(Atmosphere)
Vienna convention for the protection of the environment
- was adopted by the Conference on the Protection of the
Ozone Layer
- A total of 28 signatories and 197 participant including the
Philippines
- Provides the general framework for the tools to protect the
ozone layer that surrounds the globe
The ozone layer is important in keeping out harmful
ultraviolet radiation from the sun.[4] Losing this protective
layer would cause serious problems to humans, plants, and
animals alike. The damaging radiation could not only cause
mutations in any of the human, plant, or animal cells, but it
would also cause increases in skin cancer and other serious
health issues.[5] “The scientists found that the
chlorofluorocarbon gases (CFCs), which were widely used and
viewed as posing no harm, could migrate to the stratosphere,
remain intact for decades to centuries, and by releasing
chlorine, break down the ozone layer.”
Objective
- to promote cooperation by means of systematic
observations, research and information exchange on the
effects of human activities on the ozone layer and to adopt
legislative or administrative measures against activities likely
to have adverse effects on the ozone layer
- to protect humans and environment from the harmful
effects of the activities which modify the ozone layer
- It aims to protect humans and environment from the
harmful effects of the activities which modify the ozone layer
Concrete Actions
The convention requires parties to cooperate, according to
their means, in research and legislative measures and to
formulate standards, procedures and measures in the form of
protocols and annexes. Parties are also required to facilitate
the exchange of relevant scientific, technical, socioeconomic,
commercial and legal information.
Another obligation is to facilitate the exchange of technology
subject to applicable national law.
Parties are required to report on the measures taken to
implement the convention and protocols
ASK WAYS TO REDUCE OZONE LAYER DEPLETION/ TO
PROTECT THE OZONE LAYER
(Environmental Threats)
Basel convention
Awakening environmental awareness and corresponding
tightening of environmental regulations in the industrialized
world in the 1970s and 1980s had led to increasing public
resistance to the disposal of hazardous wastes – in
accordance with what became known as the NIMBY (Not In
My Back Yard) syndrome – and to an escalation of disposal
costs. This in turn led some operators to seek cheap disposal
options for hazardous wastes in Eastern Europe and the
developing world, where environmental awareness was much
less developed and regulations and enforcement mechanisms
were lacking. It was against this background that the Basel
Convention was negotiated in the late 1980s, and its thrust at
the time of its adoption was to combat the “toxic trade”, as it
was termed. The Convention entered into force in 1992.
Objectives
-to protect human health and the environment against the
adverse effects of hazardous wastes.
-the reduction of hazardous waste generation and the
promotion of environmentally sound management of
hazardous wastes, wherever the place of disposal
-the restriction of transboundary movements of hazardous
wastes except where it is perceived to be in accordance with
the principles of environmentally sound management; and
Scope
-covers a wide range of wastes defined as “hazardous wastes”
based on their origin and/or composition and their
characteristics, as well as two types of wastes defined as
“other wastes” - household waste and incinerator ash
Some actions
The first aim is addressed through a number of general
provisions requiring States to observe the fundamental
principles of environmentally sound waste management
(article 4). A number of prohibitions are designed to attain the
second aim: hazardous wastes may not be exported to
Antarctica, to a State not party to the Basel Convention, or to
a party having banned the import of hazardous wastes (article
4). Parties may, however, enter into bilateral or multilateral
agreements on hazardous waste management with other
parties or with non-parties, provided that such agreements
are “no less environmentally sound” than the Basel
Convention (article 11). In all cases where transboundary
movement is not, in principle, prohibited, it may take place
only if it represents an environmentally sound solution, if the
principles of environmentally sound management and non-
discrimination are observed and if it is carried out in
accordance with the Convention’s regulatory system.
Actions
-before an export may take place, the authorities of the State
of export notify the authorities of the prospective States of
import and transit, providing them with detailed information
on the intended movement. The movement may only proceed
if and when all States concerned have given their written
consent
-Cooperation between parties, ranging from exchange of
information on issues relevant to the implementation of the
Convention to technical assistance, particularly to developing
countries.
-In the event of a transboundary movement of hazardous
wastes having been carried out illegally, the Convention
attributes responsibility to one or more of the States involved,
and imposes the duty to ensure safe disposal
-establishment of regional or sub-regional centres for training
and technology transfers regarding the management of
hazardous wastes and other wastes and the minimization of
their generation to cater to the specific needs of different
regions and subregions
Accomplishment
-The Basel Convention celebrated its 20th anniversary in 2009
-On this occasion, it launched the Basel Waste Solutions
Circle, an initiative showcasing projects at all levels that
contribute in a concrete manner to the implementation of the
Bali Declaration.
-Over the past 20 years, the Basel Convention has had ample
occasion to adjust to new global developments and needs
with regards to waste management over the years, and has
risen to these challenges.
-The Basel Convention plays a decisive role in achieving the
Millennium Development Goals (MDGs)
The Basel Convention celebrated its 20th anniversary in 2009
– an event commemorated in November 2009 in Basel
(Switzerland). On this occasion, Kenya, Indonesia, and
Colombia, the past, present and future Presidents of the COP,
together with Switzerland as the host of the Diplomatic
Conference in 1989, launched the Basel Waste Solutions
Circle, an initiative showcasing projects at all levels that
contribute in a concrete manner to the implementation of the
Bali Declaration.
Over the past 20 years, the Basel Convention has had ample
occasion to adjust to new global developments and needs
with regards to waste management over the years, and has
risen to these challenges. With the added benefit of closer
cooperation with the Rotterdam and Stockholm conventions,
the Convention now has the potential to start considering
wastes more in a life cycle context. This will make it possible
to embrace new ways of thinking.
The Basel Convention plays a decisive role in achieving the
Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) - poverty reduction,
reducing child mortality, improving maternal health, ensure
environmental sustainability. Waste minimization
undoubtedly leads us to achieving the MDGs. In addition,
state-of-the art recycling in accordance with agreed standards
could create business opportunities and safe jobs; a higher
yield of secondary raw materials; conservation of precious
resources through extraction and re-use rather than primary
mining; and better protection of the air, soil, water and thus
human health. Realizing this potential might also lessen the
incentives for illegal recycling operations, through providing
legal, safe and economically rewarding alternatives.
(Biosphere)
Paris Summit
-The idea of creating an international movement for
protecting heritage emerged after World War I
Background
-Developed from the merging of two separate movements:
the first focusing on the preservation of cultural sites, and the
other dealing with the conservation of nature.
reminds us of the ways in which people interact with nature,
and of the fundamental need to preserve the balance
between the two.
Objective
-By regarding heritage as both cultural and natural, the
Convention reminds us of the ways in which people interact
with nature, and of the fundamental need to preserve the
balance between the two.
-sets out the duties of States Parties in identifying potential
sites and their role in protecting and preserving them
Actions
-each country pledges to conserve not only the World
Heritage sites situated on its territory, but also to protect its
national heritage.
- The States Parties are encouraged to integrate the
protection of the cultural and natural heritage into regional
planning programmes, set up staff and services at their sites,
undertake scientific and technical conservation research and
adopt measures which give this heritage a function in the day-
to-day life of the community
-It explains how the World Heritage Fund is to be used and
managed and under what conditions international financial
assistance may be provided.
-The Convention stipulates the obligation of States Parties to
report regularly to the World Heritage Committee on the
state of conservation of their World Heritage properties.
-It also encourages States Parties to strengthen the
appreciation of the public for World Heritage properties and
to enhance their protection through educational and
information programmes.
Implications
Today, the World Heritage concept is so well understood
World Heritage List brings an increase in public awareness of
the site and of its outstanding values, thus also increasing the
tourist activities at the site. When these are well planned for
and organized respecting sustainable tourism principles, they
can bring important funds to the site and to the local
economy.
Constitutional Provisions
Article 1 - National Territory
The national territory comprises the Philippine archipelago,
with all the islands and waters embraced therein, and all
other territories over which the Philippines has sovereignty or
jurisdiction, consisting of its terrestrial, fluvial and aerial
domains, including its territorial sea, the seabed, the subsoil,
the insular shelves, and other submarine areas. The waters
around, between, and connecting the islands of the
archipelago, regardless of their breadth and dimensions, form
part of the internal waters of the Philippines.
What comprises the National Territory?
1. The Philippine Archipelago with all the islands embraced
therein
2. All other territories over which the Philippines has
sovereignty or jurisdiction
1. The Philippine Archipelago with all the islands embraced
therein Archipelago
- under the UNCLOS (United Nations Convention on the Law
of the Sea), it is a group of islands, interconnecting waters and
other natural features which are so closely inter-related that
such islands, waters and natural features from an intrinsic
geographical, economic and political entity, or which
historically regarded as such.
Straight Baseline Method - allows a country with offshore
islands and/or very jagged coastlines to calculate its territorial
seas from straight lines drawn from a point on the coast to
the islands, or from island to island. One then “connects the
dots” literally, and the water behind the lines is designated
internal waters, while waters away from the line and toward
open waters are considered territorial seas
2. All other territories over which the Philippines has
sovereignty or jurisdiction
- Includes any territory that presently belongs or might in the
future belong to the Philippines through any of the accepted
international modes of acquiring territory.
Components of National Territory:
I. Terrestrial – refers to the land mass, which may be integrate
or dismembered, or partly bound by water or consists of one
whole island. It includes all the resources attached to the
land.
II. Fluvial
a. Internal waters - the waters around, between and
connecting the islands of the archipelago, regardless of their
breadth and dimensions.
b. Archipelagic waters – waters enclosed by the archipelagic
baselines, regardless of their depth or distance from the
coast.
Straight Archipelagic Baseline – determine the
archipelagic waters, the state shall draw straight baselines
connecting the outermost points of the outermost islands and
drying reef provided that within such baselines are included
the main islands and an area in which the ratio of the water to
the area of land, including atolls, is between 1:1 and 9:1. The
length of such baselines shall not exceed 100 nautical miles,
except that up to 3 per cent of the total number of baselines
enclosing any archipelago may exceed that length, up to a
maximum length of 125 nautical miles. The drawing of such
baselines shall not depart to any appreciable extent from the
general configuration of the archipelago.
c. Territorial sea - belt of the sea located between the coast
and internal waters of the coastal state on the one hand, and
the high seas on the other, extending up to 12 nautical miles
from the low water mark
d. Contiguous zone - Extends up to 12 nautical miles from the
territorial sea. Although not part of the territory, the coastal
State may exercise jurisdiction to prevent infringement of
customs, fiscal, immigration or sanitary laws.
*Principle of Innocent Passage – guarantees that all vessels,
whatever flag that they are flying, can freely cross all
territorial seas.
e. Exclusive economic zone - Body of water extending up to
200 nautical miles, within which the state may exercise
sovereign rights to explore, exploit, conserve and manage the
natural resources.
f. Continental shelf – the seabed and subsoil of the submarine
areas extending beyond the Philippine territorial sea.
g. High seas – res communes; not territory of any particular
State. They are beyond the jurisdiction and sovereign rights of
the State.
*h. The seabed - sea floor, refers to the land that holds the
sea, lying beyond the sea shore including mineral and natural
resources
*I. The subsoil - everything beneath the surface of the land
and the seabed, including mineral and natural resources
J. Insular shelves - parts of an island that remain under water
K. Other submarine areas - all areas under territorial sea
III. Aerial – Rules governing the high seas also apply to outer
space, which is considered as res communes.
CASE Merlin Magallona v Sec Eduardo Ermita
In March 2009, Republic Act 9522, an act defining the
archipelagic baselines of the Philippines was enacted – the
law is also known as the Baselines Law. This law was meant to
comply with the terms of the third United Nations Convention
on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS III), ratified by the Philippines
in February 1984.
Professor Merlin Magallona et al questioned the validity of RA
9522 as they contend, among others, that the law decreased
the national territory of the Philippines hence the law is
unconstitutional. Some of their particular arguments are as
follows:
a. the law abandoned the demarcation set by the Treaty of
Paris and other ancillary treaties – this also resulted to the
exclusion of our claim over Sabah;
b. the law, as well as UNCLOS itself, describes the Philippine
waters as “archipelagic” waters which, in international law,
opens our waters landward of the baselines to maritime
passage by all vessels (innocent passage) and aircrafts
(overflight), undermining Philippine sovereignty and national
security, contravening the country’s nuclear-free policy, and
damaging marine resources, in violation of relevant
constitutional provisions;
c. the classification of the Kalayaan Island Group (KIG), as well
as the Scarborough Shoal (bajo de masinloc), as a “regime of
islands” pursuant to UNCLOS results in the loss of a large
maritime area but also prejudices the livelihood of
subsistence fishermen.
ISSUE: Whether or not the contentions of Magallona et al are
tenable.
HELD: No. The Supreme Court emphasized that RA 9522, or
UNCLOS, itself is not a means to acquire, or lose, territory. The
treaty and the baseline law has nothing to do with the
acquisition, enlargement, or diminution of the Philippine
territory. What controls when it comes to acquisition or loss
of territory is the international law principle on occupation,
accretion, cession and prescription and NOT the execution of
multilateral treaties on the regulations of sea-use rights or
enacting statutes to comply with the treaty’s terms to delimit
maritime zones and continental shelves.
The law did not decrease the demarcation of our territory. In
fact it increased it. Under the old law amended by RA 9522
(RA 3046), we adhered with the rectangular lines enclosing
the Philippines. The area that it covered was 440,994 square
nautical miles (sq. na. mi.). But under 9522, and with the
inclusion of the exclusive economic zone, the extent of our
maritime was increased to 586,210 sq. na. mi. (See image
below for comparison)
If any, the baselines law is a notice to the international
community of the scope of the maritime space and submarine
areas within which States parties exercise treaty-based rights.
Anent their particular contentions:
a. The law did not abandon the Sabah claim. This is evident on
the provision of Section 2 of RA 9522:
Section 2. The definition of the baselines of the territorial sea
of the Philippine Archipelago as provided in this Act is without
prejudice to the delineation of the baselines of the territorial
sea around the territory of Sabah, situated in North Borneo,
over which the Republic of the Philippines has acquired
dominion and sovereignty.

b. UNCLOS may term our waters as “archipelagic waters” and
that we may term it as our “internal waters”, but the bottom
line is that our country exercises sovereignty over these
waters and UNCLOS itself recognizes that. However, due to
our observance of international law, we allow the exercise of
others of their right of innocent passage. No modern State
can validly invoke its sovereignty to absolutely forbid innocent
passage that is exercised in accordance with customary
international law without risking retaliatory measures from
the international community.
c. The classification of the KIG (or the Spratly’s), as well as the
Scarborough Shoal, as a regime of islands did not diminish our
maritime area. Under UNCLOS and under the baselines law,
since they are regimes of islands, they generate their own
maritime zones – in short, they are not to be enclosed within
the baselines of the main archipelago (which is the Philippine
Island group). This is because if we do that, then we will be
enclosing a larger area which would already depart from the
provisions of UNCLOS – that the demarcation should follow
the natural contour of the archipelago.
Nevertheless, we still continue to lay claim over the KIG and
the Scarborough Shoal through effective occupation.
NOTES:
Under UNCLOS and the baselines law, we have three levels of
maritime zones where we exercise treaty-based rights:
controversy involving government infrastructure project. The
trial court was of the view that PD 1818 is not applicable in
the present case due to the health risks involved.
ISSUE: Should PD 1818 be applied?
RULING: No. The prohibition of any court from issuing
injunctions in cases involving infrastructure projects extends
only to the issuance of injunctions or restraining orders
against administrative acts in controversies involving facts or
the exercise of discretion in technical cases. On issues clearly
outside this dimension and involving questions of law, courts
could not be prevented from exercising their power to
restrain or prohibit administrative acts. In the case at bar,
petitioners sought issuance of preliminary injunction on the
ground that NAPOCOR impinged on their right to health as
enshrined in Art. II, Sec. 15 of the Constitution. (Also, the case
of Laguna Lake devt authority v. CA, states that the right to
health is a fundamental human right) Respondent also failed
to conduct a prior consultation with petitioners, as the
affected community, a requirement embodied in Sec. 27 of
the Local Government Code. These questions of law thus
divest the case from the protective mantle of PD 1818. In the
present case, the far-reaching irreversible effects to human
safety should be the primordial concerns over presumed
economic benefits as alleged by the NAPOCOR. For what use
will modernization serve if it proves to be a scourge on an
individual’s fundamental right, not just to health and safety,
but, ostensibly, to life preservation itself, in all of its desired
quality

a. territorial waters – 12 nautical miles from the baselines;

where we exercise sovereignty

b. contiguous zone – 24 nautical miles from the baselines;

jurisdiction where we can enforce customs, fiscal,
immigration, and sanitation laws (CFIS).

c. exclusive economic zone – 200 nautical miles from the

baselines; where we have the right to exploit the living and
non-living resources in the exclusive economic zone

Note: a fourth zone may be added which is the continental

shelf – this is covered by Article 77 of the UNCLOS.

Article 2, Section 15 - Right to health

- The State shall protect and promote the right to health of
the people and instill health consciousness among them.

CASE Eduardo Hernandez, et al. vs. NAPOCOR

FACTS:
NAPOCOR began the construction of steel towers to support
overhead high tension cables in connection with its 230
kilovolt Sucat-Araneta-Balintawak Power Transmission
Project, which passes through petitioners’ homes. This
alarmed the petitioners for their research
showed that said steel towers could expose them to
electromagnetic fields, which could cause illnesses like cancer
or leukemia. When negotiations between the parties failed,
petitioners filed a complaint for damages and TRO or writ of
preliminary injunction against NAPOCOR, but the latter
sought for dismissal for lack of jurisdiction, citing PD 1818,
which provides that no court in the Philippines shall have
jurisdiction to issue any restraining order or injunction in any
case, dispute, or