Twenty-One young people between the ages of eight and 19 (when the case was filed in 2015) challenged the federal government of the United States for violating their civil rights to a safe climate. The youth plaintiffs were backed up by “Our Children’s Trust,” a nonprofit organization. The complaint was anchored on a novel legal theory—that safe climate is a civil right and that the government has violated it through policies like leasing public lands for coal mining. The youth plaintiffs chose to sue the federal government rather that the fossil fuel companies, which made the case stand out among numerous climate lawsuits.
In this unprecedented climate change lawsuit docketed as Juliana v. US, the youth plaintiffs argued that climate change is an urgent, threatening problem. What the plaintiffs wanted was an order from the court requiring the federal government to develop a plan to phase out fuel emissions and draw down excess atmospheric CO2.
Unfortunately, a three-judge panel in the US Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 2-1 to dismiss the Juliana v. US lawsuit on the issue of plaintiffs’ lack of standing to sue the US federal government. The judges agreed with the plaintiffs that climate change is an urgent and threatening problem. Circuit Court Judge Andrew Hurwitz (an Obama appointee) writing for the majority, conceded that climate risks are growing and that young people stand to suffer the worst impacts of rising average temperatures, like increasingly destructive floods and fires. Hurwitz, however, ruled that “reluctantly, the relief sought by the plaintiffs was beyond the constitutional power of the court. Rather, plaintiffs’ impressive case for redress must be presented to the political branches of government.” However, District Court Judge Josephine Staton thought, otherwise, and in her strong dissenting opinion opined: “It is as if an asteroid were barreling toward Earth and the government decided to shut down our only defenses,” she wrote. “Seeking to quash this suit, the government bluntly insists that it has the absolute and unreviewable power to destroy the nation.”
The nonprofit organization, Our Children’s Trust, described the decision as “unprecedented and contrary to American principles of Justice” and has vowed to appeal the ruling in the coming weeks. The Juliana case has been the highest profile lawsuit filed by Our Children’s Trust, having survived several motions to dismiss and intervention by the US Supreme Court.
A number of climate-change lawsuits have worked their way through various US Courts. As politicians have failed to deliver adequate climate policies, courtrooms have emerged as a prominent venue for an agenda to limit emissions. Companies, like Exxon have been sued in various US courts for the climate-related harms caused by their products.
While the ruling in the Juliana case was a setback for climate activists, many are undeterred from using the courts to fight climate change and hold polluters accountable. Reportedly some law students have also began to protest against the law firms representing fuel companies in these climate suits, pressuring firms to drop them as clients and urging classmates not to work for them. (Source: www.vox.com, Umair Irfan, January 17, 2020)
In 2010, the Supreme Court of the Philippines under then-Chief Justice Reynato Puno took the initiative and issued Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases because Section 16, Article 11 of the Philippine Constitution, which provides that the “state shall protect and advance the right of the people to a balanced and healthy ecology in accord with the rhythm and harmony of nature” was not a self-executing provision. Thus, the writ of kalikasan came into being (a Filipino word for “Nature”).
Soon as the writ of kalikasan became available as a special legal remedy against “environmental damage of such magnitude that it threatens life, health and property of inhabitants in two or more cities, or municipalities,” the residents of Barangay Bangkal and West Tower Condominium sought our law firm’s legal assistance in obtaining a writ of kalikasan against First Philippine Industrial Corp. and First Gen Corp. for the environmental damage caused by the massive leakage of their 117-kilometer pipeline (which stretched from Batangas to the Pandacan Terminal, in Manila) and transported gasoline, jet fuel and kerosene. What started as a two-drum leak at the initial stage became a 15-20-drum a day affair into the sump pit of the West Tower Condominium and the entire Barangay Bangkal municipality affecting the life, health and property of the residents and inhabitants therein. Our Law Firm has the distinction of obtaining for the West Tower Condominium Residents and inhabitants of Barangay Bangkal the first writ of kalikasan issued by the Supreme Court on November 19, 2010.
That was almost 10 years ago—and still our West Tower and Barangay Bangkal residents and inhabitants are waiting for “remediation, rehabilitation and restoration of the affected Barangay Bangkal environment until full restoration of the affected area to its condition prior to the leakage is achieved” as mandated by the Supreme Court (GR 194239, June 16, 2015, SC En Banc).
With the decision in the Juliana v. US case, it is hoped that the Courts will take a more activist stand in safeguarding people’s right to a safe climate and environment. Our Philippine Supreme Court in the West Tower case in 2010 took a step in the right direction by issuing its writ of kalikasan.
But as shown by West Tower/Barangay Bangkal case, it takes more than a Supreme Court to issue a favorable ruling.
What it takes is political will of the concerned government agencies mandated to safeguard our health and environment—the ”bad” guys who pollute our environment must be thrown in jail for them to learn the hard lesson that respect for the environment is respect for human life.
The right to a safe climate is a fundamental right!