THE CONSTITUTION OF THE PHILIPPINES IN RELATION TO ARTICLE 51[C] OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA

INTRODUCTION
I come at a most turbulent time for our country, the Philippines, when passions are high and there is unrest in civil society. The circumstances early this week saddened my countrymen, especially since the ones directly involved in the forefront were mere victims of forces battling for power. Yet, I must stress that my fellow Filipinos are peace-loving, a fact easily gleaned from our history. I am, therefore, confident that like the other tumultuous events we had overcome in the past as a people, we shall likewise triumph over this. This, too, shall pass.

It is, therefore, timely for me to be a participant in this caucus, the topic being of particular interest. More than ever, the Filipino people share the desire by the convenors and participants of the present International Conference on Article 51 of the Constitution of India for world peace.

Going through the reports in connection with the Conference, it becomes evident that the call brought forward by the convention is three-fold, namely:

1. the formation of a new international and political order capable of eliminating the huge nuclear stockpile and ensuring ecology and environmental conservation on a global scale;
    

2. the formation of a World Parliament with power to frame international laws for the whole world, enforceable on all countries; and
    

3. for other countries to adopt a provision similar to Article 51[c] of the Constitution of India.

In the Philippine setting, two of these concerns appear to have already been addressed, at least in part, in our Constitution.

FREEDOM FROM NUCLEAR WEAPONS

To begin with, the presence of nuclear weapons is proscribed within our territory. The pertinent provision provides, as follows —

Article II, Section 8 - The Philippines, consistent with the national interest, adopts and pursues a policy of freedom from nuclear weapons in its territory.
This ban on nuclear weapons includes the performance of nuclear tests in our territory as well as the use of our territory as dumping ground for radioactive wastes. Sponsors of this provision, a first in the history of our Constitution, had in mind the fact that the dangers of nuclear weapons was particularly alarming in Asia, being the only place in the world where nuclear weapons were dropped and exploded during the war. This provision came at a time in our history when negotiations on the then existing U.S. Military Bases were taking place and stands as a focal point in any future negotiations with foreign countries desiring to set up military structures in the Philippines.

With this clear ban on nuclear weapons, the Philippines has already met, at least locally, this convention’s call for the elimination of nuclear stockpile.

ECOLOGICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION
Our Constitution likewise safeguards the country’s ecology through the following provision –

Article II, Section 16 – 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.
Again, no similar provision was extant in our past organic laws. This was a product of a vigorous campaign at that time for environmental protection, a concern that was, and still is, of utmost significance.

In the case of Oposa v. Factoran1 , our present Chief Justice, the Honorable Hilario G. Davide, Jr., eloquently upheld the right of minors and those yet unborn to file a petition concerned with the right to a balanced and healthful ecology. Sustaining the position of the minors, he ratiocinated thus –

"This case, however, has a special and novel element. Petitioner minors assert that they represent their generation as well as generations yet unborn. We find no difficulty in ruling that they can, for themselves, for others of their generation and for the succeeding generation, file a class suit. Their personality to sue in behalf of the succeeding generations can only be based on the concept of intergenerational responsibility insofar as the right to a balanced and healthful ecology is concerned. Such a right, as hereinafter expounded, considers the ‘rhythm and harmony of nature.’ Nature means the created world in its entirety. Such rhythm and harmony indispensably include, inter alia, the judicious disposition, utilization, management, renewal and conservation of the country’s forest, mineral, land, waters, fisheries, wildlife, off-shore areas and other natural resources to the end that their exploration, development and utilization be equitably accessible to the present as well as future generations. Needless to say, every generation has a responsibility to the next to preserve that rhythm and harmony for the full enjoyment of a balanced and healthful ecology. Put a little differently, the minors’ assertion of their right to a sound environment constitutes, at the same time, the performance of their obligation to ensure the protection of that right for the generations to come."

This is especially relevant and may prove as a useful guide and example to the students of the City Montessori School who are ever so vigilant in harnessing international attention to its adopted causes, ecological and environmental conservation, included. Evidently, their generation responsibly meets the challenge to preserve and ensure the full enjoyment of a balanced and healthful ecology.

Setting the subject Constitutional provision in operation, the Philippine Supreme Court has ruled that timber licenses, permits and license agreements, by which the State regulates the utilization and disposition of forest resources, may be validly amended, modified, replaced or rescinded by the Chief Executive when national interests so require. It was recognized in this case that the government’s reassessment of such licenses was in response to the renewed and growing global concern over the despoliation of forest lands and the utter disregard of their crucial role in sustaining a balanced ecological system.2 

Neither is the Philippines lacking in laws relating to environmental protection. On the contrary, we have about 150 laws on the topic.

Lamentably, this arsenal of laws is still not a safeguard or guarantee for full protection of our ecology and environment.

Undoubtedly, the Philippines is one of the richest countries in the world in terms of natural resources. We boast of the following national treasures –

• There are 201 mammals in the Philippines, of which 116 are endemic or unique to our country and found nowhere else in the world;
   

• Of the 500 known species of corals in the world, the Philippines has 488 of them, 240 of which are likewise endemic; in terms of marine wealth, we are known to have the richest coral reefs in the world;
   

• Our seas have 6 of the 7 known marine turtles in the world;
   

• We have a coastline of some 18,000 kilometers, longer than that of the United States;
   

• We have the 2nd largest eagle in the world, the Philippine Eagle;
   

• Our forests teem with plant and animal life; Mt. Makiling National Park, alone, with an area of only about 4,000 hectares, contains more species of wooded plants than the entire continent of North America;
   

• We have about 10,000 kinds of plants, about 50% of which are endemic;
   

• We are home to about 556 species of birds, 183 are endemic; and
   

• Of the 77 known migratory birds in the world, 48 of them stop by Cebu’s Olango Island, for food on their way to the south from China and Siberia during winter.3

Unfortunately, we have not been conscientious in the handling of these treasures: dynamite fishing and other destructive fishing methods have perilously destroyed our coral reefs, reducing our fish productivity; our forests have been denuded with indiscriminate logging operations; even our Philippine Eagle has dwindled in population as a result of the declining state of our forests. What is worse, with an alarming amount of solid waste discharge daily, garbage remains to be a paramount problem in our major cities.

Recognizing this, there is a growing information campaign going on, spearheaded by non-governmental organizations, for the so-called healing of mother earth. Efforts have been made to bring the issue to the fore and to raise awareness on a personal level. Environmental protection is now part of the curriculum of our elementary and intermediate schools. Communities and families are given guidelines on how to handle garbage, segregating and composting.

Admittedly, notwithstanding the wealth of laws on the matter, the Philippines still has a long way to go in ensuring ecology and environmental conservation.

INTERNATIONAL LAW AS PART OF THE LAW OF THE LAND
A comparable provision to Article 51[c] of the Constitution of India which provides that "(T)he State shall endeavor to foster respect for international law" is found in the Declaration of Principles and State Policies of our Constitution, specifically Article II, Section 2. It provides, to wit –

"The Philippines renounces war as an instrument of national policy, adopts the generally accepted principle of international law as part of the law of the land and adheres to the policy of peace, equality, justice, freedom, cooperation and amity with all nations."

This provision, which was already embodied in our 1935 and 1973 Constitutions, does not simply call for respect of international law but expressly adopts such generally accepted principles of international law as part of the law of the land.

Of course, this adoption of international law as part of the law of the land is necessarily limited only to those generally accepted principles of international law; the grant of privileges and immunities to specialized agencies of the United Nations, the doctrine of pacta sunt servanda – that international agreements must be performed in good faith  and discrimination , to name a few. Certainly, also automatically accepted in our jurisdiction are jus cogens principles or those peremptory norms, which no law can override; such as the prohibition against the use of force, crimes against humanity, principle of racial non-discrimination, rules prohibiting trade in slavery and piracy; human rights. However, treaties and other specific laws require the approval of our legislative body before they can be valid in our jurisdiction.

The same provision also directly manifests the Philippine’s adherence to the policy of peace, cooperation and amity with all nations, among others, and renounces war as an instrument of national policy.

In light of the foregoing Constitutional provision, it is safe to say that the Philippines has likewise met the gathering’s call for a provision similar to the subject Article 51[c] of India. Like our host country, the Philippines aspires not only for internal peace, but also world peace and unity.

THE CALL FOR THE FORMATION OF A WORLD PARLIAMENT
Unique and commendable is the call for the formation of a World Parliament. Though sectors of our own society have certainly mulled with this notion, such a concrete policy consideration has not yet been reflected on the Constitutional level.

On the contrary, our Constitution does not appear to support such a concept. This may be gleaned from the following provision —

Article II, Section 7 – The State shall pursue an independent foreign policy. In its relations with other states the paramount consideration shall be national sovereignty, territorial integrity, national interest and the right to self-determination.

Diametrically opposed to the theory of a World Parliament are the said policies of national sovereignty, territorial integrity, national interest and the right to self-determination.

This is not to say, however, that the Philippines has closed its door to all forms of exercise of international jurisdiction. As a member of the United Nations, it recognizes and respects the International Court of Justice, albeit like other States, jurisdiction over it must be with its consent. It also cooperates with the United Nations in peacekeeping efforts, sending members of its armed forces to trouble areas when requested by the U.N.

Perhaps a significant development in the area of international justice is the Rome Statute creating the International Criminal Court. Like India, the Philippines is a signatory to the said statute, although the same has not yet been ratified by our Senate. This novel institution addresses crimes of international dimensions: genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and crimes of aggression. A conceived strength of the International Criminal Court is that, unlike the International Court of Justice, a State party ipso facto accepts its jurisdiction.

It must be stressed that being a State Party to the Rome Statute does not automatically constitute an abdication of national sovereignty. Prosecuted individuals are simply set against an international legal order. For this purpose, linkages between and among police and military forces of States becomes imperative. As well, there arises a need to forge a cohesion among the criminal legal procedures of various States.

Given these developments in international justice, which necessarily entail a submission, albeit partial, of national sovereignty, there is much hope in the eventual formation of a parallel international legislative institution, in the form of the clamored-for World Parliament. To be realistic, although the formation of such a World Parliament is possible, the same calls for a long, arduous process, and is not likely to happen in this decade.

Meantime, international gatherings such as this contribute in a large measure to attain the shared goal of world peace and unity.

Back