Passing along a very interesting article sent by Al Bartlett.
Steve
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Friends,
Here is an interesting item from the Philippines.
With best wishes, I am,
Sincerely yours,
Al
Albert A. Bartlett: Professor Emeritus of Physics
University of Colorado, Boulder, 80309-0390
STANDING TO SUE IN THE PHILIPPINES: A Victory for Future Generations
In a decision that may eventually change the way the world views environmental
issues, the Supreme Court of the Philippines has
ruled that the three children of E-LAW Philippines Board Member Antonio Oposa,
along with 41 other children, have standing to
sue on behalf of their generation and subsequent generations. Oposa is an
attorney with the Philippines Ecological Network and is
representing the children in trying to cancel all existing timber license
agreements between timber interests and the Philippine
Department of Environment and Natural Resources. The E-LAW network provided
supporting materials that Oposa used in
making his case to the Philippine courts. E-LAW U.S. congratulates Tony on his
path-breaking and salutes his courage in filing the suit.
The July 30 decision held that minors have standing to represent their own and
future generations under the doctrine of
intergenerational equity. The Court stated that: "This case...has a special
and novel element. Petitioners' minors assert that they
represent their generation as well as generations yet unborn. We find no
difficulty in ruling that they can, for themselves, for others
of their generation and for the succeeding generations, file a class suit.
Their personality to sue on behalf of the succeeding
generations can only be based on the concept of intergenerational
responsibility insofar as the right to a balanced and healthful
ecology is concerned. Such a right, as hereinafter expounded, considers the
`rhythm and harmony of nature.' Nature means the
created world in its entirety. Such rhythm and harmony indispensable include,
inter alia, the judicious disposition, utilization,
management, renewal and conservation of the country's forest, mineral, land,
waters, fisheries, wildlife, off-shore areas and other
natural resources to the end that their exploration, development and
utilization be equitably accessible to the present as well as
future generations. Needless to say, every generation has a responsibility to
the next to preserve that rhythm and harmony for the
full enjoyment of a balanced and healthful ecology. Put a little differently,
the minors' assertion of their right to a sound
environment constitutes, at the same time, the performance of their obligation
to ensure the protection of that right for generations to come."
The Court further stated that, "While the right to a balanced and healthful
ecology is to be found under the Declaration of
Principles and State Policies, and not under the Bill of Rights, it does not
follow that it is less important than any of the civil and
political rights enumerated in the latter. Such a right belongs to a different
category of rights altogether for it concerns nothing less
than self-preservation and self-perpetuation -- aptly and fittingly
stressed by petitioners -- the advancement of which may even be
said to predate all governments and constitutions. As a matter of fact, these
basic rights need not even be written in the
Constitution for they are assumed to exist from the inception of humankind. If
they are now explicitly mentioned in the
fundamental charter, it is because of the well-founded fear of its framers
that unless the rights to a balanced and healthful ecology
and to health are mandated as state policies by the Constitution itself,
thereby highlighting their continuing importance and imposing
upon the state a solemn obligation to preserve the first and protect and
advance the second, the day would not be too far when all
else would be lost not only for the present generation, but also for those to
come -- generations which stand to inherit nothing but
parched earth incapable of sustaining life."
According to E-LAW U.S. Board President Michael Axline, a professor at the
University of Oregon School of Law, the opinion
will have far-reaching consequences. "This opinion for the first time
recognizes the interconnectedness of the present and the
future in legal terms," Axline said. "Courts in the United States should study
the opinion closely, not only because it is well
reasoned, but also because it demonstrates a wisdom to which all judges should
aspire."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
