‘Environmental rule of law’ a reality?
The rule of law is a basic tenet in a democratic and republican system like ours. In a perfect world, the laws are obeyed unflinchingly by all, especially those tasked to implement them. Failure to respect the Law has dire impacts, not only on the State, but also on the people, our ravaged planet and our common future. Yet, human as we are, the rule of law and its predictability remain goals that citizens aspire for.
Laws are discretionary to certain holders of office with no sense of accountability. Public institutions, supervising entities and local chief executives should ensure that the laws are complied with, as mandated by the functions of their office.
An example is the much-publicized purchase of P19 million worth of notebooks, with the smiling face of the suspended governor Gwendolyn Garcia on the cover page. They now give a tremendous headache to Acting Gov. Agnes Magpale who is aware of the anti-epal policy. The policy banning names and faces in government programs was adopted in 2010 through a circular issued by then Local Government Secretary Jesse Robredo. Department of Interior and Local Government (DILG) Regional directors were tasked to “cause the immediate and widest dissemination” and to “monitor compliance” of said Circular.
Media and anti-epal social network sites were better in pressuring public servants. The circular did not seem to make a dent on the minds of the public officials. I am wondering if DILG even required the governor to explain why her face and name continued to be plastered in the vehicles, posters and even managed to have a highway named after her, despite the law prohibiting the naming of public infrastructure after a living person. To say that the circular did not provide for sanctions is no excuse for not performing one’s responsibility and conduct my investigations. The Revised Penal Code and other laws are replete with sanctions for omission and commission of acts violative of the law and public policy.
This lack of political will to enforce the laws is apparent in the treatment of environmental laws. They are rendered meaningless if the implementing institutions are just too weak and crippled to enforce them.
The author of a well-written article, “The Role of Philippine Courts in Establishing the Environmental Rule of Law” (2012) which has considerably enriched Philippine environmental law in particular and environmental law in general, Elizabeth Barrett Ristroph, established certain elements to evaluate if environmental rule of law exists, as follows: “(1) there is a system of laws in place that regulate, to the extent practicable, all human-induced actions that by themselves or collectively have significant impacts on the environment; (2) these laws will be consistently applied over time and across the jurisdiction; and (3) effective and fair enforcement action, initiated by a government entity or citizen suit/complaint, will be taken against one who breaks the law, regardless of the offender’s socioeconomic or political status.”
So many others and I agree with her view that in the Philippines, “A quarter-century after the enactment of a constitutional provision guaranteeing the right to a healthful and balanced ecology, there are many environmental laws in place, but not the environmental rule of law.”
Laws are empty if competence is lacking in regulating and monitoring ecologically destructive programs and projects such as mining and coal. Yesterday, in a program which tackled mining in the Philippines, Acting Director Leo L. Jasareno, of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources’ Mines and Geosciences Bureau admitted the lack of manpower to monitor compliance of mining laws and regulations. Such admission reflects how little we put emphasis on the protection of our vastly degraded ecosystems and the affected people and species that depend on them for survival. The economic factor is still the main consideration.
If we lack competent people, or there is no budget for human resources, why allow the industry to operate in the first place?
The same is true of coal, which is a polluting and climate-change causing industry. Our experience and interaction on the ground made us realize how unprepared we are in protecting the people’s rights to life, health, livelihood and a healthful and balanced ecology. There are no standards in place as there is no law regulating specifically the coal industry after the 1987 Constitution was adopted. Despite the known hazardous impacts of coal to our climate, health and environment and our right to a “healthful and balanced ecology,” local government units do not even take ownership of their duty to enforce anti-pollution laws. Are there even facilities in Cebu which can examine the content of coal ash and the hazardous elements in the water, or treat victims of mercury or arsenic contamination at a reasonable cost to the public? There is still no functioning policy-making body, the Metro Cebu Air Shed Board, despite efforts to activate one. Transparency and consistency in informing the public of the real state of the environment remain empty promises.
Happily, there are steps instituted to lessen the arbitrariness in decision-making at the political, economic and social levels. The Bottom Up Planning and Budgeting policy opens the space for constituents to partner with government in programs and projects and make their real needs known. This is a clear recognition of the people’s right to participate in decision-making. This mechanism, if implemented seriously, will make the government more responsive and minimize the atrocious sense of entitlement still lurking in the minds of some people.
But it does require citizens to be engaged with government and other stakeholders on issues that affect us, even to the extent of holding negligent officials accountable.
Are you ready for the environmental rule of law to be a reality in our country?
