Impact of environmental law
By Antonio V. Osmeña
Estatements
A RECENT legal environmental controversy has raised the question of who speaks for nature in the courts. Do dolphins at Tañon Strait or trees have legal standing?
A similar case was observed in America, where in 1969, the Sierra Club filed a suit against the government when the US Forest Service approved a bid by Walt Disney Enterprises Inc. to develop a $35-million ski resort in the Mineral Valley recreation area, located in the Sierras of California.
The plaintiff claimed that the proposed development violated federal law governing the preservation of national parks and forests. The Supreme Court refused to hear the case because it concluded that the Sierra Club did not have standing.
In his dissenting opinion, Justice William O. Douglas argued that trees and other natural objects should have standing. He referred to the book, “Should Trees Have Standing? Toward legal Rights for Natural Objects,” (1974) by law professor Christopher D. Stone, who argued that just as minors and incompetent persons can be represented in court by legal guardians, so should natural objects.
Although the case was never tried, the precedent suggested by the Sierra Club was an important factor leading to the abandonment of the proposed project.
Environmental law is a vital and growing field for lawyers and scientists interested in public service. The pay is low and the hours are long, but the satisfaction is high.
In ecopolitics, environmental law plays an important role, particularly as a tool for delaying or preventing abuse of the ecosphere. In recent years, a number of national laws have been enacted, but a law is no better than its enforcement.
Major Philippine environmental legislation involves energy, water quality, air quality, noise control, resources and solid waste management, wildlife, land use and the general act which is the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR).
But proponents of environmental law have handicaps such as: a plaintiff may not have standing to file suit against a defendant; standing for damage suits is granted only if it is clear that the harm to an individual plaintiff is distinguishable from that to the general public; and bringing any suit is expensive.
Often, the defendant in an environmental action is a large corporation or government agency with ample funds for legal and scientific advice; the court may take years to reach a decision; and finally, it is often difficult for the plaintiff to prove that the accused is liable.
It is, therefore, important to form organizations of public interest lawyers and experts who can raise money and pool talents.
It is about time that public interest law firms and groups—which specialize on environmental and consumer law—and scientific experts participate in environmental and consumer law cases, as needed.
Environmental and public interest law is threatened by lack of money. For example, in 1976 environmental lawyers received a serious setback when the US Supreme Court ruled that public interest law groups cannot recover attorney’s fees unless Congress has specifically authorized such recovery in the law they have sued to enforce. This had disastrous effect on financially struggling public interest lawyers. The costs of research and expert witnesses are high, and these public service organizations exist only because of individual and foundation grants.
Environmentalists have suggested that DENR should be amended to correct some of these major weaknesses by requiring a national agency to pick and follow the terms of the least harmful option and by allowing public interest groups to recover at-torney’s fees when they sue to enforce DENR or any other environmental law— thus, putting public interest law groups on a more equitable footing with national agencies and large corporations.
October 23, 2008, 10:47 PM PDT
