الفلبين

Primary tabs

Caselaw

Un grupo de legisladores filipinos presentó este caso para cuestionar la constitucionalidad de la Ley de la República 8180, conocida como la Ley de Desregulación de la Industria Petrolera Aguas Abajo de 1996, concretamente, de sus artículos 5(b), 6 y 9(b).

A group of Philippine legislators brought this case to challenge the constitutionality of Republic Act No. 8180, otherwise known as the Downstream Oil Industry Deregulation Act of 1996, specifically Sections 5(b), 6 and 9(b) of the Act.

En 1991, las Filipinas delegaron la responsabilidad por “la salud y seguridad del pueblo” al nivel local. En ejercicio de estas facultades, en el año 2000 en Manila se pronunció el decreto 003 (“D 003”), en el cual se declaró que la ciudad adoptaría “una posición afirmativa respecto de los temas pro-vida”.

In 1991, the Philippines delegated responsibility for “people’s health and safety” to the local level. In exercise of this power, an executive order 003 (“EO 003”) was issued in Manila, in 2000 which declared that the city would take an “affirmative stand on pro-life issues”. In response to a joint submission from NGOs in 2008, the UN Committee on Elimination of Discrimination against Women (Committee) conducted an inquiry into alleged human rights violations resulting from the enforcement of EO 003.  

Varios menores representados por sus padres presentaron una demanda contra el Departamento de Medio Ambiente y Recursos Naturales solicitando cancelar los contratos existentes en el país de licencias de explotación forestal y frenar la emisión de nuevas licencias. Se adujo que la deforestación y el daño ambiental resultantes violaban sus derechos constitucionales a una ecología equilibrada y saludable, y a la salud (artículos 16 y 15, parte II de la Constitución).

An action was filed by several minors represented by their parents against the Department of Environment and Natural Resources to cancel existing timber license agreements in the country and to stop issuance of new ones. It was claimed that the resultant deforestation and damage to the environment violated their constitutional rights to a balanced and healthful ecology and to health (Sections 16 and 15, Article II of the Constitution).   The petitioners asserted that they represented others of their generation as well as generations yet unborn.