Drowning no more: PH takes on climate polluters

THE waves are rising, not just on the shores of the Philippines, but within its collective consciousness. The International Court of Justice (ICJ), the United Nations’ principal judicial organ, has issued its 140-page Advisory Opinion on climate change obligations. For a nation already battling for its very existence against increasingly brutal storms and encroaching seas, it’s a beacon. It is more than a judgment, but a mandate — to demand climate accountability from those who have fueled this existential crisis. For the Philippines, ranked the most at-risk nation in the World Risk Index, the time for polite pleas is over: it’s time for a reckoning.

Days ago, the familiar rhythm of Filipino life was once again disrupted. Relentless typhoons — the combined impact of Tropical Cyclones Crising, Dante, Emong and the intensified southwest monsoon — pummeled Luzon. They affected over 5 million Filipinos, inundating communities, suspending schools and leaving hundreds stranded, a harrowing display of the escalating climate emergency. These events are not isolated incidents but the stark reality of a nation at the front lines, a sacrificial zone in a war waged by greed and indifference.

The ICJ’s opinion, while nonbinding, provides the legal ammunition for the Philippines to transform its narrative. No longer can climate finance be viewed as a handout or charitable act. Instead, the ICJ has framed it as a matter of legal obligation, an entitlement owed to those who have been most harmed by the actions of others. The court’s decision underscores these principles:

States have firm legal commitments under existing international law, like the UN Framework on Climate Change and the Paris Agreement, to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions.

The Advisory Opinion emphasizes the positive obligation to act with “due diligence” in their mitigation efforts.

Climate change is considered an issue with implications for fundamental human rights violations. Thus, international law should be read and interpreted in such a manner.

For the Philippines, this shift in legal understanding is potentially revolutionary. It provides the basis for concrete steps forward, such as:

The request for aid will no longer be a request. The Philippines will now frame it as a right to be compensated for destruction and damages brought by parties that historically contributed to climate change.

Individuals affected by climate change should be encouraged to file lawsuits against fossil fuel companies before Philippine trial courts or even the Supreme Court. The case of Oposa vs. Factoran shows the importance of the public trust doctrine that places all natural resources for use to future generations.

The Philippines’ National Adaptation Plan needs to integrate human rights considerations into its adaptation strategies.

A call for justice

As the Advisory Opinion emphasized, the world will see an improvement if more powerful nations lend support and provide financial assistance to vulnerable nations like the Philippines.

The call for justice will resound in every forum the Filipino nation takes in addressing the climate. It is calling for debt relief, the payment of adaptation technologies and for resources to enable these vulnerable countries to transition away from fossil fuels and be rid of their chains.

But this is not just about damage control; it’s about preventing further harm. We want accountability. We need to be able to tell the developed nations that they were wrong, they did not do enough, and now they are going to pay. They were told to help our people, but this was not enough for them.

While climate finance has largely become a handout, the Philippines must do everything it can, even through international organizations, to get these developed countries to pay the costs. If they want us to be a partner, they need to pay for us for the damage that they have caused, without conditions. This is now their responsibility, which is what the Advisory Opinion highlights.

Now that the Court has spoken, the Philippines must turn the Advisory Opinion into a weapon. The only weapon we have, since the principle that a rising tide raises all ships is not the case here. A rising tide drowns the Philippines. There will be climate refugees, more frequent disasters, increased costs, lack of food, water and sanitation and, indeed, if this continues, perhaps even war.

This weapon is litigation. The weapon is awareness. The weapon is political will.

Hopefully developed nations, with more resources, technical capabilities and human rights standards, can work with the Philippines on an international stage. These may include mitigation adaptation and more binding goals in the global temperature.

To that end, the message is clear: The only way for justice is for our voices to be heard, our policies to be heeded and our survival to be guaran­teed. This Advisory Opi­nion is the beginning to hold these develo­ped nations into account.

The author is the founder and chief strategic advisor of the Young Environmental Forum and a subject-matter expert at the Co-operative College of the Philippines. He finished a climate change and development course at the University of East Anglia (UK) and an executive program on sustainability leadership at Yale University (USA). Email [email protected].