2007 AECEN Regional Forum:Public Participation in Environmental Compliance and

Enforcement in Asia

Shangri-La Hotel, Beijing

People's Republic of ChinaDecember 13-15, 2007

STRENGTHENING GREEN BENCHES AND JUDICIAL CAPACITY IN THE PHILIPPINES

Justice Portia Aliño-Hormachuelos Court of Appeals, Manila

Philippines

JUDICIAL

The Philippines’ legal system is characterized by the separation of powers among three co-equal branches of the government – the executive branch headed by the President, the legislative branch composed of the bicameral Senate and House of Representatives, and the judiciary.

I. The Philippine Legal System and The Role of the Judiciary

The Judiciary

Judicial power is vested in one Supreme Court and the lower courts established by law.* The Supreme Court is at the apex of a 4-tierred court system composed of one Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals and 2 special appellate courts; the Regional Trial Courts; and the Metropolitan/ Municipal Trial Courts.

* Philippine Constitution, Art VIII sec. 1

The courts’ actions in adjudicating environmental cases are necessarily taken within the framework of the Constitution, which in its Declaration of Principles gave preeminence to the environment thru this pronouncement:

“The State shall protect and advance the right of the people to a balanced

and healthful ecology in accord with the rhythm and harmony of nature.”'– Philippine Constitution Art. II, Section 12.

Our Supreme Court has affirmed the enforeability of this legal right in the landmark case of Oposa v. Factoran.

G.R. No. 101083, July 30, 1993, 224 SCRA 792 (1993).

III. Strengthening Judicial Capacity in Environmental

Adjudication: The Philippine Judicial Academy (PHILJA)

To ensure judicial competence and efficiency, the Philippine Judicial Academy (PHILJA for short), a component of the Supreme Court, was created in 1998 under Republic Act 8557 to serve as the judiciary's education arm. PHILJA was institutionalized as a training school for justices, judges, lawyers and aspirants to judicial posts.

PHILJA's training programs include Orientation Programs for New Judges where they are given an Introduction to Environmental Law. The others are the Specialized Trainings which are usually multi-sectoral in approach, to include prosecutors, DENR and DA officials and personnel, environmental science experts, and non-government organizations.

In 2003, with the help of its development partners such as the AECEN, UNEP and APJA, PHILJA conducted the Judges Forum on Environmental Protection where discussions on how to improve access to environmental justice were undertaken.

The PHILJA programs culminated in the publication of an Environmental Law Training Manual in 2006 and before that, an interactive training tool and manual entitled Greening the Judiciary. Both manuals have been distributed to judges for their guidance. Both projects were supported by the USAID, the US-AEP, and the Asia Foundation.

As part of capacity building, Justices and Judges were sent to international fora such as the Asian Justices Forum on the Environment sponsored by US-Asia Environmental Partnership (US-AEP) held in Bangkok, Thailand on November 18-19, 2003, and the Asian Justices Workshop on the Environment in April 2006, also held in Bangkok.

On May 10-11, 2007 PHILJA in coordination with the Department of Justice, together with the development partners USAID, AECEN and Wildlife Alliance conducted a Judiciary Workshop on Wildlife Crime and Protection.

On July 5 and 6, 2007 the Supreme Court of the Philippines and PHILJA in partnership with the (USAID),(AECEN),(UNEP),(USEPA) attended by Chief Justices, Justices, Judges, and officials of environmental agencies in Australia, India, Indonesia, the Philippines, Shri Lanka, Thailand and the United States, as well as key personalities from the academe and public interest groups in the Philippines.

IV. Greening the Judiciary

On July 21, 2006, PHILJA held a round-table discussion of green benches with the assistance of AECEN, USAID, the UNEP and Haribon Foundation for the Conservation of Natural Resources. It was an off-shoot of the Asian Justices Workshop on the Environment held in Bangkok in April, 2006.

OPTIONS:

1. To designate special courts to hear environmental cases.

2. To expand the jurisdiction of the already designated forestry courts to cover all environmental cases.

3. To designate special divisions in the Court of Appeals to handle environmental cases.

The foregoing options/proposals are currently undergoing meticulous study.

DATABASE: To guide the Supreme Court in locating designated

green benches, PHILJA with the assistance of the Office of the Court Administrator of the Supreme Court, conducted data inventory and assessment. Data from years 2000 to 2004 showed that 1,678 environmental cases were filed in the trial courts. As of November 2006, there were a total number of 901 environmental cases pending nationwide in the trial courts, while 74 special cases for certiorari, prohibition or mandamus

involving the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) were filed in the Court of Appeals for the 6-year period from November 2001 to June 2007.

Conclusion:

PHILJA with the help of its development partners the AECEN among them, has done a commendable job in strengthening judicial capacity in the Philippines. However, given the limited reach of the courts as shown by the low number of cases serviced by them as well as the very few legislations addressed by the lawsuits that have reached them, it seems clear that judicial education and capacity building for the judiciary is not enough.

There is a need to enlarge the reach of the justice system by increasing the capacity of its other pillars especially in the field of law enforcement and prosecution. Most of all, public participation and commitment in environmental protection and preservation must be enhanced through the liberalization of litigation rules which is always an issue in judicial fora. Related issues are those on standing to sue, class suits, accrual of cause of action, burden of evidence, custody and handling of bulky or perishable evidence, and court docket congestion. These issues crop up at every judges' forum, including international, and should be settled always with a view to address the transcendental need for the survival of our world and its preservation for present and future generations.