Precautionary principle and Non-impairment clause Flashcards
precautionary principle
AKA Doctrine of LAST RESORT .
For purposes of evidence, precautionary principle should be treated as a principle of last resort, where application of the regular Rules of Evidence would cause in an INEQUITABLE result for the environmental plaintiff in which (SUI)
(a) risks of harm are UNCERTAIN;
(b) harm might be IRREVERSIBLE and what is lost is IRREPLACEABLE; and
(c) harm that might result would be SERIOUS.
What is Precautionary Principle?
RULE 2, SEC 1, Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases( ROPEC)
When there is a JACK 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 (BAHE) balanced and healthful ecology shall be given the BENEFIT OF THE DOUBT.
Facts of INTERNATIONAL SERVICE FOR THE ACQUISITION OF AGRI-BIOTECH APPLICATIONS, INC V. GREENPEACE
UP LB conducted field trials for BT Talong
However, in 2012, Greenpeace and MASIPAG, filed a petition alleging violations of environmental laws and the constitution, arguing that necessary permits and consultations were not secured.
The Court issued a Writ of Kalikasan against the ISAAA, who maintained that all regulations were followed and that safety studies on Bt talong supported its use.
Issue and Ruling in ISAAA v. Greenpeace
Issue: WON the precautionary principle should be applied
Rulin: No. Since the the Biosafety Permits were already EXPIREDand the field trials were already COMPLETED, hence the respondents’ petition for Writ of Kalikasan was already moot.
What is non-impairment clause?
“No (LITOC) law impairing the obligation of contracts shall be passed.”
Can a mining license be revoked?
Yes. As held in REPUBLIC V. ROSEMOOR Mining and devt corp, A mining license that contravenes a mandatory provision of the law under which it is granted is void.
Being a mere privilege, a license does not vest absolute rights in the holder.
Thus, it can be revoked by the State in the public interest, without offending the due process and the non-impairment clauses of the Constitution,
WON Quarry License Permit No. 33 was issued in blatant contravention of P.D. No. 463 Section 69
Yes. QLP No. 33 was issued in blatant contravention of P.D. No. 463 Section 69.
A quarry license, like that of respondents, should cover a maximum of 100 hectares in any given province. Here, the coverage exceeded more than 100 thousand hectares.
Whether or not Proclamation No. 84 issued by then President Corazon Aquino violated the Non Impairment clause?
No. It did not violate the non impairment clause. Respondents license is not a contract so the non-impairment clause shall not apply.
Even if the license were, since the issue it concerns the PUBLIC WELFARE, the non-impairment clause must yield to the police power of the state.
What does PD 463 Sec 69 provide?
A Quarry License shall cover an area of not more than one hundred (100) hectares in any one province and not more than one thousand (1,000) hectares in the entire Philippines.
Section 16, Article II of the 1987 Constitution
The State shall PROTECT AND ADVANCE the right of the people to a (BAHE) balanced and healthful ecology in accord with the (RHN) rhythm and harmony of nature.”
