RULE 20

PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE

Section 1. Applicability. - When there is a lack of full scientific certainty in establishing a causal link between
human activity and environmental effect, the court shall apply the precautionary principle in resolving the case
before it.

The constitutional right of the people to a balanced and healthful ecology shall be given the benefit of the doubt.

Section 2. Standards for application. - In applying the precautionary principle, the following factors, among
others, may be considered: (1) threats to human life or health; (2) inequity to present or future generations; or
(3) prejudice to the environment without legal consideration of the environmental rights of those affected.

(f) Precautionary principle states that when human activities may lead to threats of serious and irreversible
damage to the environment that is scientifically plausible but uncertain, actions shall be taken to avoid or
diminish that threat.

SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT
-"Sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the
ability of future generations to meet their own needs."
- Sustainable development recognizes that growth must be both inclusive and environmentally sound to
reduce poverty and build shared prosperity for today's population and to continue to meet the needs of future
generations.

ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE
- Environmental justice is a movement that grew from the recognition of a disproportionate number of
environmental burdens in certain communities. It works to ensure a healthy environment for all regardless of
race, nationality, income, gender or age.
Environment: Definition
When you think about the environment, your mind might conjure up images of rambling rivers, peaceful
woodlands or scenic mountains. However, a broader definition of environment is the surroundings or conditions
in which a person lives. By this definition, the environment would include your home, place of work, schools,
and community parks. These are the places you spend your time, and they play a big role in your overall health,
happiness and well-being.
Those involved in the movement called environmental justice feel that a healthy environment is a necessary
component of a healthy life. In this lesson, we will learn about environmental justice and its efforts to make
everyone's environment clean, safe and healthy.
Environmental Justice
The United States Environmental Protection Agency defines environmental justice as the fair treatment and
meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national origin, or income with respect to the
development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies. In other
words, your health should not suffer because of the environment where you live, work, play or learn.
The concept of environmental justice began as a movement in the 1980s due to the realization that a
disproportionate number of polluting industries, power plants, and waste disposal areas were located near low-
income or minority communities. The movement was set in place to ensure fair distribution of environmental
burdens among all people regardless of their background.
Environmental Justice Issues and Examples
Examples of environmental burdens that may be considered under the umbrella of environmental justice
cover many aspects of community life. These burdens can include any environmental pollutant, hazard or
disadvantage that compromises the health of a community or its residents. For instance, one of the
environmental justice issues and examples is inadequate access to healthy food. Certain communities,
particularly lower-income or minority communities, often lack supermarkets or other sources of healthy and
affordable foods.
Another issue is inadequate transportation. While public transportation may be available in urban areas,
policies must be monitored to avoid cuts in service and fare hikes that make it difficult for community residents
to pursue employment or an adequate living standard.
Air and water pollution are major environmental justice issues. Because many lower-income or minority
communities are located near industrial plants or waste disposal sites, air and water quality can suffer if not
properly monitored.
SOCIAL CONTRACT THEORY

The Constitution as a Social Contract

In Marcos v. Manglapus,[1] the Supreme Court speaking through Justice Cortes categorically opined that
“the Constitution, aside from being an allocation of power is also a social contract whereby the people have
surrendered their sovereign powers to the State for the common good.”
The Social Contract Theory is nearly as old as philosophy itself. In general, it is the view that persons’
moral and/or political obligations are dependent upon a contract or agreement between them to form society.
[2] As a modern political theory, it has taken its full shape in the writings of the three main social contract
theorists: Thomas Hobbes, John Locke and Jean-Jacques Rousseau. In the twentieth century, it gained revival in
the works of John Rawls.
In laying down the foundation and basis for this paper, a brief summary of the different versions of the social
contract theory is in order, and for this purpose, I reproduce the summaries made by the Internet Encyclopedia
of Philosophy’s article on the Social Contract Theory[3] with very slight modifications, viz.:
Thomas Hobbes’ Version
According to Thomas Hobbes, the justification for political obligation is this: given that men are naturally self-
interested, yet they are rational, they will choose to submit to the authority of a Sovereign in order to be able to
live in a civil society, which is conducive to their own interests. Hobbes argues for this by imagining men in
their natural state, or in other words, the State of Nature. In the State of Nature, which is purely hypothetical
according to Hobbes, men are naturally and exclusively self-interested, they are more or less equal to one
another, there are limited resources, and yet there is no power able to force men to cooperate.
Given these conditions in the State of Nature, Hobbes concludes that the State of Nature would be unbearably
brutal and he concludes that the State of Nature is the worst possible situation in which men can find
themselves. It is the state of perpetual and unavoidable war. The situation is not, however, hopeless. Because
men are reasonable, they can see their way out of such a state by recognizing the laws of nature, which show
them the means by which to escape the State of Nature and create a civil society.
Being reasonable, and recognizing the rationality of this basic precept of reason, men can be expected to
construct a Social Contract that will afford them a life other than that available to them in the State of Nature.
This contract is constituted by two distinguishable contracts. First, they must agree to establish society by
collectively and reciprocally renouncing the rights they had against one another in the State of Nature. Second,
they must imbue some one person or assembly of persons with the authority and power to enforce the initial
contract.
After these contracts are established, then society becomes possible, and people can be expected to keep their
promises, cooperate with one another, and so on. The Social Contract is the most fundamental source of all that
is good and that which we depend upon to live well. Our choice is either to abide by the terms of the contract, or
return to the State of Nature, which Hobbes argues no reasonable person could possibly prefer.
John Locke’s Version
In contrast to Hobbes’ concept of the hypothetical State of Nature, Locke considers the State of Nature as a state
of perfect and complete liberty to conduct one’s life as one best sees fit, free from the interference of others. So,
the State of Nature is a state of liberty where persons are free to pursue their own interests and plans, free from
interference, and, because of the Law of Nature and the restrictions that it imposes upon persons, it is relatively
peaceful.
However, since in the State of Nature there is no civil power to whom men can appeal, and since the Law of
Nature allows them to defend their own lives, they may then kill those who would bring force against them.
Since the State of Nature lacks civil authority, once war begins it is likely to continue. And this is one of the
strongest reasons that men have to abandon the State of Nature by contracting together to form civil
government.
Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s Version
Rousseau for his part, begins with the most oft-quoted line “Man was born free, and he is everywhere in
chains”. He argues that humans are essentially free, and were free in the State of Nature, but the “progress” of
civilization has substituted subservience to others for that freedom, through dependence, economic and social
inequalities, and the extent to which we judge ourselves through comparisons with others. Since a return to the
State of Nature is neither feasible nor desirable, the purpose of politics is to restore freedom to us, thereby
reconciling who we truly and essentially are with how we live together.[4]
The most basic covenant, the social pact, is the agreement to come together and form a people, a collectivity,
which by definition is more than and different from a mere aggregation of individual interests and wills. This
act, where individual persons become a people is “the real foundation of society”.[5]
John Rawls’ Version
Like Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau and Kant, Rawls belongs to the social contract tradition. However, Rawls’ social
contract takes a slightly different form from that of previous thinkers. Specifically, Rawls posits that a just
social contract is that which we would agree upon if we did not know in advance where we ourselves would end
up in the society that we are agreeing to. This condition of ignorance is known as the “Original Position”. In the
original position, “no-one knows his place in society, his class position or social status, nor does anyone know
his fortune in the distribution of natural assets and abilities, his intelligence, strength and the like”.[6]
Rawls argues that any rational person inhabiting the original position and placing him or herself behind the veil
of ignorance can discover the two principles of justice, Rawls has constructed what is perhaps the most abstract
version of a social contract theory. It is highly abstract because rather than demonstrating that we would or even
have signed to a contract to establish society, it instead shows us what we must be willing to accept as rational
persons in order to be constrained by justice and therefore capable of living in a well ordered society. The
principles of justice are more fundamental than the social contract as it has traditionally been conceived. Rather,
the principles of justice constrain that contract, and set out the limits of how we can construct society in the first
place.[7]
Next in this inquiry is the concept of a Constitution. A Constitution, in the modern sense of the term, may be
understood in the light of the British Parliamentary tradition that had no notion that a single document could
serve as a Constitution and it may, in contrast, be understood in the light of the American Constitutional
tradition that has its foundation in a single codified text, which they aptly named as the Constitution of the
United States of America.
Britain has taught America the core tradition of constitutionalism. The ancient Greek notion of politeia, a plan
for a way of life, and the Roman concept of constitutio stand as the distant progenitors of the modern
construction of the term.[8]
Donald S. Lutz in his book “The Origins of American Constitutionalism”[9] reasons that while the U.S.
Constitution stands at the apex of American tradition, it remains simply another political document unless the
people choose to use it in a certain way, as the summary of the political commitments and as the standard by
which to assess, develop, and run the political system.[10] He regards the Constitution as a document of
political founding or refounding and proceeds to discuss that the term “constitution” has to do with making or
establishing something, giving it legal status, describing the mode or organization, locating sovereignty,
establishing limits, and describing fundamental principles.[11]
Viewed in the light of the Social Contract Theories, the Constitution may be considered as the Social Contract
itself in the sense that is the very basis of the decision to constitute a civil society or State, breathing life to its
juridical existence, laying down the framework by which it is to be governed, enumerating and limiting its
powers, and declaring certain fundamental rights and principles to be inviolable.
On the other hand, the Constitution, as a political document, whether embodied in a single code or scattered
in numerous fundamental or organic acts, may be considered as the concrete manifestation or expression of the
Social Contract or the decision to abandon the state of nature and organize and found a civil society or State.
However, one clarification is in order to avoid confusion or inaccuracy. A common denominator to all the
above treatises on the Social Contract is that the social contract to form a civil society is a contract that is
theoretically entered into between and among the people themselves. It does not include the State per se as a
party. The social contract precedes the very existence of the State and the government. Having preceded the
existence of the State and the government, the social contract could not have had the State or the Government as
a party. It is therefore inaccurate or even a mistake to regard the State or the Government as a party to the social
contract.
Therefore, the dictum in Marcos v. Manglapus[12] that “the Constitution, aside from being an allocation of
power is also a social contract whereby the people have surrendered their sovereign powers to the State for the
common good” should not be understood as a social contract between the people and the State or the
Government. If it is to be consistent to the original thoughts and conceptions of the great social contract
theorists, it must be understood as a social contract between and among the people themselves whereby they
have agreed to form a State and surrendered certain powers to the State for the common good.

THE PHILIPPINES AND THE ARCHIPELAGIC DOCTRINE

Archipelago is defined as a sea or part of a sea studded with islands, often synonymous with island groups, or as
a large group of islands in an extensive body of water, such as sea. (De Leon, 1991)

In various conferences of the United Nations on the Law of the Sea, the Philippines and other archipelago states
proposed that an archipelagic state composed of groups of islands forming a state is a single unit, with the
islands and the waters within the baselines as internal waters.By this concept (archipelagic doctrine), an
archipelago shall be regarded as a single unit, so that the waters around, between, and connecting the islands of
the archipelago, irrespective of their breadth and dimensions, form part of the internal waters of the state,
subject to its exclusive sovereignty

On the strength of these assertions, the Philippines Archipelago is considered as one integrated unit instead of
being divided into more than seven thousand islands. The outermost of our archipelago are connected with
straight baselines and all waters inside the baselines are considered as internal waters. This makes the large
bodies of waters connecting the islands of the archipelago like Mindanao Sea, Sulo Sea and the Sibuyan Sea
part of the Philippines as its internal waters, similar to the rivers and lakes found within the islands themselves.

The archipelagic principle however is subject to the following limitations:

a) respect for the right of the ship and other states to pass through the territorial as well as archipelagic waters
b) respect to right of innocent passage
c) respect for passage through archipelagic sea lanes subject to the promulgation by local authorities of pertinent
rules and regulations.

NATIONAL RESOURCES OF STATE

- Natural Resources Any material thing of economic value which man did not bring into existence
- NATIONAL PATRIMONY refers to both the tangible and intangible wealth of the nation. The
TANGIBLE WEALTH covers the natural resources which are the sources of our economic wellbeing. The
INTANGIBLE WEALTH refers to our ideals, customs, traditions, aspiration and cultural heritage.
5. ARTICLE XII: The National Economy and Patrimony 1987 Philippine Constitution Sec. 2. All lands of
the public domain, waters, minerals, coal, petroleum, and other mineral oils, all forces of potential energy,
fisheries, forests, or timber, wildlife, flora and fauna, and other natural resources are owned by the State. With
the exception of agricultural lands, all other utilization of natural resources shall be under the full control and
supervision of the State. The State may directly undertake such activities, or it may enter the co-production,
joint venture, or production sharing agreement with Filipino citizens or corporations or associations at least
sixty percentum of whose capital is owned by such citizens. Such agreements may for a period not more than
twenty-five years, and under such terms and conditions as may be provided by law. In cases of water rights for
irrigation, water supply, fisheries, or industrial uses other than the development of water power, beneficial use
may the measure and limit of the grant.
6. ARTICLE XII: The National Economy and Patrimony 1987 Philippine Constitution The State shall
protect the nation’s marine wealth in its archipelagic waters, territorial sea, and exclusive economic zone, and
reserve its use and enjoyment exclusively to Filipino Citizens. The Congress may by law, allow small-scale
utilization of natural resources by Filipino citizens, as well as cooperative fish farming, with priority to
subsistence fishermen and fishworkers in rivers, lakes, and lagoons.
7. ARTICLE XII: The National Economy and Patrimony 1987 Philippine Constitution The President may
enter into agreements with foreign owned corporations involving either technical or financial assistance for
large scale exploration, development, and utilization of minerals, petroleum and other mineral oils according to
the general terms and conditions provided by law, based on real contributions on the economic and general
welfare of the country. In such agreements, the State shall promote the development and use of local scientific
and technical resources. The President shall notify the Congress of every contract entered into in accordance
with this provision, within thirty days from its execution.
8. ARTICLE XII: The National Economy and Patrimony 1987 Philippine Constitution Sec. 3. Land of the
public domain are classified into agricultural, forest or timber, mineral lands, and national parks. Agricultural
lands of the public domain may be further classified by law according to the uses to which they may by
devoted. Alienable lands of the public domain shall be limited to agricultural lands. Private corporations or
associations may not hold such alienable lands of the public domain except by lease, for a period not exceeding
twenty-five years, renewable for not more than twenty-five years, and not to exceed one thousand hectares in
area. Citizens of the Philippines may lease not more then five hundred hectares, or acquire not more than twelve
hectares thereof by purchase, homestead or grant.
9. ARTICLE XII: The National Economy and Patrimony 1987 Philippine Constitution Taking into account
the requirements of conservation, ecology, and development, and subject to the requirements of agrarian reform,
the Congress shall determine by law, the size of lands of the public domain which may be acquired, developed,
held or leased and the conditions thereof.

ENVIRONMENT VS. RESOURCES

The environment is the world and our surroundings, all living things, plants and animals including humans.

Resources are a product of the environment that humans use and consider economically useful

Natural resources can be classified as renewable and non-renewable.

Renewable(infiniteresources)
Water
Wood
Fruitandvegetables
Animalproduce
Air

Non-renewable(finiteresources)

Oil
Gas
Coal

Note: all resources are in fact renewable, However non-renewable resources take many human generations
(millions of years) to renew and so are considered non-renewable.

Resources can also be termed as human knowledge or labour

In sum the environment is everything. In contrast natural resources are a product of and are selected out of
everything (the environment) for their worth to humans.
Note: Importantly NATURAL resources are provided naturally by the environment itself and would exist
without human existence. Put more simply they are NOT man-made - e.g Plastic.

Secondly, an environment is eternal. There will always be some form of physical environment. Mars is to the
best of our knowledge void of life, however desolate this is still an environment.

What I am pointing to is that idea that natural resources are precious (most are unique to Earth) and so need to
be protects.

The environment is everything, and the Earth has a specifically unique and precious environment. Natural
resources are an important fruit of the Earth's unique environment, and so both need to be protected.