RIGHTS OF NATURE AS A JURIDICAL PERSON

RIGHTS OF NATURE AS A JURIDICAL PERSON

One of the most profound ideas to emerge in modern environmental law is the recognition of Nature—yes, the rivers, forests, and mountains—as juridical persons. This concept gives ecosystems a legal identity, allowing them to hold rights and to be represented in court, just like a corporation or a cooperative.

It’s a transformative shift in thinking. For so long, our laws have treated nature merely as property—something to own, exploit, and regulate. But what if, instead, we viewed nature as a living entity with its own rights to exist, thrive, and regenerate?

What It Really Means

In legal terms, a juridical person is any entity recognized by law as having rights and obligations. Corporations can own property, enter contracts, and even sue or be sued. Extending this idea to nature means that a river could have standing in court to demand protection from pollution. A forest could seek restoration after being destroyed by illegal logging.

Of course, nature cannot speak for itself, which raises the question: Who sues on behalf of nature—and who can be sued for harming it?

The Global Pioneers

Ecuador was the first country in the world to recognize the Rights of Nature in its 2008 Constitution. It declares that “Nature, or Pachamama, has the right to exist, persist, maintain and regenerate its vital cycles.” In 2011, Ecuadorian courts used that very clause to halt road construction that would have damaged a protected forest.

In 2017, New Zealand went a step further. Its Parliament granted legal personhood to the Whanganui River, a sacred entity for the Māori people, appointing both the Māori and the government as its guardians.

India briefly recognized the Ganges and Yamuna Rivers as living entities in 2017, although the decision was later reversed for lack of legal clarity. Colombia followed suit by recognizing the Amazon rainforest as a “subject of rights,” with the state mandated to protect it from deforestation.

In all these cases, a common thread runs through: the idea that humans are not owners but stewards of the natural world.

The Philippine Context

Here in the Philippines, the Rights of Nature movement is beginning to gain traction. While our Civil Code currently recognizes juridical persons such as the State, corporations, and associations (Article 44), nature is not yet part of that list.

However, there are promising signs. Several bills have been filed in Congress—such as Senate Bill No. 1097 and House Bill No. 5603—collectively known as the Rights of Nature Act. These seek to legally recognize nature as an entity with rights and to empower communities, civil society groups, and indigenous peoples to act as its guardians.

One recent Supreme Court ruling may signal a turning point. In the Mt. Mantalingahan case (Palawan, 2023), the Court invoked the precautionary principle and ordered government agencies to prove that a nickel mining project would not harm the ecosystem. Though the case didn’t explicitly declare nature as a juridical person, it affirmed that the environment—and not just humans—has standing in court.

The Writ of Kalikasan: A Powerful Tool

We already have a uniquely Filipino legal instrument that points in this direction: the Writ of Kalikasan. Rooted in Article II, Section 16 of the 1987 Constitution (“The State shall protect and advance the right of the people to a balanced and healthful ecology…”), the writ allows any Filipino to file a case on behalf of nature when environmental damage threatens multiple provinces or cities.

Through this writ, the Supreme Court has issued cease-and-desist orders against destructive mining, reclamation, and flood control projects. In effect, the Writ of Kalikasan lets nature speak—through us. It may not yet make nature a “person,” but it gives nature a voice.

Who Will Speak for Nature?

If nature were recognized as a juridical person, who would represent it? The most logical answer lies in the indigenous peoples, who have long acted as nature’s stewards. Under the Indigenous Peoples’ Rights Act (IPRA), ancestral domains are managed based on the principle of ecological balance. If these communities became the official “guardians” of rivers, forests, and mountains, we could bridge traditional wisdom and modern law.

But this also raises other questions: Could nature sue the government if the government itself is the violator? Who would prosecute such a case—the Department of Justice, or perhaps the DENR through its Biodiversity Management Bureau (BMB)?

If the government grants personhood to a river, does that mean wildlife living in that river also gains a right to life and survival? Should killing endangered animals be treated as a violation of the river’s legal rights?

A Barangay-Level Revolution

While Congress debates, local governments don’t have to wait. The Local Government Code empowers barangays to pass ordinances for environmental protection. Imagine a Barangay Nature Council recognizing a local river, mangrove, or watershed as a juridical person. It could appoint guardians, require annual reports on the ecosystem’s health, and impose restitution for ecological damage.

Funding could come from barangay IRA, cooperative shares, or even CSR programs. Agencies like DOST-PCIEERD and DENR-BMB could provide technical support. This would make the barangay not just a political unit—but a custodian of life.

A Final Thought

We live in an age when corporations—mere paper entities—enjoy full legal rights, while rivers that give us water and forests that give us air remain legally voiceless. Isn’t it time we corrected that imbalance?

Recognizing the Rights of Nature as a juridical person is not about giving trees lawyers or rivers citizenship cards. It’s about giving ourselves a chance to coexist with the planet that sustains us. Because if nature dies, so do we—and no legal argument can ever appeal that verdict.

Ramon Ike V. Seneres, www.facebook.com/ike.seneres

iseneres@yahoo.com, senseneres.blogspot.com 03-12-2026