Most Rev. Pedro D. Arigo, et al. v. Scott H. Swift, et al., G.R. No.
206510, September 16, 2014
Facts:
In a remote island in the municipality of Palawan, there is a reef composed of two huge coral atolls (a
ring-shaped coral reef that forms as an old volcano erodes) called "Tubbataha". This reef gained
recognition and protections from different organizations and government proclamations.
Years after enforcing several laws to protect this heritage site, a US navy ship named the USS Guardian,
while transiting the Sulu Sea, ran aground (hits the coast, sometimes becoming stuck there) on the
northwest side of south shoal of the Tubbataha reefs. Fortunately, there were no reports of injuries and
leakage of fuel or oil.
Due to this incident, the Commander, U.S. 7th Fleet, Vice Admiral Scot Swift expressed his regrets in a
press statement. In this regard, the US Ambassador to the Philippines Harry Thomas assured the
Department of Foreign Affairs in a meeting that the US will provide the appropriate compensation for
the damage the ship caused to the reef.
Moreover, petitioners (in representation of their respective sector/organization and others, including
minors or generations yet unborn) filed a petition against the US and Philippine respondents on the
grounds of (1) violating the constitutional rights to a balanced and healthful ecology; and (2) violating
Sections 19 of the R. A. No. 10067 (unauthorized entry), 21 (non-payment of conservation fees, 30
(obstruction of law enforcement officer, 20 (damages to the reef), and 26 [g] (destroying and disturbing
resources) committed by the US respondents. Additionally, petitioners sought a directive from the
Supreme Court for the institution of civil, administrative, and criminal suits for the acts committed
violating the above-enumerated environmental laws and regulations.
In view of the foregoing, petitioners pray that the Court issue a Writ of Kalikasan or a Temporary
Environmental Protection Order.
Issue:
Whether or not petitioners have legal standing.
Ruling:
Yes. The court declared that the right to a balanced and healthful ecology need not be written in the
Constitution for it is assumed, like other civil and political rights guaranteed in the Bill of Rights, to exist
from the inception of mankind and it is an issue of transcendental importance with intergenerational
implications. Such right carries with it the correlative duty to refrain from impairing the environment.
It ruled that not only do ordinary citizens have legal standing to sue for the enforcement of
environmental rights, they can do so in representation of their own and future generations. Thus:
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 in 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 indispensably
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 a: 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 the generations to come.
The liberalization of standing first enunciated in Oposa, insofar as it refers to minors and generations yet
unborn, is now enshrined in the Rules which allows the filing of a citizen suit in environmental cases. The
provision on citizen suits in the Rules "collapses the traditional rule on personal and direct interest, on
the principle that humans are stewards of nature.”
