Photo credit: ASEAN

Access to justice, or the right to seek remedies when environmental harm occurs, and sustainability, or the management of resources for present and future generations, can be applied in GMOs, another critical environmental issue in the country.

Concerns about genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in the Philippines center on environmental, health, and socio-economic risks. For instance, Golden Rice and Bt Eggplant have been promoted as solutions to vitamin deficiency and pest control, respectively, yet critics highlight uncertainties regarding their long-term impacts. Environmental advocates worry about unintended effects on native crops and biodiversity, as well as the potential for increased chemical use and corporate control over seeds. Additionally, apprehensions persist regarding the adequacy of safety assessments and the lack of comprehensive public consultation, fuelling debates on whether GMOs truly address food security or threaten farmer autonomy and ecological balance.

Problem is, GMO proponents are eager to plant them in the Philippines while GMOs are banned in over 40 countries worldwide, including nations in Europe, Africa, and Asia that have enacted full or partial bans on the cultivation or importation of genetically modified crops due to environmental, health, and socio-economic concerns.

Amidst persistent uncertainties surrounding the risks and impacts of GMOs, and despite the government’s enthusiasm in promoting their propagation in the Philippines, it has not demonstrated the same commitment to ensuring accountability; notably, the Philippines has yet to sign the Nagoya-Kuala Lumpur Supplementary Protocol on Liability and Redress under the Convention on Biological Diversity, which establishes international standards for liability and redress in cases of GMO-related harm. Also, there remains a lack of comprehensive legislation governing GMOs. Instead, regulation relies solely on departmental orders, the validity and processes of which are currently being challenged in court.

Against this backdrop, it would be fully aligned with the ASEAN Declaration—and its principles of access to justice and sustainability—for the Philippines to take decisive action regarding GMOs and to uphold accountability.

Protecting environmental defenders is another critical expectation for the ASEAN chair, especially as advocates in the Philippines face substantial risks—harassment, Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPPs), arrests, and even violence for representing their communities and challenging environmentally harmful projects. This must stop.

To address these urgent threats, the government must act to shield advocates from legal harassment and retaliation. This includes providing accessible legal support for affected individuals and communities. Additionally, the government should ensure law enforcement agencies are trained to recognize and prevent intimidation tactics, and establish mechanisms for reporting and redress.

Beyond the Philippines, ASEAN member states confront a range of additional challenges that hinder effective access to justice in environmental matters. These include restrictive rules on legal standing that limit who can bring environmental cases to court, ongoing tensions between formal legal frameworks and customary rights of indigenous and local communities, and significant differences in legal systems across the region. Such complexities often make it more difficult for affected communities and individuals to seek remedies or participate meaningfully in environmental decision-making processes.

To address these obstacles, it is essential for ASEAN to work towards establishing clear and harmonised regional standards. One concrete measure would be the adoption of robust requirements for corporate compliance and transparent reporting, such as implementing a Pollutant Release and Transfer Registry (PRTR).

PRTR is a publicly accessible database that systematically collects and reports information on the amounts of specific pollutants released to air, water, and land, as well as those transferred off-site for treatment or disposal, by industrial and other facilities.

Such mechanisms would enable greater scrutiny of industrial activities, empower communities with information about environmental hazards, and deter environmentally destructive practices. Furthermore, coordinated regional standards would significantly enhance collective efforts to combat cross-border pollution and promote accountability among both domestic and transnational actors operating in Southeast Asia.

Ultimately, the effectiveness of such declarations depends on the political will to implement them. The Philippines’ chairmanship presents a pivotal opportunity to demonstrate that resolve and leadership toward a more just and sustainable future.

Zelda Soriano and Janelle Anne Pilapil are lawyers of Community Legal Help and Public Interest Centre, a non-profit organization that acts for the protection of human rights and the environment. Email: info@communitylegalhelp.org