Can the Philippines’ ASEAN 2026 chairmanship advance the ASEAN Declaration on the Right to a Safe, Clean, Healthy, and Sustainable Environment?

In October 2025, ASEAN reached a pivotal milestone by adopting the ASEAN Declaration on the Right to a Safe, Clean, Healthy, and Sustainable Environment (ADER)—the region’s first comprehensive framework that integrates environmental rights into ASEAN’s human rights system. For the first time, ASEAN collectively acknowledged environmental rights, aligning its position with the United Nations’ 2022 resolution. This landmark commitment reinforces ASEAN’s shared responsibility to harmonize national laws and policies for environmental protection across its member states. As the Philippines chairs ASEAN this year, it is uniquely positioned to operationalize this commitment and transform the Declaration’s principles into tangible regional actions.

How can the Philippines achieve this?

By confronting its own environmental justice challenges, the Philippines can set a strong example for the region.

One crucial step is strengthening the capacity of administrative agencies responsible for handling environmental disputes. Agencies such as the Pollution Adjudication Board, the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI), and the Department of Agriculture, though part of the executive branch rather than the judiciary, play an essential role in safeguarding environmental rights. Frequently, these bodies are the first avenue for legal remedies, with their processes often preceding court action due to doctrines like exhaustion of administrative remedies and judicial respect for co-equal branches. The efficiency and integrity with which these agencies manage cases directly impact outcomes for those seeking environmental justice.

However, administrative bodies often face conflicts of interest and, even in the absence of such conflicts, typically lack the capacity and resources required to manage environmental cases effectively. The case of Andrade et al. vs. Coca Cola, et al. exemplifies these challenges: corporations identified as major plastic polluters by the Break Free from Plastic Movement faced complaints from thirty-two Filipino consumers before the DTI, alleging violations of their rights to information and a healthy environment under the Philippine Consumer Rights Act. The complaint called into question the use of recycling logos and green claims on packaging, arguing they were misleading and demanding improved pollution warnings and consumer refunds. National surveys reveal that over half of Filipinos trust recycling symbols, yet many items—such as sachets and bottle caps—are not truly recyclable. Despite these concerns, the DTI declined to hear the case, citing that if it has the authority, it does not have resources to address such environmental matters. The case is now before the Court of Appeals. This underscores the urgent need for capacity-building within administrative bodies to effectively address similar cases.

The government must also dismantle barriers to accessing crucial environmental information to set a positive example for the region. For instance, farmers concerned about the risks and impacts of GMOs often find that relevant information is only available online, limiting accessibility. Similarly, fisherfolk affected by reclamation efforts in Manila Bay were denied access to a cumulative impact assessment—information essential for public scrutiny of the many reclamation projects in the bay. The release of such controversial assessments would raise the standard of transparency for environmental protection and serve as a model for other ASEAN member states.

Political interference and corruption further complicate the pursuit of environmental justice. While specific examples may be sensitive, their impact is well recognized. In the scientific sphere, the GMO case (MASIPAG and Greenpeace et al. vs. DA et al.) revealed significant conflicts of interest: regulators promoting GM projects, research funded by industry, and former officials joining GMO companies. This convergence blurs the line between regulation and independent science, making it difficult to secure unbiased scientific evidence. The Philippines should consider establishing clearer regulations to prevent the revolving door between regulatory agencies and private interests.

Protecting environmental defenders is another critical expectation for the ASEAN chair, especially since advocates in the Philippines face substantial risks—harassment, Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPPs), arrests, and even violence for representing their communities. SLAPPs increasingly target environmental advocates, community leaders, and journalists who challenge environmentally harmful projects. The judiciary’s recognition of SLAPPs and inclusion of protective provisions in the Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases have provided some relief, yet these lawsuits continue to hinder effective advocacy.

By fostering solutions to broader regional challenges, the Philippines, as ASEAN chair, can give real substance to ADER.

Beyond the Philippines, other ASEAN member states confront additional hurdles, including restrictive legal standing, conflicts with customary rights, and variations in legal systems—all of which complicate access to justice.

The landmark carbon majors case demonstrated the power of Filipino-driven advocacy, challenging 45 global coal, oil, and gas companies for their role in climate change and its impact on the human rights of Filipinos. This investigation advanced important legal arguments and highlighted the intersection of business, human rights, and cross-border responsibilities. These insights provide a foundation for the Philippines to lead in shaping policies on corporate accountability for transboundary environmental issues, in line with the spirit of ADER.

If fully implemented, the ASEAN Declaration on Environmental Rights could transform environmental protection in the region. Establishing clear regional standards—including corporate compliance and transparent reporting—would help curb greenwashing, the revolving door phenomenon, compromised science, and environmentally destructive practices. A regional pollutant register could further strengthen efforts against cross-border pollution.

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