“We thought not only of the remaining trees that they intend to cut down but also the people of Manila who will be affected by this,” the petitioners said.
MANILA, Philippines – Students are challenging before the Supreme Court the constitutionality of provisions in the Public-Private Partnership Code that bar PPP projects from temporary environmental protection orders (TEPO) and similar statutory exemptions.
The applicants are Joaquin Lorenzo Bautista, Elisha Marielle Zantua, Benjamin Luis Francia, Paul Benedict Carollina, Hanna Eliza Marie Guerra – the same five. students who filed a petition before the Manila Regional Trial Court Branch on May 41 to try to stop the logging activities of the San Miguel Corporation on his behalf. Southern Access Link Expressway project through the provision of TEPO.
The court dismissed their petition, prompting them to go to the Supreme Court.
“When the Manila RTC rejected our TEPO, we were ready to withdraw our petition,” Joaquin Bautista, one of the petitioners in both cases, told Rappler. “We were ready to give up, but we thought not only the remaining trees that they intend to cut down but also the people of Manila who will be affected by this.”
During a hearing in the Manila regional court in June, San Miguel cited provisions of the PPP law in opposition forgiveness from that temporary aid. The students now say this is unconstitutional as it violates their right to a balanced and healthy ecology.
Article in Section 23 of the PPP Regulations states that only the High Court can grant such temporary relief to PPP projects.
The students said the restrictions imposed in the PPP Regulations not only violate their constitutional right to a balanced and healthy ecology “but also undermine and undermine the doctrine of intergenerational responsibility.”
“When the law places a complete judicial shield over an infrastructure project, preventing any timely judicial review of its ecological toll, it leaves future generations completely defenseless against careless ecological remediation,” read their petition filed before the Supreme Court.
They added, “By hiding behind the full immunity of the PPP Code, respondent SMC (San Miguel Corporation) can successfully use legal expertise to shield itself from environmental liability.”
Additionally, a provision in the code that suspends lower court judges if they issue a TEPO against PPP projects “creates an unconstitutional effect,” they said. The petitioners argued that this intimidates lower court judges and undermines judicial independence.
“It may come to a time when the negative provisions of this PPP Regulation, clearly designed to protect the interests of private businesses entering into PPPs with the government,” they said.
The principle of PPP or Republic Act 11966 is the legal framework that governs the implementation of PPP projects in the country. Under this law, the prohibition of the lower courts does not apply “when the matter is so urgent as to involve a constitutional issue, so that if an injunction is not granted, grave injustice and irreparable injury will result.”
Respondents to the petition are Manila RTC Branch 41 Presiding Judge Rosalyn Mislos-Loja, SMC Southern Access Link Expressway Corporation, and the Department of Environment and Natural Resources.
– Rappler.com
