for acts of
arbitrary displacement by both State and non-State actors.
This important bill languishes in Congress.
6. Promote an Economy that favors productive diversity and business
creativity but at the same time protecting the right of the poor to available
employment
Pope Francis mentions in his encyclical that any authentic approach to protecting an
integral ecology also demands of us to take into account the value of human work. The
goal should not be that technological progress increasingly replace human work, as this
is detrimental to humanity. Rather, it is essential that we prioritize the goal of access to
steady employment for everyone. In order to do this, it is imperative that we promote an
economy that favors productive diversity and business creativity. (LS, 124-129)
The biggest detriment to this call, however, is the culture of capitalism that thrives on a
consumerist driven market and is further propelled by our throw-away mentality. It is
no surprise that the instant, ready-to-eat food is popular and that the disposables (from
napkins, to diapers, water bottles) are preferred rather than commit to recycle what can
be recycled, re-use what can be reused.
What is unfortunate about this mentality is that it also de-sensitizes us to the value of
human labor. In fact, with such a mentality, assembly machines are the standard of

choice for an efficient production of goods rather than ensuring steady employment for
the ordinary laborer. And in the event that manual labor is necessary, most businessmen
adopt the strategy of contractualization of workers. While others employ this as a
legitimate means of cost cutting, it is regrettable that a lot of employers resort to this
tactic simply to circumvent the security of tenure provisions provided by our Labor
Code.
Despite the culture of inequity that it creates, most turn a blind eye to
contractualization as the prevailing economic conditions in our country force the
ordinary laborer to simply take what available job there is, despite the fact that
contractualization enables the employer to shirk the responsibility of regularizing
his/her workers at the end of the probationary period and recognizing them as entitled
to all the benefits guaranteed by the law.
The practice of contractualization is clearly anathema to what our fundamental law
guarantees: the State shall afford full protection to labor, local and overseas, organized
and unorganized, and promote full employment and equality of employment
opportunities for all.[xxi] The same provision moreover indicates that employees are
entitled to security of tenure, humane conditions of work and a living wage.
Is Pope Francis against economic development? Is he against the use of machines in the
workplace? Reading his encyclical, we can safely conclude NO, he is not against
machines in the workplace nor against development. What Pope Francis asks of us is to
be creative and come up with alternative models of development, and this entails a
responsible reflection of the meaning of economy and its goals with an eye to correcting
its malfunctions and misapplications.
7.
Cultivating an Environmental Education Program
As a final advocacy point, Pope Francis also makes a specific and urgent call to us
educators to do our part. As educators, we should develop an ethics of ecology and
help people, through effective pedagogy, to grow in solidarity, responsibility and
compassionate care. (LS 210).
On the issue of water, for example, the Pope laments that educators have fallen short of
their responsibility to educate as there is little awareness of the seriousness of such
behavior within a context of great inequality. (LS 30) It is not enough to come up the
studies, helpful these may be, we should be able to reach out to those directly and
adversely affected by these threats to our environment and come up with ways to
address the problem.

In fact, there is an existing legal basis for us to do our part through RA 9512, otherwise
known as the National Environmental Awareness and Education Act of 2008 . Section
3 of the said law states: The Department of Education (DepEd), the Commission on
Higher Education (CHED), the Technical Education and Skills Development Authority
(TESDA), the Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD), in coordination
with the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR), the Department
of Science and Technology (DOST) and other relevant agencies, shall integrate
environmental education in its school curricula at all levels, whether public or private,
including in barangay daycare, preschool, non-formal, technical vocational,
professional, indigenous learning and out-of-school youth courses or programs.
Environmental education shall encompass environmental concepts and principles,
environmental laws, the state of international and local environment, local
environmental best practices, the threats of environmental degradation and its impact
on human well-being, the responsibility of the citizenry to the environment and the
value of conservation, protection and rehabilitation of natural resources and the
environment in the context of sustainable development. It shall cover both theoretical
and practicum modules comprising activities, projects and programs including, but not
limited to, tree planting; waste minimization, segregation, recycling and composting,
freshwater and marine conservation, forest management and conservation, relevant
livelihood opportunities and economic benefits and other such programs and
undertakings to aid the implementation of the different environmental protection law.
The law is comprehensive enough to cover the requirements asked of us by the Pope in
his latest encyclical. But have we been faithfully implementing this law in our schools? It
might be high time for us to conduct a CEAP-wide survey on our schools
implementation of RA 9512 and highlight the best practices that we have been able to
come up with in the care of our common home.