webcast brought to you by the asian research institute for environmental law and the asian

development bank environmental law champions my name is matthew baird i'm the director of the

asian research institute for environmental law or as we call us ariel so welcome to you

on youtube or on facebook and it's great

to be with you this evening and so today

we have the first

of our case note

uh episodes where we're going to look at

a particular environmental law case one

of the really important ones within the

asian region and talk to the attorney

who was one of the co-counsel in

bringing this case

and discuss some of the issues um and

the case is the resident mammals sorry

i'll start that again the resident

marine mammals of the protected seascape

tanyan strait are represented herein by

human being gloria estenza ramos and

rose lisa

in their capacity as legal guardians of

the lesser life forms and is responsible

steward of god's creations against

so i'm a great pleasure to introduce

our guest tonight uh rose lisa aisma

osorio

she is a professor of the university of

cebu school of law teaching environment

and natural resources law international

environmental law property law

administrative law amongst other things

for the past 17 years she's currently

the chairperson of the governing board

of the iucn academy of environmental law

she is the first

asian academic to head the iucn academy

she's also a member of the steering

committee of the world commission on

environmental law and the environmental

law alliance worldwide

she is a co-founder and previously the

managing trustee of the philippine earth

justice center

and through pejc several environmental

cases were filed in the philippines

including the landmark case of resident

marine mammals and dolphins against

secretary of the department of energy

where she was one of the two lawyers who

recognized the supreme court

as the human stewards of the wales and

citations of the tanyan straight

protected seascape one of the largest

marine protected areas in the country

she recently joined oceana as its legal

and policy director and works on

strategic directed campaigns in the

oceans through science-based fishery

management and policy reforms to stop

overfishing habitat destruction and

marine pollution and it's a great

pleasure to welcome attorney lisa here

hi lisa how are you

hi matthew good evening everyone good

afternoon good morning to those not

living in the philippines but generally

i think for the filipinos listening to

us

um good evening or ma'ayong gabi in

and i do like the cebuano

and indeed it's probably been one of the

things that you've that's really been a

big feature in the work that you do in

terms of protecting the oceans and the

seascape so i'm just wondering can you

give our listeners a little bit of an

introduction about yourself we've heard

about obviously you know your

extraordinary academic arguments and and

the work with the iucn academy of

environmental law um and of course as

one of the adb's environmental law

champions and a great supporter of

environmental

law and uh environmental or academics um

but you're also a litigator um so

what are you are you

just i guess you're i'm the jack of all

trades or the jail of all trades i guess

yeah but i'm lucky that i i live in the

philippines so i think similar to you

matthew in the philippines

you can be an academic you can be a

litigator at the same time so

it's not like you're just you know put

in one silo where you just become an

academic and do just academic research

and teaching but

in the philippines we're lucky that we

are allowed also to practice and so

but most of my

my time

since i became a lawyer has been really

focused on environmental litigation

environmental law advocacy also so

i guess um it's i have the best of both

worlds as you can see

04:48

and it allows me to to also delve into

04:52

research or in an environmental law in

04:54

the philippines in order to advance it

04:56

and by and by teaching it also allows me

04:59
to train uh or to train future

05:01

environmental law champions that

05:04

uh and mold them to become environmental

05:06

litigators uh you know in the future

05:11

so

05:11

you know i know that um both you and and

05:15

attorney golly um who

05:17

brought this case um who can't be with

05:19

us tonight unfortunately you've run a

05:21

number of cases um

05:23

and tonight i just wanted to we're going

05:25

to focus a little bit on this resident

05:27

marine mammals case

05:29

and

05:30

i mean it
05:32

it was decided i think in 2015

05:36

15

05:42

so i guess one of the things that really

05:44

interests me is is what made you think

05:47

about bringing a case in the name of the

05:50

resident marine mammals

05:54

well i guess

05:55

i'm sorry

05:57

yeah well i guess the site

05:59

where

06:00

um the activity was held was actually um

06:05

the one that suggested to us that it is

06:08

very important to bring the case in

06:10

behalf of the residents there you know

06:12
living in that marine protected area so

06:15

the site i'm talking to you about is the

06:17

protected seascape of thanion strait

06:20

which is you know a very important

06:22

migratory

06:24

area for dolphins whales and other

06:27

situations in the philippines

06:30

as

06:31

mentioned in the introduction it's one

06:32

of the largest marine protected areas it

06:34

is

06:35

um actually you know located between two

06:38

big provinces in in the central

06:40

philippines which is

06:42

uh cebu and negros islands and so

06:45

um it's a very deep uh water body that's

06:48

why i guess it's the favorite uh

06:51

you know playing ground of this resident

06:54

mamas and dolphins and so

06:56

when we heard about the oil exploration

06:59

activity

07:00

um we

07:02

immediately thought about ways on how to

07:04

stop it and of course we had with us um

07:09

you know so civil society organizations

07:12

concerned citizens as well

07:14

uh and and of course marginal fisher

07:17

folks who were very concerned about

07:18

these activities that were occurring in

07:20
this

07:21

marine protected area and um given that

07:24

they were conducting seismic surveys for

07:27

oil exploration and later on

07:29

they built also a uh you know a

07:32

structure in one of the local government

07:35

units here in cebu a platform

07:38

to explore further into one of the sites

07:41

and so um because of the danger we we

07:45

knew that there was a danger with the

07:48

seismic surveys because they were using

07:50

sonar

07:51

uh to them the

07:53

wildlife species there

07:55

we thought about you know bringing the

07:57

case in behalf of them because we know

08:00

that at that time well

08:02

not not sure about now but at that time

08:05

we knew that the philippines were really

08:07

very um

08:09

i guess you know path breaking or uh

08:12

very

08:13

innovative when it comes to you know

08:16

hearing these cases in a way that

08:19

uh you know we our supreme court was i

08:21

guess uh in at the forefront of making

08:24

innovations when it comes to deciding

08:27

environmental cases at that time because

08:29

we had uh opposa versus factorian case

08:32
and you know and so we relied on that

08:35

you know um

08:37

the judicial activism as you may say at

08:40

that time and so we wanted to further

08:43

stretch

08:46

the discourse

08:47

the legal discourse on standing for

08:50

in environmental cases and so yeah

08:53

that's when we decided to bring it in

08:54

behalf of the marine mammals and

08:56

dolphins

08:58

and so there were a couple of cases as i

09:00

understand so there was a case which

09:02

which was run by the fisher folk um you

09:04

of course also
09:06

there as

09:14

the whales and citations themselves but

09:17

also

09:18

as you as as stewards or or guardians

09:23

and

09:24

and it was a case um where

09:27

um

09:29

had been already protected it was a

09:32

special seascape

09:34

area

09:35

um and so there was there was oil

09:37

exploration going and um

09:39

i think there was meant to be a you were

09:42

challenging i think a contract under

09:45
the service

09:46

service contract issued by the president

09:48

so um or meant to be issued by the

09:50

president so in terms of the um

09:53

the particular outcomes of of the case

09:56

um

09:58

what do you think was the the thing that

10:00

makes this case such a sort of a

10:02

successful

10:04

public interest environmental case

10:06

yeah um well it was

10:09

it was um filed at the time

10:12

when

10:12

the environmental rules of procedure was

10:16

not were not yet promulgated by the

10:18

supreme court it was in 2007 and the

10:21

rules of procedure for environmental

10:23

cases was promulgated in

10:25

2010 so

10:27

it was

10:28

actually at the time where

10:31

we were still guided by

10:34

the ordinary rules of serial procedure

10:36

in the country in filing special civil

10:38

actions like this

10:40

and um

10:42

and so that's why we decided by the way

10:44

to file two cases because amongst our

10:46

group we had like the traditionalists

10:48
you know you have to

10:50

file a case uh where you have your local

10:53

standing is based on

10:55

the injury the wreck and personal injury

10:57

which is the marginal fissure folks so

11:00

um and then you also have this case

11:03

where we're trying to challenge the

11:04

norms of local sandy allowing you know

11:07

nature to file case uh you know the

11:10

animals to file the case and and have

11:13

standing in court so that's why we

11:15

brought the case together um

11:18

and

11:19

um

11:20

and and yes so it was uh quite an

11:23

exciting time for us because we wanted

11:26

to challenge really

11:27

the prevailing legal norm of uh the

11:31

the traditional

11:33

local study that was recognized at that

11:36

time um and as the case was decided uh

11:39

it was

11:40

uh you know although you know uh

11:44

the

11:45

the supreme court dodge the the question

11:47

that we really wanted to attempt to

11:50

answer which was to give legal standing

11:52

to the resident mammals and dolphins but

11:55

they they dodge it by saying um that

11:59
well you know at the time when they when

12:01

they propagated the case in 2015 they

12:03

said we already have the rules of

12:05

procedure which allows for a citizen

12:08

suit and you know

12:10

so uh the legal representatives of the

12:13

resident mamas and dolphins could now be

12:16

considered as you know the seawards of

12:18

nature and so they can have the standing

12:21

to sue

12:22

um in behalf of the resident mammals and

12:25

all things so i guess they dodged really

12:28

then the the main issue and we wanted

12:31

them to go beyond that but well

12:33

we just
12:34

but it was still very important

12:36

nonetheless because it was the first

12:38

time where

12:39

any any citizen could become a seaward

12:42

uh for the environment right and can

12:45

file a suit in behalf of nature

12:48

and i think this is where you know this

12:51

type of case

12:52

can be really quite

12:54

um challenging to judges

12:56

um because it you know

12:59

at its core it was um some lawyers

13:02

acting on behalf of clients non-human

13:04

clients um

13:06
but also as as stewards so there was

13:09

that dual

13:11

uh position that you took um but you're

13:14

also challenging um the idea of issuing

13:17

um a license or a service contract in

13:20

the the protected sea state of the

13:22

tanyan strait and i i think the court

13:24

was extraordinarily strong on saying

13:27

that this was not possible because the

13:29

the seascapes were created by congress

13:32

and therefore only congress could allow

13:34

um

13:35

this type of service contract or oil

13:37

exploration oil drilling um in the

13:41

in that area i mean that was a huge win

13:43

i think just

13:45

on that alone and because really

13:48

has happy impact also on all of that

13:51

sort of ideas about offshore mining

13:54

yeah sure that was just the real

13:56

substantive issue that we want in that

13:59

case and you know um basically what we

14:02

notice you know um because the

14:05

the government you know um pounded on

14:09

our attempt to have uh the local stanley

14:12

recognition for non-human petitioners

14:15

they did not dwell so much about you

14:17

know in their in their briefs you know

14:19

they did not put so much attention on

14:21
the service contract argument maybe

14:23

because it was really a losing argument

14:25

on their part because they knew that

14:27

there was a really strong law

14:29

unprotected area the naipas law which

14:32

really this allows you know a service

14:34

contracts but it was a a real um win for

14:38

us in terms of that you know that you

14:40

know essentially

14:42

um

14:43

you cannot allow service contracts but

14:45

because as you said that would be

14:46

against uh

14:48

the congress imprimatur itself on

14:51

declaring such as a protected area

14:54

and i think you know in when you look at

14:56

the cave um and i want to come back to

14:59

the standing question because i i think

15:01

it was really interesting to see how the

15:02

judges were

15:04

obviously

15:06

you know a little bit troubled um

15:08

by those claims which is quite exciting

15:10

it's always good to challenge supreme

15:12

court judges um

15:14

but in terms of the issue of the service

15:16

contract and the national integrated

15:18

protected area system the nipas i mean

15:20

it was a very uh strong judgment that

15:23
really

15:24

supported marine protected areas and and

15:27

i think this is really

15:29

one of those

15:30

important decisions given the discussion

15:32

we've had about deep seabed mining

15:35

um

15:36

even though it you know this has

15:37

occurred in 2015

15:40

so you know quite a while before we've

15:42

now placed this i mean there was a case

15:44

just recently today in the new zealand

15:46

supreme court where they rejected um a

15:50

deep-sea mining application within new

15:53

zealand
15:55

and i think this is going to be a big

15:57

challenge

15:58

um certainly to the philippines but

16:00

to sort of indonesia and

16:02

malaysia as well in terms of

16:05

people trying to

16:06

exploit protected areas

16:09

so i think you know that's also a

16:11

sleeper decision in that it was it's a

16:13

really powerful

16:15

argument for protecting these

16:18

marine seascapes in these marine areas

16:21

so that was also quite interesting

16:23

true yeah the impact of this case um we

16:26
guess you know

16:28

was was really to um disallow you know

16:31

um service contracts being you know

16:34

being

16:35

allowed um in in protected areas at

16:38

least you know at least now we have a

16:40

very strong

16:41

precedence that would set the tone as

16:43

you said this that slipper doctrine that

16:45

we could use anytime when there's a

16:47

proposal for seabed mining or

16:50

what our problem nowadays also seabed

16:53

quarrying so if it's a protected area

16:55

it's a no-no because we could use that

16:57

decision and and that's good right so

17:00

our our challenge now is is really um to

17:04

to ensure that people know and thank you

17:06

for pointing it out because you know

17:08

people really sometimes forget about

17:10

that part of the decision where they

17:12

always you know focus on the local study

17:16

part of that case and and look i i

17:19

confess you know i've been mostly

17:21

focused on on the locker standing and

17:24

the way the court and then rereading the

17:25

judgment i'm thinking wow um

17:29

this was

17:30

really quite powerful i mean also

17:33

um i think it was quite powerful

17:35
in terms of working out you know whether

17:38

um i think a service contract had to be

17:40

signed by the president you know there

17:42

had to be clear

17:43

um procedural

17:46

correctness in these sort of of issues

17:49

and and that that again is another very

17:51

strong

17:52

judgment to say if you get these things

17:54

wrong um they will be overturned

17:57

yeah um

17:58

so

17:59

so but getting back now to the standing

18:02

issue um

18:03

you know it was commenced in 2005 and

18:06

look i've been an environment for a lot

18:08

lawyer a long time so i look back from

18:10

2005 and

18:13

and this this is a judgment or this is a

18:16

a cause of action or an argument that's

18:19

innovative now 15 years ago 17 years ago

18:22

this was really

18:24

and the judges i think had had some

18:26

changes um

18:28

when you said you know we're bringing

18:30

this place on on behalf of the resident

18:33

marine mammals

18:34

you can come again

18:37

sorry what was it like in terms of in

18:39
court um before the bid they were out

18:42

when you were saying well i'm here on

18:43

behalf of

18:44

the dolphins and the whales well

18:47

a lot of

18:48

well we could

18:50

we could admit that a lot of people

18:51

laughed at us even like the lawyers like

18:54

okay that will never happen you know

18:56

they were they were really

18:58

uh we were we were really seen as some

19:01

thing of you know uh an odd

19:04

group of people

19:05

trying to bring something to the court

19:07

and and we could see also that as you

19:09

said you know in the discussion of the

19:11

court they really had a hard time

19:13

you know uh dealing or you know neatly

19:17

dealing with you know the arguments that

19:19

we brought before them and

19:21

uh in fact you know i'm i'm very

19:24

interested in really also

19:26

trying to

19:27

look into deeply more into their their

19:30

argument which was quite scant as you

19:32

said um in in terms of really

19:35

um you know our expectation of them

19:38

really trying uh would have they would

19:40

have

19:42
had you know

19:43

made it more comprehensive i guess when

19:46

when they discussed that but you know it

19:48

was very you know there was a very you

19:50

know aligned or enough paragraph even

19:52

just to discuss on on the main opinion

19:55

that is but you could see that there was

19:57

a separate opinion by by justice which

20:00

uh really tackled it more but as i said

20:03

my interest isn't really looking at how

20:05

they

20:06

they they

20:07

the main

20:09

ponente um

20:11

decided the case and he said she said

20:14

that um that you know we could become a

20:17

stimulus of nature you know we could act

20:19

on behalf of the dolphins and and so

20:22

it's obvious that if you read the works

20:24

of uh christopher stone it was precisely

20:28

what christopher stone was really trying

20:29

to advocate right that the guardianship

20:32

approach for for nature you know it's

20:35

possible to for nature as non-humans to

20:38

be become plaintiffs by themselves or

20:41

for themselves and they can speak in

20:43

their own behalf and using the

20:45

guardianship approach and in fact by

20:48

reading that uh for me i i think that

20:51
the supreme court adopted that

20:53

guardianship approach

20:54

and and and so um that could i mean i'm

20:58

really you know trying to

21:00

make

21:01

um and hopefully that there would be

21:03

more cases in the future

21:05

uh that would challenge and bring and

21:07

the court will have the opportunity to

21:09

discuss it more hopefully not to

21:11

overturn the earlier decision but to to

21:14

to put in more flesh to what they they

21:17

pronounce in that case

21:19

um

21:20

and uh us you know because again that

21:23

would really bring

21:25

at least more clarity as to you know

21:28

really how citizens how ordinary people

21:32

can become guardians of uh future in

21:34

this in this jurisdiction

21:37

and and i guess

21:39

you know like you i i read that judgment

21:42

and

21:43

you know it it went back to the previous

21:45

rules that were that that said well you

21:48

know um it has to be uh a natural or due

21:50

to um judicial

21:53

person um uh so a legal entity and in

21:56

which case you sort of say well if a

21:57
corporation can bring a suit

22:00

why can't any other

22:02

creature or

22:03

um tree be given legal standing it's

22:06

just you know it's just a construct um

22:09

but i did also think when i when i read

22:11

it well in fact

22:12

um they were saying

22:14

um

22:16

someone could bring up you know as the

22:17

steward argument the stewardship

22:19

argument runs and you know as lawyers i

22:22

think

22:24

we also know that nature in and of

22:26

itself um
22:28

may have challenges in bringing its its

22:30

case to course you know you do need

22:32

people who are going to interpret and

22:34

and proffer

22:35

but it does recognize that the

22:38

whales um dissitations and and

22:42

presumably by extension the tanyan

22:45

strait itself had some intrinsic value

22:48

that irrespective of what we were going

22:52

to do with it you as a lawyer as an

22:54

attorney or as a steward

22:56

could bring that case to court and so i

22:58

i thought that's also was quite

23:00

interesting although i don't think as

23:02
you say the court didn't grapple with it

23:06

very clearly

23:07

other judges maybe a poser in fact or

23:11

maybe too broad i don't know

23:13

um but it certainly seemed to adopt that

23:16

that argument that

23:18

has been put in trees outstanding not

23:20

that the trees should come into court um

23:22

but there should be someone on which

23:24

they could be looking on their behalf

23:26

yes

23:27

yes

23:28

it was interesting and so i was

23:29

wondering whether or not that that was

23:31

something that um you know and they

23:33

mentioned that a ship for example um

23:36

is accepted as a as a as a plaintiff a

23:38

person

23:40

a legal person right a corporation you

23:42

know we've done it like miners even

23:45

the incapacity

23:47

incapacitated you know all these things

23:49

have been advanced and i think it as

23:52

you've seen you know

23:54

you know this always started with

23:56

someone trying to challenge

23:58

uh what is the prevailing norms to

24:00

prevent doctrine and i guess

24:02

um

24:03
we could not we could not be far behind

24:06

that you know in the future where we can

24:08

really have that recognition and in fact

24:10

you know i know that there are some um

24:13

um

24:15

proposals now

24:20

you know to recognize the legal

24:22

personhood of nature

24:24

be there's a right of nature movement in

24:26

the country and

24:28

they're preparing a proposed law uh

24:31

where congress would

24:33

uh recognize the rights of nature so

24:36

you know we you know it always starts

24:38

with something you know an idea right

24:40

before you can have a revolution and i

24:42

guess with what is happening around us

24:45

climate change you know the importance

24:47

of protecting our biodiversity because

24:49

of

24:50

the massive losses that we are having

24:52

when it comes to

24:54

marine and you know terrestrial

24:57

biodiversity i think we need that uh

25:00

forward thinking you know it's it's even

25:02

as you said um i think um the rise of

25:05

nature approach is really an an

25:07

eco-centric approach in in trying to to

25:10

grapple with all these issues that we're

25:12
facing um and and preserving nature not

25:16

using the anthropogenic glands right so

25:19

the anthropocentric plants

25:21

and

25:22

and i think

25:24

people are starting to realize how

25:26

important nature is for us

25:29

and

25:30

and certainly the

25:31

this idea of

25:33

seeing

25:33

um

25:36

nature through that echocentric lens

25:38

seeing litigation on behalf of nature

25:41

not just
25:42

because it impacts on humans i think

25:44

it's going to be one of these

25:46

huge

25:47

challenges i know we've had

25:49

and indeed i think on this friday um the

25:52

human rights council is going to vote on

25:57

[Music]

26:00

a human right to a safe environment

26:03

but i think we all would say well yes

26:06

the human there should be a human right

26:07

to a safe and healthy environment but

26:09

there's also

26:10

an intrinsic

26:12

value and right of the environment of

26:15
ecosystems

26:17

to protect their integrity

26:19

even if that creates some conflict with

26:22

with humanity so i mean it's and this

26:25

sort of judgment i think

26:27

really was was was certainly quite

26:29

visionary i did want to ask um

26:32

that

26:34

the case was commenced um 17 december

26:36

2007 and judgement handed down on the

26:40

21st of april 2014

26:42

um that's and indeed as i also

26:45

understand you know the service contract

26:47

had had been

26:49

abandoned
26:52

yeah

26:53

but that was also another important

26:55

point that the court did it just said

26:57

well just because

26:59

the the subject wasn't um determinative

27:02

it didn't mean that you shouldn't

27:03

actually go and adjudicate on the very

27:07

system but that was also quite

27:08

interesting because they could have just

27:10

dismissed it

27:11

on the basis but that the contract was

27:14

no longer there yeah the smooth and

27:16

academic but they did not you know they

27:18

they even said they had this as this is

27:21
a retroactive you know application this

27:24

decision which is also very important so

27:26

that you could really find so many

27:28

important things there and i guess we

27:31

were expecting really the court to to

27:33

rule immediately well well we we had

27:36

kept on hearing that you know that they

27:38

would be ruling soon our case but you

27:41

know it took them

27:43

i guess seven years

27:45

to finally come up with that decision so

27:48

i guess it was really something that

27:50

they they had to

27:52

uh really

27:53

i guess uh
27:54

study carefully um because i think one

27:58

as one of the issues raised

28:00

in the separate opinion by just uh by

28:02

justice leone and was that um this might

28:06

um you know resolve to more cases and

28:08

the loots of cases in court if we do

28:11

this right and i guess that's always

28:13

been the same argument the line of

28:15

argument that we see even in the united

28:17

states or in other countries where these

28:19

cases some kinds of cases have been

28:22

raised but we don't really see you know

28:24

any other

28:25

there was no deludes of cases suddenly

28:28
happening because of that because i

28:29

think

28:30

um even if there was that recognition um

28:33

that you can become seaworlds of nature

28:35

people were more or less careful of of

28:38

you know trying to overuse that you know

28:42

that doctrine in order to forward their

28:45

um environmental cases in court

28:48

we're not we're not like america we

28:49

don't sort of wake up in the morning and

28:51

say we should go to court yes

28:54

we're not like that we're not litigants

28:56

in australia i mean in new south wales

28:58

um in 1979 they introduced the

29:02

environmental planning and assessment

29:04

act in australia in new south wales

29:06

and it had broad standing in the land

29:08

and environment court had a section with

29:10

section 123 which was any person could

29:12

take action to remedy or rectify breach

29:14

of the act um and uh

29:17

and everyone said well that would be the

29:18

floodgates well the floodgates never

29:20

opened um there were public interest

29:22

litigation but it never overwhelmed the

29:24

courts it never overwhelmed the system

29:27

because um you know litigation is not

29:29

something that that

29:31

can be undertaken

29:33
easily um at this point of time i would

29:35

actually like to bring in the deputy

29:36

director i've got a

29:49

and so rocky goodman is the deputy

29:51

director

29:52

of the asian research institute for

29:54

environment law and a former oceana

29:56

lawyer thanks rocky i wanted to sort of

29:58

bring you in and say okay

30:00

this case um

30:02

you know it it it started in 2007 um

30:06

under old rules and then we had the 2010

30:09

uh

30:10

uh supreme court proceeding environment

30:12

case
30:14

did you think that this place had uh uh

30:17

was was an impetus for court to develop

30:19

special rules of procedure in

30:21

environmental matters or were there

30:23

other factors

30:25

yeah

30:26

i think it could have been a factor but

30:28

i i'm proud actually of the philippine

30:31

legal system that it's been

30:33

traditionally i mean even before this

30:35

case it's been more or less or

30:38

relatively revolutionary or compared to

30:40

other jurisdictions so even before the

30:43

resident marine mammal's case we also

30:44
already had the opposite versus factor

30:46

and doctrine the intergenerational

30:48

responsibility a few decades back and

30:50

then even before the rules of procedure

30:52

for environmental cases the court

30:54

already uh

30:55

issued a writ of continuing continuing

30:57

mandamus for the protection of the

30:59

manitoba bay

31:00

through a case

31:01

in like 10 years before the art rules of

31:03

procedure so i think this all led to

31:06

that point i mean the the justices and

31:09

the judiciary the judiciary were already

31:13

exposed to all these concepts and all

31:15

these documents and i think

31:17

this

31:18

case the rest of that marine mammals was

31:20

an impetus actually as you said to uh

31:23

for the supreme court to be more

31:24

innovative and i think that just

31:27

that time was ripe around 2010 2011 for

31:30

the court to really institutionalize

31:32

these rules into the rules of procedure

31:36

so it was more sort of an evolution

31:39

right not not not the revolution i mean

31:42

you know we look at the writ of

31:43

kalakasan

31:45

we look at

31:47
orders for temporary environmental

31:49

protection orders the rhythm continuing

31:51

mandamus

31:52

a number of these sort of innovative

31:54

mechanisms which we look at the supreme

31:56

court rules were actually

31:59

things that had been developed over time

32:00

and so it was a codification

32:03

yes yes indeed

32:04

and yeah and it's continuing to evolve

32:06

there are so many things that are

32:08

happening in the judicial system here

32:10

like before there are back before the

32:12

rules of procedure we already had those

32:13

cases
32:14

and then we have these like the

32:16

application of the precautionary

32:17

principle in

32:18

an eggplant genetically modified case

32:21

for example and then there are the

32:22

prospects of climate litigation even

32:24

developing more and then plastics and

32:27

marine pollution litigation so there are

32:29

so many uh bright spots in terms of

32:32

innovation and possible

32:33

revolutionizing the

32:35

this lego system in the philippines

32:37

further

32:38

yeah but i think in fact it goes back to

32:41
the 1987 constitution event where we had

32:45

the recognition of the right to balance

32:47

and helpful ecology in accord with the

32:49

rhythm and harmony of nature i really

32:51

love that phrase and you know that that

32:53

even that

32:55

where we um if you could you know go

32:57

into deeply more more deeply into that

33:00

phrase you know

33:01

we recognize the people's right to

33:03

environment healthy environment but also

33:05

at the same time you know did we

33:07

recognize also nature that we have to

33:10

co-exist with nature right we have to be

33:12

in harmony with nature so um the the

33:15

framers of the 1987 constitution were

33:18

really very revolutionary in a way

33:20

because of they they put that into the

33:22

constitution itself and and and later on

33:25

in the posa case it was declared as an

33:28

enforceable right and so that became

33:31

very very important established as a

33:34

doctrine

33:36

so and and look i mean on that i've i've

33:39

heard justice as kuna um

33:41

talk about um

33:43

the constitutional uh changes where

33:46

people even then were worried about

33:48

giving sort of people a right um to a

33:51
healthy environment

33:52

um the philippines seems to have coped

33:54

quite well

33:55

with its 1987 constitution obviously

33:58

there are always challenges but from

34:00

that environmental law perspective i

34:01

mean

34:02

do we think that there's going to be

34:04

potentially more litigation on what that

34:06

means and litigation with respect to

34:08

climate justice for example i mean the

34:10

rhythm and harmony um

34:14

we're losing at the moment

34:16

yeah um

34:17

i think there would be more um it's just

34:20

that um i think i asked this question

34:22

last week during the training of

34:24

environmental law teachers because i see

34:27

um that for the writ of nature which is

34:29

really you know another very important

34:33

action that we have been of uh this has

34:36

been often used nowadays by

34:39

environment environmental litigators um

34:42

but but but we we we do see uh some sort

34:45

of regression because uh the um the

34:48

supreme court has become very you know

34:51

strict when it comes to interpreting the

34:54

prerequisites you know that that has to

34:56

that have to be there for them to issue

34:59
the reit in

35:00

how many cases that we've seen so far so

35:02

in fact you know many people are now

35:05

getting frustrated because you know

35:07

supreme court seems to just

35:09

dismiss case after case when it comes to

35:12

the writ of nature or rate of kalikasan

35:14

because they said that you know we have

35:17

that proof and damage we have not proven

35:20

you know

35:21

scientifically

35:22

even if we have the precautionary

35:24

principle so so i mean it's it's also

35:28

i guess uh very challenging right now um

35:31

based on our experience to to reduce the

35:34

writ of kalikasan or debate of nature

35:36

but but i see that people are still

35:38

trying to file you know trying to

35:40

address this environmental issues that

35:42

they're facing and using the last resort

35:45

with the courts in order to address

35:47

these environmental issues that we have

35:51

so

35:52

yeah sorry rocky no i think exactly once

35:55

we address all these issues we have the

35:58

potential to really uh open more

36:01

opportunities for litigation it's just

36:03

that we need to address like the

36:04

institutional issues first of all like

36:07
some some litigants and some lawyers and

36:09

some

36:10

members of the judiciary have to know

36:11

more about these remedies and then

36:14

addressing that science and law

36:16

interface where you have to call

36:18

establish causation you need to have

36:20

establish more science and interfaces in

36:22

that respect and the overall enabling

36:25

environment that we need to have not

36:26

just access to remedies or access to

36:28

justice but also the company access

36:31

rights right like

36:32

the need to get more information from

36:34

the government and to

36:36

have more a robust system for public

36:38

participation it all goes hand in hand

36:40

with all these and to really have

36:43

a good framework for environmental

36:44

governance in any country

36:47

so

36:48

um in terms of that future of public

36:51

interest environmental litigation i mean

36:52

the philippines is known as a country

36:55

that has

36:56

uh

36:58

has had this opportunity for access to

37:01

environmental justice

37:02

um

37:04
it seems that now is the time when we

37:06

have to reevaluate that and and work out

37:09

how we can uh recommit obviously now is

37:12

is certainly the time as the secretary

37:14

general of the uh united nations in a

37:17

recent report

37:19

we are waging a war against the

37:21

environment which is suicidal

37:23

um

37:24

judges are part of

37:26

the process we need to access

37:29

environmental justice so i guess um just

37:32

in terms of closing up

37:34

this

37:35

amazing talk and i really appreciate the

37:37

opportunity for you to come on on to

37:40

our show um what are some of the the

37:43

things that you would think about the

37:44

future of public interest environmental

37:46

litigation um and i'll ask rocky to

37:49

answer that and then i'll i'll end with

37:50

you lisa about what you might think here

37:53

some of the things that we could do to

37:57

strengthen

37:58

reawaken

37:59

re-energize

38:01

re-excite um

38:06

i'll go ahead just maybe

38:09

reflect on what lisa said earlier that

38:12
uh it all started with someone

38:13

challenging right the norms and the

38:15

prevailing doctrines and she well i also

38:19

believe that we're not far behind and

38:20

who knows what the future might hold in

38:22

terms of legal reform in the philippines

38:25

but that goes back also to my

38:27

conversations when i was just uh i

38:28

wasn't a lawyer yet and i was being uh

38:31

mentored by of course uh lisa and golly

38:34

through the uh through the philippine

38:36

earth justice center then and she said

38:37

that in environmental law you're not

38:40

bound by the traditional rules and you

38:42

can be as creative as you want and so if

38:44

we can reach out to more people to

38:46

students to young lawyers and

38:50

we can actually recruit more people into

38:52

this field and

38:54

know that the future looks bright if

38:55

there are many people as involved in

38:57

this field and you know

39:00

looking forward to more public interest

39:02

environmental litigation in the future

39:07

yeah um so for me i guess with every

39:10

crisis there are opportunities right and

39:13

i guess we now live in a climate crisis

39:16

environmental crisis some crisis after

39:19

crisis and

39:20
and i think it it gives

39:22

this um you know

39:24

this point in time gives birth to also a

39:27

number of opportunities for for

39:29

litigation so in fact i've i've been

39:31

working with different communities so

39:33

our now was now seem to you know wake up

39:37

and realize that you know they have the

39:38

right uh so even if they're just fisher

39:41

folks even if they're just youth even if

39:43

they're just a concerned citizen they

39:46

can if they unders you know if you

39:47

explain to them that you know these are

39:49

you know your rights you know these are

39:51

the remedies that are available

39:53

be given you know that that concern that

39:56

you have uh in your area and and they

39:59

have been and there have been like it

40:01

seems like a change in in the mindset of

40:03

people that um it's possible i can do

40:06

these things because uh but as us as

40:09

rocky said we need more lawyers we need

40:11

board lawyers to assist them to to

40:14

educate them and so that's why we need

40:16

more champions and working with adb to

40:19

train the traders you know um is really

40:21

very important because we could as we

40:23

could train more environmental law

40:25

professors those professors will be

40:27
teaching future environmental lawyers

40:29

right matthew and so i i guess that's a

40:32

challenge we need to multiply our you

40:35

know our group because as there's simply

40:38

a lot of issues being uh being raised at

40:41

this point in time and and so the the

40:45

you know the the opportunities are there

40:47

um the the legal

40:49

um you know the legal architecture for

40:52

for you know raising your vote voices up

40:55

to the highest level of the courts are

40:57

also there we have the rules of

40:59

procedure for environmental cases we

41:01

just need to have more capacity for

41:04

people to be able to
41:06

be able to realize their their um

41:09

intention of

41:10

um

41:11

solving at least even just a minuscule

41:14

or fingertip of that of those crises

41:16

that we're facing thank you

41:19

so thank you for the invitation

41:21

thank you lisa and um can i just say you

41:23

know it's always a pleasure i know we

41:26

see each other quite a bit but it's

41:28

and

41:29

i may be you know perhaps too old to

41:31

have mentors but you're still one of

41:33

mine um

41:34
and so really i really want to thank you

41:37

and again um thank rocky um for your

41:39

your comments as well um

41:42

you know i

41:43

one of the exciting things as part of

41:45

this season justice program is every

41:48

week we'll look at either an

41:49

environmental champion or an

41:51

environmental case um or environmental

41:53

or topic um next week we have attorney

41:56

maria ipat luna um who's again another

41:59

environmental champion and she'll be

42:01

talking about her journey and the steps

42:03

that she's done over the years to

42:06

advance public interest environmental

42:07

law and litigation um the resident

42:09

marine mammals case um again a case that

42:13

um

42:14

has certain um

42:16

obvious

42:17

interests

42:19

in terms of the lock of standing and the

42:21

question about stewardship um but when

42:23

you go into that it can go into

42:25

enormously productive and interesting um

42:28

environmental law principles and i think

42:30

it's going to be even more growing

42:32

important um as we face a lot more

42:34

challenges certainly with ocean

42:36
emotional protection um it's been a

42:38

great pleasure and opportunity um to

42:40

speak with lisa today um i can also say

42:43

that on behalf of the

42:46

adb environmental law champions program

42:49

and ariel we really appreciate

42:51

everyone for giving up their time and

42:53

being with us today again this time next

42:55

week

42:56

we'll have episode three of seeds of

42:58

justice uh and this podcast will also be

43:00

available um on youtube and on facebook

43:04

um for your listening pleasure um it's

43:07

been a great pleasure and really

43:09

exciting to
43:11

explore in depth um one of the really

43:13

important cases in philippine and if not

43:16

asian environmental or jurisprudence so

43:18

thank you very much and uh good evening

43:21

good afternoon and perhaps good morning

43:23

as well thanks

43:24

thank you thank you

43:29

[Music]

English (auto-generated)