Posted on

Education for Sustainability by Rev. Brother Armin Luistro

Magandang hapon po sa inyong lahat. It gives me much pleasure to join you this afternoon but first a correction, I am not a presidentiable, so don’t ask me difficult questions.

It is a privilege to join you this afternoon, especially in the presence of Chief Justice, the greenest of them all, sturdy, Reynato Puno. He will share with us the most important jurisprudence that will keep you out of jail so I hope my message will keep you inspired all the way to whatever keeps you passionate.

Upon the invitation of one of my greatest idols, Nina Galang, who has been a real advocate of the environment many years ago when it was not yet a part of the lingo of many men and women, when no one yet was talking about it seriously. Thank you, Nina, for leading us through those very difficult years.

I enjoy joining you because first of all I come from a green school and I love the color green. But one of the advocacies that I share with you, coming from the education sector, is actually an advocacy that I have no choice but to actually support. So I was asking myself, why am I addressing you this afternoon coming from the education sector? The real answer is that there is no education unless we start with an education for sustainable living in an environment that nurtures our young people. I cannot think of any presidential platform or program that is not embedded and standing on an environmental program. After all whatever economic benefits we aspire to give our people, today and in the future, we’ll have to survive in an environment that allows us to be sustainable here and through the next generations of Filipinos.

Thank you for inviting me here also because I know that in this hall many of you are very familiar. Several of you have partnered with DepEd on many small and big programs. However, when I look at the profile of those who are here today and those who attended in the last 3 days, I realized that some of the most committed and passionate Filipinos are here. People who have given themselves, their whole being to an advocacy that maybe at one time or another has not been fully understood by our own people, has been dismissed, set aside, or thrown under the rug.

When I look at you and the panel of speakers who have graced this hall, I realized the most committed Filipinos are actually here with sheer passion, a lot of heart but with so much hope in a land that carries maybe some of the most beautiful scenes and

ecosystems in the whole world. You are the face and the heart of environmental sustainability in the Philippines. Many of you have been doing this for years, not without scars and many times, despite the bureaucracy in the government. So thank you very much for leading the way.

I was going to say that all the presidential candidates were invited for one reason or another. You may be disappointed that they are not here, but from another angle, you can look at it this way, why ask the person on top to lead? You have shown us that a real advocacy can start from the bottom and that there is real strength in the advocacy towards sustainable environment and a sustainable Philippines. Don’t look elsewhere; don’t even look at the President of the Republic of the Philippines. You have been the leaders all throughout these years. Hang on and claim that leadership.

But I have a concern and maybe a challenge for these many groups, if you look also at the landscape of environmental advocacy in the Philippines, there are many small groups and many countless advocacies all related to the environment. Each one of you is connected with at least one and some of you struggling in several, which are part of the light and the shadow of environmental advocacy in the Philippines. Many good hearted souls, many small initiatives, the question is will we be able to sustain it? If you ask me, one of the biggest challenges is what you are actually facing today. I was asking myself, why is this the first Philippine Summit on the environment? Shouldn’t we have done this many decades ago?

One of the challenges, at least from my perspective of environmental advocacy in the Philippines is to be able to connect every single one of those initiatives and to bring together good, kind-hearted, passionate advocates of the environment towards one green convergence. Sometimes Filipinos are good in starting initiatives. We run out of steam, ala ningas kugon, because we are unable to connect and secondly, like real Filipinos we are unable to agree on a common platform, a common synergy that will bring us together.

One of my hopes is that this first summit will bear fruit in a real green convergence where we don’t always have to agree with everything but if we identify the top priorities where each one of us will have a niche or a share to contribute then maybe our advocacies will be a little more sustainable.

I have not had the chance to review the recommendations that will be presented to you towards the end of this summit. One of my ulterior motives is to be able to push for a secretariat or at least a clearing house where people like me or ordinary Filipinos can access so that we could be in touch with your networks and make it easy for us to connect an advocacy that is closest to us. Sometimes when we meet, people would wish to support an advocacy. It is difficult to look for a common clearing house where I could go through a menu list of things and events I can support. From the point of view of DepEd, it will be one marvelous gift that you could give to the nation if you could give such a portal, hopefully, if not at least a physical secretariat with people who can actually connect us with programs that we could pursue together with all of you.

I come here this afternoon to also propose, since it is close to Valentine, a special love affair between you and your advocacy and DepEd. The bureaucracy of DepEd has 46,000 schools. Name me one barangay in the Philippines where there is no public school.

Do you want to source a native tree that you can only find in the Mountain Province or Benguet? You don’t know anyone in that place. If you connect with DepEd, I can tell you one principal or teacher who knows how to source a rare endangered native tree. Do you want to do trekking along the coast lines most visited by typhoons? And maybe you don’t know anyone in that area. I can give you a school. You have to sleep in a classroom setting, bring in your own tent, and maybe toilet paper, but our schools are welcoming sanctuaries where you and your advocacies will always find a warm home. But more than just an infrastructure, if you map the 46,000 schools in the Philippines, every single one of the issues, concerns, anxieties related to the environment are actually experienced, day in or day out, by our students and teachers. Volcanic eruption, forest fires, flooding, tsunami, name it we have it in our log book. If you wish to connect with real people who know the environment, you know that you have a friend and a contact in DepEd.

But DepEd, being the biggest bureaucracy like this summit, is also much challenged by the same light and shadow of the volume that we have. For example, many years ago, every school in the department is supposed to have a “Gulayan sa Paaralan” project. I actually go in my surprise visits to public schools, to the so called, Gulayan sa Paaralan. I go during school days and I go during summer days, I go during days when the principal is there, and during Fridays when they are out of the school and I realized that a program like Gulayan sa Paaralan started as a very good initiative. The question is the same question you are facing today, how do I sustain it?

Why is it that some schools, even in urban centers, are able to push to continue even during the dry summer months and have crops that yield harvest from their Gulayan sa Paaralan initiative? Why is it that there is a school somewhere in Iloilo, where the Gulayan sa Paaralan initiative, which is a small little garden in the back of the school, has become the actual vegetable garden of the whole barangay? So much so that even on weekends, the mothers and surprisingly even the fathers, come to school not to pick up their children but to actually pick leaves and harvest crops from the school.

Part of what we need to do is to put together and assess, maybe monitor, these small initiatives, not only from DepEd but from even all the NGOs gathered here and put together in a book the big question of sustainability. I’ve been telling our principals, if I give you a seed money of Php10,000 this year, can you assure me that Gulayan sa Paaralan becomes an income generating project so that at the end of the school year, you will have enough and will not ask for a second tranche to support your next gulayan?

I realized that part of the target is that we have been teaching our students and our schools to do the planting but we have not successfully connected them with the community outside and made that deep connection between the hard work of planting and the income generation that is a requirement of any sustainable project. If we keep our environmental advocacy confined to one small setting and not connected with the bigger world outside as in the lessons of an ecosystem, nothing will really work. It will be a good initiative, but it will never ever survive.

The good thing with the department is that we are the favorite target for any societal problem. You see a student using a Philippine map to mop the floor, and what news do you get from the television and radio anchors, “Tell DepEd to put in their curriculum, respect for the flag.” To any societal problem, the knee-jerk response is to put in the

curriculum.

That is well and good but I have learned a lesson from the ecosystem that once you confine those lessons to a small limited parochial setting and you do not provide a bigger environment where they can be moved from a nursery into the real world where there is no support system, nothing is really sustainable much like NGO initiatives. We need, and the biggest challenge for us is to connect and to come together and to tell graduates of schools after we train them in the values that will sustain the environment.

Now move from school to a corporate setting. Is there a framework? Is there a sustainable environment in the corporate setting where those values taught in school can be practiced, and from the corporation, into the bigger world of the local community?

One of my dreams is that if I have 46,000 schools and Ime Sarmiento gives me a list of the 3,600 native trees, I will be able to map for every school the native trees that I want our students to collect and to grow in a nursery and if I can connect with the secretariat of this green convergence, then I will put that in a website where any single one of the 3,600 native trees can be sourced from at least one of our 46,000 public schools. Now I was thinking, I can only do that and make it sustainable if people who wish to plant native trees will also be willing to pay the students who will do the seedlings and grow them.

After my 140 days in DepEd, I wish I could join you in your many advocacies. I wish part of what we could do together is to actually connect with the many programs that a bureaucracy like the DepEd can actually do.

Our teachers are great men and women but only very few are known. Most of them only land in the national news as “nagtitinda ng longganisa” or “nangungutang ng 5/6” but I don’t know if you have heard teacher William Moraca. I don’t know if you have ever been to Barrio San Jose, General Santos. You’d have to walk around 8 hours to go to Klolang Elementary School.

Klolang means freedom. They use it as their peg to say that Klolang Elementary School is free from water and free from electricity because they have no water and they have no electricity.

We assigned teacher William to the school. He was a frustrated engineer. Aside from teaching students in a classroom, he researched and researched after school hours on how he can bring power and water to the school. He developed a wind power generator and brought the first powered lamp to the school. Since he was generating more power than the school needed, he connected the houses of the sitio around the school; but he was not happy with that. After, he did more research and started a magnetic-field-run water system, pumping water into the school. Since he had more water than the school needed, all the houses around the school area started to draw water from the school community. That little initiative started many other advocacies.

From planting to an ecotourism program that has now become an income generating program for the school. I’d love to get you to walk 8 hours to visit Klolang Elementary School and see wonder teacher William, who now has been promoted as principal and is threatened to be transferred to a bigger school. Thankfully he refused. The

real story is the barangay wrote me a long letter saying that their hero should not be removed from the school because he is the only one, not even government, who brought water and electricity to their Klolang Sitio.

Dear friends, I share with you this wonderful story because I am so sure that many of you, in the little initiatives that you have started, have also a thousand stories to tell. We need those good stories to share with everyone else and as we end our green convergence tonight, know that you have a department that will continue to work with you and walk with you in the days to come. We are offering our hand in marriage, to you and your network. Do contact us. We’ll be happy without a dowry to join you in our search for a better Philippines.

Maraming salamat po.

Posted on

Writ of Kalikasan

Magandang hapon po sa inyong lahat. Well first, let me say I am happy to see again my friend, Secretary Luistro. Pagkatapos kong makinig doon sa sinabi niya ako ay naniniwala na higit na mabuti kaysa tuwid na daan ang berdeng daan.

For a start I will give the background on how we gave birth to the rules and procedures for environmental cases. We promulgated these rules way back in April 2010. It is now 2016; it’s about time that the high court gives these rules the usual sunset review.

After 6 years, we have logged enough number of cases which will give us the appropriate window in order to find out the vulnerabilities of these rules and procedures for environmental cases. I was saying and suggesting that at the end of this conference that one of the resolutions should be to urge the Supreme Court, Congress, and the Executive Department to give these rules a look over in order to strengthen the procedure on how we can protect our environment.

It was not easy to promulgate these rules and procedures for environmental cases. The Writ of Kalikasan is just part of these rules and procedures. When I assumed Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, I looked at the powers given the high court under the 1987 Constitution. Under this constitution, the courts were given expanded powers. The commissioners of our constitution rebalanced the powers of government and it has certainly tilted the powers in favor of the Supreme Court. That is the reason why in the 1987 Constitution, judicial power was expanded. That is why you have the ground of grave abuse of discretion which the high court can use to review every case and action from the different branches of government. But similarly, because its rule-making powers were expanded under the 1987 Constitution, the decision making power of the Supreme Court were expanded under its rule making powers.

It is only the Supreme Court that can promulgate the rules and procedures on how to litigate cases. And you have these in the Rules of Court. To litigate a civil case, the rules are promulgated by the high court. To litigate a criminal case, all the rules are in the Rules of Court promulgated by the Supreme Court.

I looked at the number of environmental laws that were coming from the legislative mills. There are green laws and blue laws. On top of that, environmental concerns were being put on the table in various international conferences. We were signatories to different regional agreements, international treaties concerning the protection of the environment. The emerging importance of environmental issues was obvious. In fact some experts say that if there is another world war, it is not a world war about oil but a fight about water resources. So I thought that given the emerging importance of environmental issues, the Supreme Court should be able to promulgate special rules on how to promulgate environmental cases. The objective is to see to it that these environmental cases are litigated by simple rules so that these cases can be decided by the high court with greater speed.

I thought that if we just use ordinary rules to try violations of environmental laws,

these cases would just have the fate as the Mona Lisa cases. They just lie there and they die there. But it was not easy to convince my colleagues to use the law, much more produce this Writ of Kalikasan.

Some were doubtful whether our action would be in accord with the constitution. Normally these remedies should come from congress because this is a matter of law- making. And some of the justices were fearful. If we overstep the limits of power, we could be the subject of impeachment; but we decided to take the risk. The legislature was not doing anything to protect our environment and I thought that the new constitution gave the high court the power to promulgate the rules to enhance human rights and part of our human rights is the right to a healthy environment.

We all resolved to use that power for the first time in the whole history of our judicial system and that mothered the rules and procedures for environmental cases and part of these rules gave our people the right to use the Writ of Kalikasan.

When we promulgated these rules, they created a lot of anxieties to the different sectors of our society. Any attempt to strike a balance between the demands of economic progress and demands to protect the environment will always be contentious. But I wish to allay the apprehension that the point of the balance was unduly tilted by the new rules against the need to fast track the economy of the country. The heart of the new rules lies in the principles of sustainable development which assures that economic development will never be sacrificed as a value.

Let me inform you about the approach taken by the Supreme Court in promulgating these new rules. We adopted the rights-based approach in our rules of procedure to govern environmental cases. In layman’s language, we treated the balance to a right and sound environment as a constitutional right akin to our right to civil and political rights.

We took the cue from the landmark decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Oposa vs Factoran written by former Chief Justice Davide who held that a balance and heathful ecology is not less important than our civil and political rights for they are not concerned with anything less than our self-preservation and self-perpetuation. After laying down that important predicate, a correlated duty to protect the environment could be demanded from each and every individual.

Treating the right to a sound and balance environment on the same plane as our civil and political rights means that it can be demanded from the government. Not only can it be demanded from the state but the degree of protection should be higher.

We have a variety of rights under our constitution and under our law. But their importance varies from one class to another. For instance, you have the socio-economic rights which include the right to education, health, shelter, and so forth. But in a large sense, these rights are deemed of lesser importance than our civil and political rights. Our civil and political rights can be compelled from the state and they are considered as inevitable.

In contrast, our socio-economic rights cannot be demanded from the state. Thus, an informal settler cannot march to congress that he be given a house because he has a socio-economic right to shelter. These rights are spelled out in our constitution but are just

mere aspirations, mere directions, not command because the state does not have the resources to uphold them.

The new rules of the environment should be understood in this light. In light of the consideration that the right to a healthy environment has now been elevated, has been treated to the belonging of civil and political rights, our highest class of rights.

The highlights of these rules are: (1) First, is the wrong apprehension that the rules standing on who can file cases or violation of our environmental laws has been lowered too much. Some say that he can sue even though he does not have injury to himself. This is incorrect. The rules may have liberalized the rule on standing but this is consistent with the concept of the right to a sound environment as a right that is communal rather than individual in character. The right to breathe clean air is the right of the people to a common that is clean air. The right to go to court belongs to much more. It cannot be treated nor restricted to an individual who has suffered from a personal injury. That is the reason why we liberalized the rule on standing by allowing this so called citizens suit in representation of other citizens.

It is not the Supreme Court that started allowing the practice of letting citizens sue. Even the Congress recognized the right of citizens to file suit when it enacted the Clean Air Act of 1999 and the Ecological Solid Waste Management of 2000. Also allowing a citizen suit to be filed even on behalf of minors and generations yet to be born is in our state books. It proceeds from the concept that we are stewards of our environment and this stewardship includes the duty to preserve our environment in behalf of our minors and future generations. Minors can file a suit. That is an unusual suit but we adapted that rule in our new rules on environmental laws.

While the High Court liberalized the rule on standing in citizen suit, it also saw to it that the privilege will not be abused. Thus, the Supreme Court required that if cases are filed in suits by NGOs, they should produce some proof of their judicial personality– proof of their accreditation, recognition or registration. The Supreme Court was not blind to the fact that some unscrupulous people organize themselves as NGOs and people’s organization when their real membership is small and negligible or when they are organized only to harass government officials.

(2) Secondly, let me address the fear that there may be an irresponsible rush on the issuance of temporary environmental protection order. These are the equivalent of TROs in courts. Environmental protection order is an order issued by the court directing or enjoining any person or government agency to perform or to desist performing an act to protect or rehabilitate the environment. I stress that there is hardly anything new in any environmental protection order. Since time immemorial, courts enjoy the power to issue temporary restraining orders or preliminary injunctions on great or irreparable injury to the legal rights of a party. This power is not only exercised by the courts in the Philippines but also courts in other countries as well.

(3) Let me address one more area of concern and this is the adoption and application of the precautionary principle. If you will remember, the high court in its last decision used this Precautionary Principle to decide the case involving genetic eggplant. What is this concept of Precautionary Principle which is at the heart of these new rules and procedures? The Precautionary Principle states that when human activities may lead

to threats of serious and irreversible damage to the environment that is scientifically plausible but uncertain, actions should be taken to avoid or diminish that threat.

Our rules on evidence tells us how this important principle is to be applied and this is the rule: when there is lack 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 and our rules set some factor to consider before they can apply this principle. The court should include and consider: (1) the threats to human life or health, (2) the inequity to present and future generations, (3) prejudice to the environment without legal consideration of the environmental rights of those affected.

Ganoon kahalaga itong Precautionary Principle. The courts can apply this even if there is a lack of full scientific certainty in establishing a causal link between the human activity and its environmental effect. Hindi po kailangan yung conclusive scientific proof. Ang kinakailangan lang ay ipakita ang epekto sa environment is plausible even if not yet scientifically certain. Ganoon kahalaga iyon. Kaya iyon ang ginamit ng ating Korte Suprema sa eggplant case.

There are certain sectors which question the constitutionality of the Precautionary Principle. But these principles are found in treaties. For instance, the Rio Declaration of 1992 provides: in order to protect the environment, it shall be widely applied by the states. And this Precautionary Principle has been applied by courts and regulatory agencies in the United States, Canada, Australia and Europe. In other words, the shape and the contours of this Precautionary Principle are clear. There is nothing ambiguous and nothing to fear about this uncertainty.

For instance, the Supreme Court of Minnesota has ruled that it could apply standards under its Clean Water Act that assume asbestos in drinking water was harmful even though they did not have scientific evidence to demonstrate it.

True to tell there are several versions of the Precautionary Principle. Our rules even adopted the weaker version and not the strong version of the Precautionary Principle. In its strongest form, the Precautionary Principle imposes a burden of proof on those who create potential risk and it requires regulation of activities even if it cannot be shown that those activities are likely to create significant harm. In our rules, we did not shift the burden of proof. As I said we chose to adopt the weaker version of the Precautionary Principle.

Using the layman’s language, the Precautionary Principle expresses the old virtue of prudence. It embraces the folk wisdom of “better safe than sorry”; the folk wisdom that says “look before you leap”; the folk wisdom that says “a stitch in time saves nine”. And it is contrary to the wait-and-see approach. In other words, we adopted this Precautionary Principle as a consequence of elevating our right to a sound environment to the category of civil and political rights.

In cases involving civil and political rights, all cases of doubt are resolved in favor of civil and political rights. The same is true for environmental cases. In cases of doubt, you resolve the right in favor of the right of the people to sound and healthy environment, even without scientific evidence. As long as the threats are plausible to the environment, the courts can use this Precautionary Principle in order to issue the environmental writ to

protect our environment– the Writ of Kalikasan, the temporary environmental protection orders, the writ of continuing mandamus– lahat po ‘yan pu-puwedeng i-issue ng courts kahit yung scientific evidence is not yet that conclusive about the harm to our environment.

Totoo po kung mayroong mga threats sa ating right to a sound and healthy environment, puwede nang mag-issue ang mga courts ng iba’t ibang imperial writ na ito.

I am proud to say, the Writ of Kalikasan is the first of its kind in the world. Noon pong nilabas natin itong Writ of Kalikasan doon sa mga international conferences, ay kasama ito sa mga pinag-uusapan at tinatanong nila palagi, “Paano ninyo ginawa itong Writ of Kalikasan?” Lalong-lalo na “Paano ito nanggaling sa inyong Supreme Court?” Dahil gusto rin nilang kopyahin. Ang sagot ko sa kanila, “Hindi ninyo maaaring gawin ‘yan bilang Korte Suprema dahil ‘yang power na iyan ay matatagpuan lang sa aming konstitusyon. Hindi binigay sa inyo ‘yang karapatan na ‘yan. Wala ang karapatan na ‘yan sa ibang Korte Suprema sa iba’t ibang panig ng mundo.” Kaya tayo lang ang may remedial writ na nanggaling sa kataas-taasang hukuman. Nakatutuwa rin sabihin na case book on environmental laws na ginagamit halimbawa sa Estados Unidos. Ginagamit sa Harvard, sa Yale, at sa iba pang universities doon. Kasama nitong Writ of Kalikasan ay ang pinag- aaralang kasong i-finile ni Oposa, yung Oposa versus Factoran. Kaya pagdating sa environmental laws and protection ay medyo advance ang steps natin, advance even in our jurisprudence yung decision coming from the high court.

Ngunit ang sabi ko kanina, ito pong rules na ito ay ginawa noong 2010, huling taon ko na bilang punong mahistrado. Ako ay nag-form ng special committee for these purpose to promulgate our writ. I formed a special subcommittee. As it was my duty, I presided in all its meeting just to be sure we all have the writ. At pinili ko yung mga magiging miyembro noon. Dalawa o tatlong pinakamagagaling na mahistrado na bihasa sa procedural laws. Kinuha ko ding miyembro si Attorney Sering. Siya po noon ay naging Undersecretary at the Department of Natural Resources and Chief of its Legal Department, at naging miyembro ng Climate Change Commission. Siya ang naging Vice-chair dahil ang kanyang Chairman ay si Presidente. Kinuha ko ding miyembro, representing the NGOs, si Asis Perez na ngayon ay Director of Fisheries. Kinuha ko ring mga miyembro yung mga pinakamagagaling nating judges sa regional trial courts. Lahat ‘yan mga na-promote na dahil magagaling sila talaga.

But that was the year 2010. After, dapat talaga ma-review ang ritual procedure and rules na ‘yan, para makita kung saan pwedeng ma-improve or alisin yung rules na hindi dapat.

After six years, maraming kaso na nadesisyonan ng ating husgado, from the lower courts to the Supreme Court. At magagamit natin ‘tong mga kaso na ito para mas lalong pagtibayin itong Writ of Kalikasan para ma-continue. Kaya sabi ko nga, mayroon tayong portion na we could suggest resolutions and I urge that part of the resolutions of the conference should be resolutions urging the Supreme Court and even Congress to review these rules of procedure. They are no longer new rules they are old rules because they are six years old and hopefully the high court and congress can work together so we’ll have better and stronger rules of procedure in order to preserve the integrity of our environment.

Thank you very much.

Posted on

State of the Philippine Environment – Hon. Ramon J.P. Paje

Good morning! This is still the most important conference of the week because we are talking about our own future – Mother Earth.

Conferences like this are important. This can be a venue for the DENR Secretary to account for what he has done or has not done. What government has implemented or has not implemented. Everybody would be able to participate. That is why I will propose to institutionalize this, and make this yearly. As I said yesterday, environment is one of the concerns that require the participation of everyone. Environmental protection is not the monopoly of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources. It is the responsibility of all the citizens of this country. So on that note, I will give you the true state of the environment of the Republic of the Philippines.

What we will report will be no frills. It will simply deal with facts and figures. Verifiable. We have summarized the state of the environment of this Republic from 2010 to present – where we were, what have we done, where are we now. No frills, only facts and figures.

Let me begin by stating to you the mandate of the Department. As summarized in the Philippine Medium Term Development Plan, our department has three (3) major concerns:

1. Protecting and preserving the natural wealth of our country
2. Improving the quality of our environment
3. Enhancing the resiliency of communities. This is what this administration added because of the disasters we experience every year.

These mandates are achieved through various programs which we implemented from 2010-2016: Forest Protection / Total Logging Ban, the National Greening Program, Protected Areas and Biodiversity Management, Clean Air Clean Water and Solid Waste Management Programs, Cadastral Survey and Land Management, Mining Regulation, Geo-hazard Assessment and Mapping, Ecosystem Research and Good Governance.

So, where were we? Where are we now? As I’ve said, we will deal only with facts
and figures.

 
Forest Protection and Total Logging Ban

Data was there even before 1960s when the department was still called Ministry of Natural Resources. In 1976, we were cutting close to 3.6 million trees every year. It was the boom of export of timber. We were exporting to Japan, USA, Korea, and Singapore. Other parts of the world were benefitting from the natural wealth of our country.

We averaged the total number of trees cut from natural forests from 1960 – 2010. We were cutting 1,748,682 million trees/year. That means this country has been decimating 1.7 million trees /year. That is why we now have an almost decimated natural forest with around 7-8 million remaining out of almost 28 million hectares during the Spanish period. We are trying to increase this through the National Greening Program.

When we declared total log ban in 2011, the average number of trees cut from the natural forests went down to 1,896 trees. Most of these are for transmission lines. When transmission lines pass through forests we have to cut the trees. At present, I’m still approving it because it is needed in order to provide electricity. However, we have been discussing this issue with those in the national grid, and hopefully they will agree with me. This is still being discussed. We will allow them to cut the footprint and trim the tree. Worse scenario, we will allow them to cut what we call in technical term the “sagging” – the sagging part of the tree. Using that agreement we will be saving millions of trees in the future.

 

We are saving about 1,595,826 million trees per year, simply because of one policy
– the total log ban policy. This is the benefit that the future generations will enjoy. Our children and their children will enjoy the benefits of this policy except if the new administration changes this and will allow logging again.

I talked to Cardinal Rosales yesterday, to ask the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines (CBCP) to help us ask Congress to pass a law on this because as of now, it is still an Executive Order, simply a Presidential Order. What we want is that it becomes a law enshrined in the Philippine Constitution so that it becomes final. Hopefully, with your help and Cardinal Rosales’ promise, we will get it in the next Congress.

What stopped logging was simply one order. After President Aquino issued Executive Order # 23, I, together with Jesse Robredo and with others, signed this order. If we do not have bulldozers, tractors, chain saws, there will be no massive tree cutting. Currently there is still carabao logging. But imagine how many trees can a bulldozer harvest in a day? Hundreds of thousands in a day compared to one carabao that can remove 2-3 trees a day. When 2-3 trees are removed from a million of trees in a forest, the forest can regenerate. However, if 1.7 million are removed, even if the forest has the capacity to regenerate, the forest cannot cope. That is why the forest is over stressed. It is decimated. But two, or three, or even a hundred? The forest can regenerate.

This is the most effective order. Logging equipment in the forest is automatically confiscated in favor of the state. A 6×6 truck worth Php2 M with almost 200,000 logs can be confiscated and becomes the property of the state. As of now, we have confiscated

 
more than 400 trucks. We gave them out to the local government, Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) and to the Technical Education and Skills Development Authority (TESDA) for its automotive course. We have confiscated more than 400 trucks; however, this resolution is not easy to implement. We have also lost our men. A lot of our employees died because of this program.

When we took over in 2010, 197 illegal logging hotspots were identified. As of April 2015, we had reduced the number of hotspots to 23, or only 12 percent of the 2010 level. We aim to reduce the remaining 23 hotspots to zero in the next few months.

The question is, why can’t we stop it? Why do we still have 23? The entire countries in Asean except maybe for Singapore, also experience illegal logging due to poverty.

These are cases in Caraga – Agusan and Surigao areas. They are poverty related incidences. In these areas, the indigenous people (IP) believe that they own the forests. And, therefore, they can harvest at will. In fact, the IPRA (Indigenous Peoples’ Rights Act) law says, that if the IP harvests, it should be allowed. It is in the law. That is a way of respecting the rights and culture of the indigenous people. But the problem somehow in this place, is that it is no longer harvested for their use. It is harvested for the lumber dealers’ use. That is why we also confiscate it. In these areas, it is so easy to do illegal logging. They bring the logs to Agusan River, which is so wide. After an hour, the logs are in the mouth of Butuan Bay. Until we solve the poverty issue in the uplands, unless we attain inclusive growth development, it will be very difficult to solve this problem because it is poverty related.

 
The upland farmers are considered the poorest of the poor. A lot of the members of the upland farmer’s associations are also beneficiaries of the Conditional Cash Transfer program of the Department of Social Welfare and Development.

Bantay Gubat was a program we started; but it failed. In 2011, we successfully put a budget of Php300M in the Appropriations Act of 2012. It was to be used to transform the Red Army – the 5,400 or so members of the National People’s Army (NPA)- into a Green Army. They were to be converted into forest guards. Unfortunately, the negotiations in Oslo did not succeed. Our plans did not materialize. It would have been an effective program. We would compensate them. They do not have to lay down their arms. They will no longer fight government but will fight illegal loggers instead. However, the negotiations failed miserably. We were not able to use the money as salary. At present, we have our own Bantay Gubat.

The beautiful verdant forests in Sierra Madre and Palawan are because of the Bantay Gubat program. By the way, there will be no coal-fired power plant in Palawan during my term. I join Secretary Naide Monsada to inform you that there will be none. At the very least, I promise that I will not sign any Environmental Compliance Certificate (ECC) for a coal-fired power plant in Palawan.

National Greening Program

The objective of the National Greening Program (NGP) is to plant 1.5 billion seedlings in 1.5 million hectares of land for a period of six years, from 2011- 2016. Are we succeeding? Or are we failing? The answer is yes and no. I personally conceptualized this program. I thought I’d do it because at that time I thought this country could produce 1 million seedlings per day. Unfortunately, we are only going to realize that starting this year. We have a mechanized nursery that is just being put up. This facility can produce

 
that many. Unfortunately they were not available in 2012-2013. We instead used fewer seedlings in planting a hectare rationalized by the required spacing. If a spacing of 2m x 3m is used to plant in a forest, 2,500 seedlings are used per hectare. If the spacing is 3m x 3m, the seedlings become 1,111. For 4m x 5m, it becomes 500. A spacing of 10m x 10m, needs 100 seedlings. The spacing is dictated by the species. Mango, for example cannot be planted side by side. The spacing is 10m x 10m, so only a hundred seedlings are needed. Mahogany needs 2m x 3m, so 2,500 seedlings are used, sometimes 3m x 3m, using 1,111 seedlings. So, we averaged the needed seedlings in a hectare. The average we are using is 1,000 seedlings per hectare.

This is a small plantation, less than 50 hectares of land. The photo on the left is the picture before reforestation. The one on the right was taken just recently. This area on the left side is almost zero value. The photo on the right can be valued for Php 200,000/ha especially if it is planted with cacao and coffee plantations.

I made this statement in the Cabinet that is why we have this program. My position during that time in 2011 was, we have 8M hectares of open, denuded land. In Malaysia, coffee, cacao, and timber will generate Php300,000 per hectare. If fact, some can generate Php500,000/ha. In the Philippines, the grassland will generate nothing – zero!

If the 8M hectares of denuded and degraded land are made productive, with crops amounting to Php100,000/hectare, coffee is around Php175,000, Php800B will be raised. Php100,000 multiplied by 8M, is Php800B. That means this country is losing Php800B because we are not using our land properly! In economics, land is the number one capital. In the Philippines, we are just wasting it. Go to Japan, there is no land that is not used. Go to Malaysia, they have plantations. In the Philippines, we have grasslands. Sad! But this program can change it. Imagine, Php800B a year! If that opportunity is given to the upland farmers, all the upland farmers will become millionaires, simply by making the land productive.

 

From 1960- 2010, the government hardly planted anything. It was only sometime in 1989 – 1991, that trees were planted, something like 150,000 hectares with money from Asian Development Bank. This was the time during President Cory Aquino. But since 2011-2015, we have planted close to 340,000 hectares per year.

We have also generated close to 4M jobs. EO 26 was not crafted as an environmental program but as a poverty reduction program and a food security program. Anyway, it will surely derive environmental benefits. The trees will give oxygen. It will prevent soil erosion, and will still help in climate change mitigation. Environmental benefits will still be achieved. So, we made it as a poverty reduction program, but still achieve environmental benefits.

 

Ultimately, this is our objective. There were 8.9 M ha of denuded land when we started in 2010. That is our baseline. The vegetated forestland was 6.8 M. When we planted, the vegetated forestland increased and the denuded land decreased. In 2014, we targeted for the reversal of this situation; however, we were delayed a bit. We were only able to reach our target last 2015. Hopefully in 2016, there will be more vegetated areas than denuded. And if we continue the program, hopefully all of these will become vegetated again. We will be able to regain our forest cover.

The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, reported in 2015, that the Philippines is number 5 in the whole world to have forest gain for the period 2010- 2015. 5th in the world, number 1 in Southeast Asia and number 2 in Asia because China is still number 1.

 

These were planted in 2010 – 2012. These are less than 3 years old. In the Philippines trees can be harvested in 10 years. In Europe, the tree cannot be harvested that fast because the growth increment of trees is ½ a centimeter/year. In Mindanao, the growth rate of timber is 4 cm /year. This is because the Philippines is endowed with 365 days of rainfall, and 365 days of sunshine. In temperate America, it takes100 years to harvest timber.

These are the cacao plantations in Davao. Cacao is one of the most expensive commodities. The price for dried beans is Php127,000/ton. This is the price for dried beans, not the chocolate yet.

 

These are some of the mangroves that we’ve planted. These pictures are geotagged pictures. It is a requirement of the Commission on Audit (COA) and Department of Budget Management (DBM) that when we take the picture, it must be geotagged. The camera has the elevation, the time it was taken, and the coordinates. Anyone who wants to see it can bring the picture, go there and will see it.

Are all our plantations successful? No. We also have several that are not as nice. But all of those that you’ve seen in these pictures came from those areas that were not as successful. The farmers sign a 3-year contract with us. On the 1st year they plant, the 2nd year they replant and on the 3rd year they plant and continue planting. They replant new seedlings because it is our policy that they only count those that survive. We do not count the seedlings that died. We pay the farmers only if they’ve reached 80% of their contract. So, if seedlings die on the 1st year, there is still the 2nd year. At no cost to government, the farmer will replant it.

The new policy in the new NGP is that whatever they planted, we give to them. In the past, whatever they plant, they turn it over to the state after 3 years. Some of the farmers burn it, so that they are hired again. Now, the farmers will shoot down whoever burns their plantation. Some areas in Mindanao that were planted in 2011 are for harvesting – rubber, coffee, cacao, etc. The farmers own it. They cannot own the land, but they own the crops. The tweaking of the policy made the difference. I believe this policy made this program very successful. The farmers own what they planted.

Protected Areas and Biodiversity

 

We have declared 8 Asean Heritage Parks. In the past, from 1984 to 2009, only 3 were declared as Heritage Parks. From 2010 – 2015, we have declared 5.

In order to protect caves, they have to be documented. None were classified until 2009. However, from 2010 – 2015, I have signed the order for 415 caves. So, as of today, we have 415 caves classified.

We have to be clear with critical habitats. This is serious for us. There have been a lot of discussions within the department as to whether we should declare as critical habitat those within protected areas. I said, “We should.” In the past, only 1 was declared. We have signed 6 already for a total of 7 critical habitats and still growing.

 

The success of the tamaraw conservation program should be credited to the small towns that have been protecting the tamaraws. We are happy to report that the sighting is increasing. The tamaraw is an indicator species. If the habitat is threatened, species are listed as endangered. We are happy that the tamaraw is increasing.

Even the sighting of Philippine Eagles is increasing.

By the way, we have not completely explored our forests. If we did, we would find more species. But in looking for it, we have to invest.

 
Clean Air, Water and Solid Waste Management

When we took over in 2010, the total suspended particulates (TSP) was 166 ug/Ncm. We have reduced TSP by 39% from its 2010 level. We have lowered PM10 by 35% from 2011 level. However, unless we solve the traffic problem, we will not be able to meet the standard of 90 ug/Ncm.

We have already implemented Euro 4. This is a 3 – year fight with the oil companies. They have agreed to use Euro 4 and not Euro 2. The gasoline stations give out Euro 4 gasoline. What is the difference between Euro 2 and Euro 4? In Euro 2, sulfur is 500ppm, in Euro 4 it is only 50 ppm, one thousand percent difference. Benzene content is 5%, in Euro 4 it’s 1%. So, vehicles have cleaner emissions. The source of smog is actually sulfur. So, if you lower sulfur concentration, you lower smog. With Euro 4, we can have this trajectory.

 

One of our successful programs is the Adopt-an-Estero Program. But we are not making a dent. This program is not done by us; it is done by adopters of rivers, lakes, or esteros. Most of these 569 companies adopted 346 water bodies. They are cleaning the sections that they have adopted.

However, garbage was just taken out. If they let go of the project, the garbage will return. In the Philippines, this can be cured by discipline. Not by cleaning up, but by discipline. We have to change the psych of the people to change this.

 

We say the program is successful because it raised the awareness of corporations and companies. There is now heightened consciousness among corporations on this issue.

The Clean Water Act mandates the creation of Water Quality Management Areas (WQMAs). It requires the formation of Water Quality Management Boards. Before, there were only 4 in 2004-2010, in 2011-2015, we created 17.

 

If people look at this graph, they would think that the program is successful; however accomplishment in this program is dismal. The Ecological Solid Waste Management Act was signed in 2001. All dumpsites should have been closed in 2004. And all controlled dumpsites should have been closed in 2006. It’s now 2016, there are still close to 600 open and controlled dumpsites. That is the reason why Sen. Lauren Legarda, Usec. Briones and the Environmental Management Bureau (EMB) are all in the Ombudsman preparing to file cases against local government units. The Ombudsman took over. Masama lang ang timing dahil election. But they should do it. After 15 years of implementing the law, close to 1/3 of the local government units are still violating the law. All of these should have been closed already sometime in 2004-2006.

Cadastral Survey and Land Management

The law for cadastral survey was signed in Feb 11, 1913. This is the longest running program of the Republic of the Philippines. It’s a 102 – year old program. By 2009 only 46% was finished after 97 years. 54% was left for us to work on. Humility aside, this is now a completed project. People can now be assured that their title is not fake. Land titles will no longer conflict. The survey is finished, but the computerization is still in

 
progress. We had difficulty because some local officials did not like their lands surveyed especially in Mindanao. They shoot the surveyors there. But a new technology is now available. Surveys are done using laser. The 100 year program was finally completed in 5 years.

These are the computerized records. 27 million records have been computerized; however, it is only 15% of the entire universe.

In 2010, this was how our records looked like. It’s now cleaner and more organized.

 
Mining Regulations

Before there were no “No-Go” Zones. President Aquino declared 84% of this country as closed to mining. 84% of the country’s land area cannot be applied for mining tenements or even exploration. We have closed it under EO #79.

We have signed guidelines for small scale mining and we made sure there is no use of mercury.

This one is very important. I signed this last year. I required that all mining companies get ISO certification for environmental management systems (EMS) within a year. If they make a loan with the bank, the bank can demand to monitor their operations through the ISO certification. The objection is still serious. Currently, 1,606 mining applications have been denied and discarded from the list.

 
Geohazard Assessment and Mapping

This program is improving the resiliency of our country. We have improved the scale of our geohazard maps from 1:50,000 to 1:10,000. Our maps are now 25 times bigger and much clearer. Because of the improved resolution of maps, we can immediately determine where the landslide or the flooding will occur once the typhoon path is plotted over it – in which barangay, which sitio, which street and which canal. That is the importance of a geohazard map. Just like what we did for Yolanda, for example. We were able to predict the typhoon path, because they call it a very disciplined typhoon. We were able to predict where hazards will occur.

We also have the new technology called ultra-sighting the underground. The deep penetrating radar helps us see sinkholes. We were able to locate 1,700 sinkholes in Bohol alone.

 

We have a new piece of land. The Philippines has expanded, although most of these are still under the sea. We call it the Benham Rise. It is 1.13M hectares of land, bigger than Luzon. The equivalent of this land is Luzon plus Samar and Leyte. It’s a new piece of land owned by the Philippines. We found it. We claimed it. Our official claim was deposited in the United Nation’s last April 12, 2012. It is located in the Pacific Ocean, east of Luzon. There were no objections to our claim unlike in the West Philippine Sea where there are many claimants. Since there were no other claimants, the UN declared Benham Rise as belonging to the Philippines. Benham Rise will appear 2,000 years from now. Future generations will benefit from its rich natural resources.

We are now using high resolution technology for mapping. We know the Philippines is made up of 7,101 islands. Actually there are 400 islands more that we do not see. With the resolution, we can safely say that the Philippines is not 7,101 islands, but 7,500 plus islands. The National Mapping and Resource Information Authority (NAMRIA) will tell you how to do it.

Ecosystems Research and Development

 
The Hi Q-Vam, a fungus associated with plant roots, acts like a fertilizer but it is fungus. It is applied to the plant only once in the lifetime of the plant or tree. It enhanced plant growth compared to seedlings where mycorrhiza was not applied. We are producing it in Los Banos.

This is the new, mechanized nursery. This equipment can produce 150,000 seedlings in one day. If we have 10 of these, we can generate 1.1M seedlings in one day. However, this will compete with hiring laborers. The Department of Labor will question us. But with this, we can reduce the cost of seedlings from Php12 to Php2. My objective is to give seedlings for free to anyone who wants to plant.

Good Governance

It wasn’t easy to implement the Good Governance Program. In fact, it was very painful. I’ve lost a lot of my friends, lost some of my classmates. They hate me up to now because of this program. As I’ve said, I lost a lot of friends.

We filed 1,638 cases. Before, there were no convictions. But now, 202 violators were convicted. Before, all the confiscations were turned in and sold. We decided not to sell them because if we sell them, maybe the loggers will just buy them again. So what we did was to convert them to chairs for students. The Department of Education (DepEd) has enjoyed close to 150,000 chairs that were given to them. There were also 389 buildings that we had repaired.

 

For illegal mining, we’ve filed 78 cases with only 2 convictions. We have computerized our filing system for illegal logging and wildlife cases. Our department also has the most number of CCTV cameras all over the country. In the central office alone, we have more than a hundred CCTV cameras. That is how we were able to remove all the fixers in the department. At present, no one wastes their time walking in the lobby. Even in the parking lot, we see and catch our employees. We have a hundred cameras in the central office and 1,322 cameras all over the country. If I ask my regional director for his present location and he says I’m in the office, I can easily verify if he’s there or not because I can see him from my cell phone. We have 1,300 web-based cameras.

I have dismissed 32 people in the department, suspended 58, 55 formally charged, and so many more undergoing investigations and more given show cause order. This is what I meant when I said, “It’s painful.” So painful! But don’t worry, in so many months I will end my term. But this is painful. As I’ve said, most of these are my friends; some of them are my classmates.

 

Sometimes, it is also rewarding. The Social Weather Survey (SWS) and Pulse Asia conducted surveys with questions on specific accomplishments of the government. In the SWS June 2014 survey, there were 17 concerns like tax collection, fighting crime, reconciliation with communist, providing jobs, fighting terrorism, fighting inflation, etc. The one that came out as #1 was protecting the environment with a net positive rating of 46. I promised you that we were going to show only facts and figures. Go and see it at the website of SWS. You will see it there.

In the 2015 Pulse Asia Survey, we are number 4. We’re happy because we started in 2010 with a negative rating. In here, we have +26. I believe we did not accomplish this on our own. Civil Society helped us. In fact, your vigilance helped us. With your continued vigilance, we will perform better. If you continue to criticize us, we will continue to perform better.

 
Way Forward

My way forward will only be 2. Because the way forward will be defined by the Summit and most of the Breakout Sessions, I only have 2. (1) Help us define the National Determined Contribution. We have submitted to the United Nations in Paris, the Intended Nationally Determined Contribution (INDC). In a year’s time, we are to convert it to the National Determined Contribution (NDC). It will no longer be intended.

This will be painful to all of us – for the power sector, for industry, for the waste, for the transport sector, even for the agriculture sector. But we have to define it. We have committed, we have to do it.

We are here right now, less than 100 million tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MtCO2e). If we continue with business as usual, in 2030, we will be emitting 221 MtCO2e. Our promise is to reduce by 40% and be at 130 MTCO2e. By 2030, with funding and technology transfer, we expect to be at 66 MtCO2e. But this 70% reduction will entail efforts from me, from you, from every Filipino, every citizen in this country. We must help because we will be monitored. The United Nations will be looking at us. We say that we are one of the most vulnerable and therefore, most conscious. This is what we want to see. But I tell you, this is 70% from business as usual. Forestry will reduce our carbon emission tremendously. We have to plant more trees so we can sequester more carbon dioxide. We have to expand our forests, so we can increase our sequestration capacity. As of now, we have 40% sequestration capacity because of our forests. That is the reason. But if we really want to mitigate climate change, it should not be only the forest that will mitigate for us, it should be us. We should reduce our consumption of electricity, reduce consumption of fossil fuel, make efficient transport systems, be efficient in our agriculture industry. That is the way forward. Not just forestry. But we should be happy because forestry is doing it for us.

 

The last item that I would like to ask from you and I will beg you is to help me prevent backsliding. I believe your vigilance will help. I am not asking only for heightened vigilance, I am proposing to institutionalize vigilance. Institutionalizing it by calling a Summit like this every year and compelling the DENR to stand here and account for its performance every year. Fortunately, it will not be me. I promise you, it will not be me. So, institutionalize it. I will continuously coordinate with GC, and before I leave, I want to make sure that we institutionalize this, Dr. Galang, so that you can make it a people’s hour and require the institution to account for what they have done for our environment every year.

Lastly, I would recommend that you help us legislate some of these very important policies: Total Log Ban should be legislated, No-Go Zone, Land Use Plan, and all other major policies.

Thank you very much.

Downloads


You must be logged in to view this content. Free Virtual Library Registration Here