Human Rights, the Law and the World We Live In

“Justice is the first virtue of social institutions,
as truth is of systems of thought.
A theory however elegant and economical
must be rejected or revised if it is untrue;
likewise laws and institutions
no matter how efficient and well-arranged
must be reformed or abolished if they are unjust.
Each person possesses an inviolability
founded on justice
that even the welfare of society as a whole
cannot override.”
- John Rawls, A Theory of Justice



It is now well-recognized that there are important linkages between human rights, the environment and the law. Such interrelationship stems from the recognition of the increasingly negative impact of environmental degradation on human life, which directly affects the full enjoyment of human rights and the achievement of sustainable development that is respectful of the whole spectrum of human rights---including the right to life, to health, to habitation, to equality before the law, and the right to enjoy one’s property.
These linkages between the protection of human rights and the protection of the environment have long been recognized as early as 1972 during the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment wherein it was declared that "man's environment, the natural and the man-made, are essential to his well-being and to the enjoyment of basic human rights--even the right to life itself."
There has been so much written on the multifarious issues and problems plaguing our environment because scholars, scientists, lawyers and human rights advocates alike, at some point, agree that environmental change is now no longer a technical problem but a political and economic one as well. These fields of study now widely acknowledge the important role of the ideas, policies and actions of state elites and the impact of capitalist development on the environment and how these environmental transformations, in turn, affect human relationships, and have potentially serious social and economic consequences for the poor and disadvantaged.

King, highlighting the importance and focus of the contributions of the late Prof. James Jackson to the discourse on human-environment interactions, points out that it is crucial to emphasize how the environment has been shaped by human agency and the importance of cross-disciplinary perspectives, historical context and the interplay between Western-derived and South-East Asian perceptions of the environment.
The landscape of the debates in international human rights and more particularly in international environmental has been witnessing rapid changes or developments, one of which is a shift in the concern from what are the limits on what the earth can supply to the limits on what the earth can safely absorb such as toxic wastes. Apart from toxic nuclear waste, tons of “regular” garbage, waste that is generated daily on an unprecedented and unmanageable scale, poses a greater challenge. A typical response has been the usual dumping of these wastes from the rich developed countries of the North to the poor underdeveloped countries of the South. Some developed countries like Germany and Japan have even gone so far as to masquerade their toxic wastes as aid to poorer countries in order to facilitate the ease of disposing of such waste materials.
In our jurisdiction, the presence of two major garbage sites, namely the Payatas dumpsite and the San Mateo Landfill, in the vicinity of two densely populated residential areas shows how the negative effects of development on the environment is gravely detrimental to human health.
But first let us define what these human rights are in the context of environmental change and public international and environmental law as well as the pertinent municipal laws involved.
When we refer to human rights we mean those fundamental entitlements and liberties which individuals possess simply because they are human beings: these bundle of rights in its entirety are enjoyed by every individual---regardless of social status, economic wealth, religion, gender, nationality, age or racial or ethnic origin--- and which are inherent in our nature and without which we cannot live as human beings. According to the great Pepe Diokno, one cannot enjoy one set of rights without enjoying the other rights, in order to give way to the infinity of human worth.
One definition of human rights is that these are “those liberties or immunities, and benefits which, by accepted contemporary values, all human beings should be able to claim ‘as of right’ of the society in which they live”. Another common notion of human rights refers to these rights of an individual as a human being, which are recognized by the international community as a whole through their protection and promotion under contemporary international law.
Human rights are also simply regarded as those fundamental and inalienable rights which are essential for life as a human being.”
What then is international human rights? One definition is that it is the “law which deals with the protection of individuals and groups against violations by governments of their internationally guaranteed rights as well as with the promotion of these internationally guaranteed rights”.
The preamble of the UN Charter declares that the peoples of the UN through their governments have agreed to the UN Charter and establish an international organization to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations.
Human rights are enumerated and classified under various internationally recognized instruments such as the UN Charter, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR). The ICCPR and the ICESCR further classifies human rights into what are termed “first generation rights” which are civil and political rights and those referred to as “second generation rights” or economic, social and cultural rights.
Dean Magallona explains how the human rights has been “internationalized” under the UN Charter: “The acceptance by the international community of the human rights “regulation” as provided in the UN Charter has shifted matters or questions pertaining to human rights from exclusive domestic jurisdiction of states to international legal regulation. Further developments in the UN System, marked by the conclusion of more than 20 multilateral conventions on human rights, have firmed up the trend in human rights in terms of binding obligations in international law. In addition, there are three regional human rights treaties. Decisions and actions of various UN organs and subsidiaries have deepened human rights observance in a broad field of state practice not only in internal state mechanisms but as well as in diplomatic conferences and international bodies.”
The deleterious effects of the presence of the Payatas dumpsite and the San Mateo Landfill to the quality of water available to residents of the affected areas and to general public health illustrates the negative impact of environmental degradation on quality of life and the full enjoyment of human rights of the affected communities, specifically the right to life , to clean water, to clean air, to a healthy environment, and to enjoy their property, and the right to live. But the same inherent rights---the right to life, to a healthy environment, to clean air and water and the right to property---are limited under the same instruments that they are drawn and protected.
In their book entitled “Defending the Environment: Civil Society Strategies to Enforce International Environmental Law”, Linda Malone and Scott Pasternack say that Whenever environmental degradation results in a human harm that violates accepted human rights norms, an international, regional or domestic human rights committee, commission, an/or court may provide a remedy that can contribute effectively to rectifying the underlying environmental degradation as well as human rights violation.
Malone and Pasternack state that environmental human rights refer to the link between human rights and the environment: (1) involves the deprivation of human rights as a result of environmental degradation; (2) that an act or omission of the nation-state has proximately caused environmental degradation that deprives individuals or groups within the jurisdiction of that nation-state of certain rights that the nation-state is obliged to safeguard for those individuals or groups. Essentially, there are three conditions that must be fulfilled for an environmental human rights claim to prosper and these are: (1) the existence of environmental degradation ; (2) a nation-state action or omission that results in or contributes to that environmental degradation, referred to as “State action”; (3) a deprivation of human rights that results from the environmental degradation.
Despite the claims of the local government units concerned that they comply with all the pertinent laws, the operations of the two dumpsites do not comply with the standards drawn by municipal laws such as the Ecological Solid Waste Management Act (Republic Act 9003) , Philippine Environmental Policy (Presidential Decree 1151), Philippine Clean Water Act (Republic Act 9275) , Philippine Clean Air Act (Republic Act 8479) and the Code of Sanitation of the Philippines (Presidential Decree 856).
Therefore the violation of the right of the public to clean water, to clean air and to a healthy environment is equivalent to a violation of their inalienable right to life and the violations of their property rights. These violations are punishable under relevant municipal laws as well as relevant international treaties to which the Philippines is a signatory in the light of the fact that Art. II (2) of the 1987 Constitution recognizes the generally accepted principles of international law.
At this point, so many questions come to mind. If these violations are punishable under these laws and treaties, may the Philippine Government be thus held accountable for such violations? Apart from the state, who else may be held liable for these violations? What are the reliefs and remedies of the aggrieved parties under municipal law as well as under specific international covenants?
Since international law and municipal law have both been violated which court of justice, what law must be ascertained and administered by the appropriate court of justice? Given that in human rights discourse, government has the obligation or duty not only to protect, but also to fulfill, the rights of its citizens, how and to what extent may our government be held liable for their violations of their citizen’s rights? What court would acquire jurisdiction? Would the doctrine of exhaustion of domestic remedies still apply?
And what are the advantages to using a human rights approach in international environmental law? Using a human rights approach, how then must their liability be determined and to what extent may they be held liable?
Hunter tells us that international environmental law can learn much from employing a rights-based in human rights law, that in the last fifteen years or so, international environmental law scholars and activists looked upon on the law of human rights both as a model for the progressive development of international environmental law and an independent legal strategy for protecting the environment. In concrete terms, human rights law challenges traditional state-centric models of justice thus allowing individuals access in the international legal system.
Bodansky points out some differences in reporting and enforcement requirements between international environmental and human rights law: (1) most international environmental problems cannot be addressed by individual states acting alone but require collective effort, while human rights obligations do not depend on reciprocity in the same way; (2) international environmental law is directed at the control of the private rather than governmental conduct while human rights are perceived as rights viz. governments which can be primarily violated by government actions; (3) human rights treaty regimes tend to be more legalistic than international environmental regimes whose primary task is political and take a political rather than a legal approach to compliance questions.
In our jurisdiction, there have been precedents where the claimants may hinge arguments on such as the recent SC decision ordering the clean up of Manila Bay upon the petition of Metro Manila residents . Also, the San Mateo Landfill has been ordered by the SC permanently closed in a recent decision. But recent developments and the reopening of a new landfill in San Mateo in almost the same area as the subject of the SC decision necessitate another look at the matter.
Using Malone and Pasternack’s framework and armed with local and international laws and jurisprudence, those directly affected by the presence of the Payatas Dump Site and the San Mateo landfill may pursue their claims against the local government units, the corresponding government agencies such as the DENR in Philippine jurisdiction as well as in international venue invoking the ICCPR and the ICESCR to which the Philippines is a signatory.
We must address the issue of protecting our resource of clean water and that of a healthy environment because it is directly related to our inherent right to life. Studying the deleterious effects of the operations of several dumpsites in the Philippines may prove to be a useful exercise of the Principle of Common but Differentiated Responsibility, which takes into account the differing circumstances of different states in the discharge of such responsibilities.
In our case as a developing country with limited resources and technological knowledge in addressing these concerns, we are still bound to protect environmental resources such as clean water, clean air and a healthy environment, while taking into consideration our limitations in addressing these particular environmental concerns.
A mere cursory look at our existing laws would yield that there is no lack of legislation nor precedents in jurisprudence to address pressing environmental problems in our jurisdiction. What we need is political will to enforce what laws we already have in a more proactive stance, always bearing in mind that prevention is key.
For instance, RA 8749 or the Clean Air Act explicitly states a recognition of rights which provides an injured party with a specific law when pursuing a cause of action and a claim for damages . The Polluter-Pays Principle which is a concept recognized only in developed countries must be incorporated and legally enforced in our jurisdiction in order to add or reinforce safeguards to our natural resources and environment.
Our Constitution specifically provides that we all have the right to a balanced and healthful ecology, a provision that recognizes our increasingly deteriorating environment. All through out our Constitution there are specific provisions, such as the Bill of Rights, that guarantee the protection of human rights---whether civil or political such as the right to life or social, economic or cultural as the right to a healthy environment---and as signatory to the ICCPR and the ICESCR, our government and its corresponding agencies and agents are also under obligation to respect these human rights.
As state party to the ICCPR, the Philippines is under obligation to: (1) respect and ensure to all individuals within its territory the rights recognized in the ICCPR such as the right to life in Art. 3 without distinction of any kind such as race, color, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status; (2) undertake necessary steps to adopt necessary legislative measures to give effect to the rights recognized in the ICCPR; (3) ensure that any person whose rights or freedoms are violated shall have an effective remedy notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity; (4) ensure that any person claiming such a remedy shall have his right be determined by competent judicial, administrative or legislative authorities or by other competent authority and that they shall enforce such remedies when granted.
The clamor to respect the most basic of human rights, the right to life, inextricably linked to other inalienable rights such as right to clean air, clean water and a healthy environment in the face of the challenge of achieving a genuinely sustainable development, is one of the most pressing issues of our time. Sustainable development is brought to the fore here because of the principles of intergenerational equity, of sustainable use, of intragenerational equity and integration in the application of municipal law and in the operations of local waste management are also brought to task.
Thus, if by act or omission, the Philippine government and the different government agencies such as the DENR and the concerned local government units violate the most basic human right to life of injured citizens by the deprivation or violation of the right to a healthy environment and to full enjoyment of one’s property, the government and these agents must be held liable for such violations. Our Constitution takes cognizance of the continuing deterioration of the enviroment which has become a matter of national concern caused by rapid urbanization, industrial growth, population expansion, natural resources utilization, the use of modern technology and other socioeconomic factors; it recognizes the need for an environmental protection program to prevent further injury or damage to plant and animal life and more importantly, to protect human health and safety.
But how may the violations and liabilities of the culpable parties be ascertained both under international environmental law and a human rights regime? What takes precedence in determining the liability: liability of the duty to protect under international environmental law or the duty to respect in international human rights law? May the offender be held liable under Article 32 of our Civil Code as well as held criminally and administratively liable if found guilty by the competent court? What is the extent of the civil liability of the offender for the violation of the rights of claimants? What forms of damages may the claimant be entitled to?
There is no opportunity here to answer the more specific questions as to how the injured parties may seek redress and what the relief and their remedies will be. But suffice it to say that the vast inroads made in international human rights discourse as well as in international environmental law have made it increasingly possible to address the problems that arise in their respective fields.
Though so many questions still need answers---which in turn lead to so many more questions---and so much more has to be done, the one important thing is that we seem to be heading in the right direction.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

An Epilogue of Sorts

Four years ago, I sat in the Faculty Lounge facing the members of the College of Law Admissions Committee, trying but failing to satisfactorily answer their questions.
At the exact point when my resolve was about to fail, Prof. Jimenez threw me a lifeline: “What kind of lawyer do you want to be when you finish law school?”
I recall saying I wanted to be a human rights lawyer, after which I proceeded to give the lamest and most insubstantial reason why so.
If asked the same question now, I’d still be as stymied as ever.
But one thing is for sure, I do not have plans of falling off the cliff, as at least two of my friends have, after getting their degrees from this college.
And hey, I’m still here, aren’t I?