- Climate Litigation Database
- /
- Search
- /
- Philippines
- /
- Global Legal Action on Climate Change v. The Philippines Government
Global Legal Action on Climate Change v. The Philippines Government
About this case
Filing year
2010
Status
Decided
Geography
Court/admin entity
Philippines → Supreme Court
Case category
Suits against governments (Global)
Principal law
Philippines → Act 6716: The Rainwater Collector and Springs Development LawPhilippines → Act 7160: Local Government Water Management LawPhilippines → Filipino Constitution of 1987
At issue
Local government officials' compliance with 1989 law relating to water provision and flood control
Documents
Filing Date
Document
Type
Summary
A group called Global Legal Action on Climate Change (GLACC) filed a petition against various government departments including the Climate Change Commission, the Department of Public Works and Highways, the Department of Interior, and Local Government with the Supreme Court of the Philippines seeking relief from dangers arising from flooding, which is expected to become worse and more consequential to Filipinos as climate change intensifies. Specifically, GLACC sought a writ of mandamus from the court that would order government agencies to act on the provisions of two statutes pertaining to flood control: Republic Act 6716 ”the Rainwater Collector and Springs Development Law” requires each Filipino locality to have and maintain a rainwater collector to ensure fresh drinking water is available in times of flooding; Act 7160 or the Local Code of 1991, which establishes the responsibilities of local governments in relation to water management. The suit builds on the writ of kalikasan issued by the Supreme Court in 2009, which established both a Filipino right to environmental protection and a channel for seeking relief from infractions of that right. The petition alleges that noncompliance with the two statutes is rife and increasingly harmful as the Philippines ”the world's most typhoon-prone nation” experiences more frequent and severe storms and flooding. The case was settled when the defendant government departments signed a Memorandum of Understanding and submitted a work plan committing to carry out the required works.