ANTONIO OPOSA- THE MOST UNCONVENTIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATOR?

He wants his country’s highways to be divided by two. Left side or right to be given to vehicles, while the other side, is used for nonmotorised means of transport such as walking and biking. He calls this Road Sharing and is confident that his crazy idea of dividing existing roads by two shall be given a go ahead by the supreme court of Philippines. Sounds controversial?

Well Antonio Oposa Jr is not new to creative, borderline crazy ideas. And the most surprising thing is that one way or another, he ends up winning them or at least achieving his aim. This has raised his profile globally as one of the most creative environmental litigators, something he downplays in his interviews. As he keeps on saying, he doesn’t see himself as a lawyer, he is simply a storyteller, using the courts to bring certain discussions to the table.

In 1993, this young lawyer was shocked to learn that his country’s natural forest, all of it, had been earmarked for logging. The department of environment and natural resources, headed by a man called Factoran, had given Timber Licensing Agreements for 3.9million hectares of natural forests. At that point, Philippines had only about 800,000 hectares of natural forests remaining.

Appalled by the state of destruction bound to happen in a country that once had 54% forest cover; now with less 4%, he decided to pursue legal action using a class suit. Something that proved tremendously difficult given that in a poor country like the Philippines, any job, including logging is not only welcome but is also to be protected at any cost. This then translated to him not having any plaintiffs to his case since every single time he filed his case with names of the people he’s pursuing justice for, they would be paid off handsomely to get them off the case, a practice common in environmental cases.

Frustrated but determined, Oposa took his own children and 40 other children, who were mostly his relatives anyway, and made them plaintiffs. And as if that was not absurd enough, he said that they not only represented their generation, that is the future generation, but also the unborn generation.

As he explained, his first born son, who was 3yrs old by then, would not find any of Philippines natural forests by the time he is 10yrs old, because they were logging off 120,000 hectares per year with the country only having 800, 000 hectares. As is expected, the defense raised the question of the validity of children being used in a class action and further explained that the issue is a political one involving other arms of the government who had a right to give any contracts they deemed fit and as a result, the court had no business involving themselves in such matters. And as such, his case was dismissed by the high court, making him appeal in the Supreme Court.

This is what has come to be internationally known as the Oposa v Factoran case that has set precedent for the sustainable development principle. That development needs to be carried out in a manner that meets the needs of our present generation without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs. As demonstrated by the plaintiffs in this case, a destruction of the forests meant all watersheds would be destroyed meaning those future generations would not be able to survive in a land with no water and with soil erosion that would see agriculture impossible.

However, developing countries face the problem of having corrupt judicial system that seem to be in support of the government at hand and its decisions rather than standing for justice, more so environmental justice. This has seen many environmentalists shy away from using courts or the law to pursue environmental justice, since it is seen as futile to do so. An example is Wangari Maathai v Kenya Times limited, where she took the matter of Uhuru Park, a public park in Nairobi, being grabbed with plans to construct a multi-storey building there. Instead of the court supporting her quest for a clear breach of law, they threw her case out on a basis of a technicality, that she as an individual did not have standing before the court on a public matter that did not affect her individual rights.

Which is why Oposa’s methods, are hailed worldwide. That he does not fight for the environment, something governments love ignoring or sacrificing at the altar of development, but instead fights for life. As he explains, when he went to the supreme court, he wasn’t asking them whether all Philippines forest can be cleared off, he was bringing the younger generation to the court room to have the discussion, “ do these children have a right to life?’’. And that is one thing the courts would have trouble dodging around or not answering.

Though the children’s case, as Oposa calls it, is the most famous case he is known for, Oposa has gone ahead and fought for the rehabilitation of Manila Bay. In this one he sued 11 government agencies that are responsible for waters of Philippines. And as usual he won. But this time he explains that unlike before where the law worked in compelling a government agency to stop legal but harmful activities it had allowed, this time his win empowered the same government agencies, giving them powers to do their mandate well.

Apparently, private developers were the main culprits of the degradation of Manila bay. But the government agencies in charge of enforcing regulations against the degradation had been rendered powerless by the myriad of court cases that used to be presented against them any time they tried to implement their mandate to take care of Manila Bay. Therefore Oposa suing them, that they were not carrying out their mandate, and winning while at it, gave them court orders that they could now use to force powerful private developers to obey the law. Unlike before when the private developers would run to court to get injunctions or delay the process of rehabilitation, now the agencies had a court ruling compelling them to carry out their mandate effectively, thus shielding the agencies against unnecessary court delays. And thus in a twisted kind of way, Oposa had assisted the government carry out it’s a mandate freely.

22years later after filing the case for the sake of future generations and the unborn generations, 5 presidents later and a myriad of judges later, logging of natural forests in Philippines was finally banned. Oposa’s efforts had finally paid off even though it was 2 decades later. When asked how that accomplishment felt, he in a light hearted way usually says that the biggest accomplishment concerning that case was to convince his wife to let his kids be plaintiffs in a case against the government.

As of now, with several awards in his name, and his name being the backbone of the sustainable development principle in environmental law, or simply known as the Oposa doctrine, the creative man is yet to retire from his unconventional court cases. When not coming up with ways of bringing a case compelling his government and the international community to be more intentional on combating climate change, that will see a house he inherited from his grandfather at the beach front, buried under the sea due to rising sea water, he works at his SEA CAMP. He aims to inculcate the Filipino traditional culture of taking care of the environment as a source of life, to kids whom he says know more about malls rather than swimming which has made them out of touch with marine life.

Other than that, he hopes that even as the Philippine judicial system takes their time with the Road Sharing idea, that other countries and cities take it up. After all, how fair is it that out of 100 million people who all pay taxes to maintain highways, only the 1% who own cars get to use them? Isn’t that unfair to the 99%? And as most constitutions have it in them, that unfair discrimination based on class shall not be allowed, it shouldn’t be too hard to use the law to compel governments to consider the majority. Though how many of them shall be open to giving one side of the highway to motorists and the other to people walking or using donkeys, horses and bicycles, remain to be seen.

As for now, we pay tribute to the only man to have successfully petitioned for the unborn generation and won.