Atty. Gloria Estenzo-Ramos
The Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) Secretary Roy Cimatu’s announcement that the agency will revert to the process in the past in the issuance of environmental compliance certificate (ECC) left not a few environmental advocates worried.
The new administrative order was said to have “suspended indefinitely” the DENR Administrative Order (DAO) 2017-04 issued by his predecessor, secretary Gina Lopez.
We were part of the assembly which former secretary Lopez convened where she listened to the civil society’s views and assessments on ways to enhance implementation of the Environmental Impact Assessment System in the country.
There was unanimity in the voices from the communities including scientists and lawyers, that it should not water down the laws that prioritizes environmental rights, health, livelihood, impacts of climate change, public participation, access to information and inter-government agency collaboration, among a host of other matters.
Thus, Lopez subsequently issued DAO 2017-04 which gave the DENR secretary the authority to issue ECCs for both environmentally critical projects (ECPs), and non-ECPs within environmentally critical areas (ECAs), upon the recommendation of the Environment Management Bureau Director as concurred in by the Undersecretary for Legal Affairs. DAO 2017-04 was issued “in the interest of efficient service, transparency, accountability and for the purpose of the Environmental Impact Assessment audit currently being conducted as well as the revision of the EIA policies being studied.”
With the said DAO’s suspension, “the approving authority for ECPs is back with the DENR secretary and/or the EMB director, while the approving authority for non-ECPs within ECAs has been given back to the EMB director and/or the EMB regional directors.”
The issue hinges not merely on the authority of the decision-maker but on the integrity of the Environmental Impact Assessment process and the EIA system itself.
In an article by C. Brifett, Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) is defined as “a planning tool used to identify and predict the environmental impacts of a proposed development project. In essence, it is a systematic process that examines the environmental consequences of development actions, in advance. (Glasson et al., 1999).”https://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/A:1007142422219)
The Philippines EIA is considered very weak and generally perceived as not in accord with the substantive and procedural rights of the people and communities and our legal framework. The right to public participation and the right to access information, which are crucial in the EIA process, are not given respect and importance. We hear of reports of attendance sheets in supposedly public hearings being used as basis for declaring that the community approves the project.
The people are perfunctorily informed only after the project has been approved by decision-makers.
Speaking from experience, we, as advocates, were given the run-around by the Environmental Management Bureau just to have copies of the public documents such as reports, Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Compliance Certificate when these documents should be uploaded on the website of the agency for transparency. We had to be creative and used legal tools for agencies to be transparent.
Do these so-called “development” projects even consider the climatic changes we all face such as effects of sea level rise, storm surges, the hundreds of sinkholes in our midst, water adequacy, heritage and pollution?
The Philippines was among the first countries in Asia to have a legal framework for the Environmental Impact Assessment System in the 1970’s when we were still under Martial Rule. It is sad that, decades after, we still have to ingrain the mindset of sustainability in the crafting and implementation of our policies and programs including an EIA system which has the trust of the people.
The EIA process must never be issued to beat the deadline as this impacts the sacred rights of the people to life, livelihood, health, and a balanced and healthful ecology. While we understand why certain services are time-bound, such as providing copies of documents to the public, RA 9485, the Anti Red-Tape Act of 2007 provides the exception and that is, when “the permit, license, or authority covers activities which pose danger to public health, public safety, public morals or to public policy including, but not limited to, natural resource extraction activities.”
The law provides thus:
SEC. 9. Automatic Extension of Permits and Licenses. If a government office or agency fails to act on an application and/or request for renewal of a license, permit or authority subject for renewal within the prescribed period, said permit, license or authority shall automatically be extended until a decision or resolution is rendered on the application for renewal: Provided, that the automatic extension shall not apply when the permit, license, or authority covers activities which pose danger to public health, public safety, public morals or to public policy including, but not limited to, natural resource extraction activities.
In closing, let these words from Pope Francis be a reminder to all, especially those in the realm of public service:
“Every man, every woman who has to take up the service of government, must ask themselves two questions: Do I love my people in order to serve them better? Am I humble and do I listen to everybody, to diverse opinions in order to choose the best path? If you don’t ask those questions, your governance will not be good.”
Disclaimer: The comments uploaded on this site do not necessarily represent or reflect the views of management and owner of Cebudailynews. We reserve the right to exclude comments that we deem to be inconsistent with our editorial standards.
