Challenging the principle of eminent domain

By Virginia Jasmin Pasalo

 

WE are at a painful point when we are still fighting, despite the fact that so little has been left of the once stately canopy of trees along the Manila North Road. For what would a resolution from the Sangguniang Panlalawigan authorizing the governor to exhaust legal remedies serve? So many trees have perished in the Pangasinan Massacre, and up to the time that the resolution was approved to the filing of the case, some more trees will surely be chainsawed in an orgy to a gory end.

I bleed for Pangasinan, for its helplessness to prevent an assault not only of its natural resources, but to a more insidious assault of its soul and spirit, led by people who are not from the province, but who are living off from the province’s natural treasures and heritage.

But I also admire the resolve of all sectors, and the support of the Governor and the Sangguniang Panlalawigan, to fight for the life of the remaining trees, even if there may be just one tree standing. That one tree, if saved by the collective efforts of those who genuinely love the province, will serve as a living monument of resistance to a development demagogue that has stolen our souls, and whose main concern is the threat of having to return the budget if the project is not completed. I would rather have the budget returned back to the National Treasury, than grease the overflowing pocket of tree murderers.

I reiterate my statement issued during the launching of the Poetree Festival, 27 September 2015:

“In cutting the trees, government agencies invoked the right of the state to confiscate and destroy life and property to pursue national programs. I do not believe that the state has the right to unilaterally impose a development program without consultation, and in utter disregard to climate change and the right of future generations for clean air. Our right to a balanced and healthful ecology, for the first time in our nation’s constitutional history, is solemnly incorporated in the fundamental law. Section 16, Article II of the 1987 Constitution explicitly provides:

Sec. 16. The State shall protect and advance the right of the people to a balanced and healthful ecology in accord with the rhythm and harmony of nature.

This right is consistent with the right to health which is provided for in the preceding section of the same article:

Sec. 15. The State shall protect and promote the right to health of the people and instill health consciousness among them.

The Supreme Court pointed out, in its landmark decision in the case of Oposa vs. Factoran, 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 the 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.”

The Supreme Court therefore, affirmed intergenerational responsibility and intergenerational justice.

While these pronouncements have been made by the Supreme Court, the urgency with which the local green courts handled environmental cases seemed to take as long as the normal procedures of ordinary cases. In the case of trees, so many have died, and all of them will have been decimated by the time the green courts are able to issue a Temporary Environmental Protection Order (TEPO).

(For your comments and reactions, please email to: punch.sunday@gmail.com)

Back to Homepage

Share your Comments or Reactions

comments

Powered by Facebook Comments