Chamber of Industry v. Municipal Council of San Pedro La Laguna
Guatemala
Guatemala’s Constitutional Court weighs in on a dispute between the Chamber of Industry and San Pedro La Laguna Municipal Council over a ban on non-biodegradable materials. While upholding R2HE, the Court calls for clearer language and sustainable production practices.
Credit: Toby Argüelles - Flickr.
Casebook Info
In 2016, San Pedro La Laguna implemented Municipal Agreement 111-2016 (the Agreement), aiming to prohibit the use, sale, and distribution of specific non-biodegradable materials to safeguard Lake Atitlán. The Guatemalan Chamber of Industry contested the Agreement in an amparo, citing its vague language and alleging violations of constitutional rights. The Court acknowledged the Agreement’s commitment to upholding the ‘right to a healthy environment’ (R2HE) but deemed some parts unconstitutional due to ambiguity. It ordered the removal of unclear language, advocated for a narrower interpretation, and emphasized the need for sustainable production practices.
Additionally, the Court directed the government to introduce measures and legislation targeting the production and consumption of non-reusable items to combat pollution. This ruling established a precedent for effectively balancing environmental preservation with constitutional rights.
Year Filed
2016
Year of Most Recent Ruling
2017
Year of Final Ruling
2017
Jurisdiction
Guatemala
Court Name
Constitutional Court
Plaintiff(s)
Chamber of Industry of Guatemala
Ruling On
Merits / Procedure
Respondent(s)
Municipal Council of San Pedro La Laguna, Department of Sololá
Outcome
Decided
Decision
N/A
Background
In 2016, San Pedro La Laguna introduced Municipal Agreement 111-2016, a measure aimed at prohibiting the use of plastic bags, duroport, straws, and related items. This initiative was pivotal in combating the contamination of Lake Atitlán, a vital waterbody facing potential long-term damage from non-biodegradable and hazardous materials. The law’s primary objective was to eliminate these materials, which could persist for decades, if not generations, and introduce harmful components into the food chain.
The pollution posed threats to the local ecosystem and jeopardized human health, given that the lake served as a primary source of drinking and irrigation water. Moreover, the pristine environment was crucial in supporting the local economy, as the lake was a major tourist attraction.
The Guatemalan Chamber of Industry, acting as the claimant, challenged the Agreement via an Amparo, alleging violations of constitutional rights pertaining to distributors and purchasers. The issues raised encompassed concerns related to legal certainty, freedom, private property, and governmental powers. The claimant contended that the Agreement suffered from ambiguity, particularly in its definition of ‘derivatives,’ and argued that its sweeping prohibition of certain materials encroached upon various constitutional rights. Specifically, the ambiguity surrounding ‘derivatives’ raised uncertainties about legal certainty, freedom, equality, freedom of action, private property, freedom of industry, commerce, and work, as well as government functionaries’ constitutional exercise of public power.
The Court declared the Agreement partially unconstitutional due to the ambiguity surrounding the term ‘derivatives,’ emphasizing the necessity for a clearer interpretation. Nonetheless, the Court acknowledged the municipality’s intention to uphold the ‘right to a healthy environment’ (R2HE) outlined in Article 97 of the National Constitution. It underscored the detrimental environmental impact caused by single-use plastic and duropont. Consequently, the Court mandated the removal of the ambiguous phrase, advocated for a more specific interpretation, and directed the Environmental Ministry to implement measures ensuring sustainable production practices and reducing consumption. Furthermore, Congress received instructions to draft legislation addressing the production, distribution, and consumption of non-reusable items contributing to pollution. This ruling marks a significant precedent, showcasing the delicate balance achieved between environmental concerns and upholding constitutional rights.
Article 97
Of the Guatemalan Constitution creates an obligation on the state to promote sustainable development that prevents pollution and maintains an ecological balance. The Court interpreted the Article as ensuring R2HE.
Precautionary Principle
Drawing from international law, the absence of scientific certainty did not bar the municipality from adopting cost-effective environmental protection measures.
International Trends
The municipality’s Agreement aligned with an international trend of domestic laws banning plastic and other single use products.
Plaintiff Strategies & Court Good Practices
Using an established domestic body of law
The Claimant invoked an amparo, a legal action aimed at safeguarding the constitutional rights of the populace. Their legal contentions relied on rights enshrined within the Guatemalan Constitution, which they alleged the municipality had violated. Specifically, the prohibition on certain materials was argued to infringe upon the rights of both purchasers and distributors, as outlined in various articles: (1) the right to legal certainty per Article 2 of the National Constitution; (2) the rights to freedom and equality under Article 4; (3) freedom of action as articulated in Article 5; (4) protection of private property as per Article 39; (5) the freedoms related to industry, commerce, and work, as specified in Article 43; and (6) the constitutional exercise of public power by government functionaries, detailed in Articles 152 and 154.
Although the Court concurred that the Agreement suffered from unconstitutional vagueness, it acknowledged the municipality’s underlying intent—to safeguard the people’s R2HE derived from Article 97 of the Constitution. This article not only imposes an obligation on the state but also acknowledges the imperative for individuals to enjoy an environment free from contamination.
Using an established international body of law to support R2HE
The Court’s understanding of the government’s obligations was shaped by international law. It referenced agreements advocating principles such as the ‘polluter pays’ and precautionary principles, sustainable development, and intergenerational equity. While the plaintiff expressed concerns regarding the Agreement’s impact on industries using common packaging materials, the Court underscored how this transformative approach aligned with Guatemala’s international commitments made at the UN Conference on Sustainable Development and the Sustainable Development Summit.
Moreover, drawing on principles from the Rio Declaration, the Court deemed it justifiable to hold accountable those responsible for environmental harm. It emphasized the necessity of implementing cost-effective preventive measures despite scientific uncertainties and stressed the importance of adopting sustainable development practices that prioritize intergenerational equity.
Emphasizing the State’s duty to regulate or its failure to observe its due diligence obligations
While the Claimants contended that the government had infringed upon and failed to protect specific constitutional rights, the Court concluded that, for the most part, the municipality had fulfilled its constitutional duties. The ban on ‘derivative’ products was deemed unconstitutional. However, the overall aim of the Agreement aligned with the government’s obligation, as per Article 97 of the Constitution: to regulate industry and ensure the rational and sustainable use of natural resources.
The Agreement’s primary focus on mitigating environmental harm resulting from the industrial distribution of single-use products resonated with the municipality’s responsibilities delineated in both the Municipal Code and the Health Code. Emphasizing the potential for industrial processes to cause environmental damage and the government’s obligation to protect the environment, the Court underscored the necessity of regulating industrial activities to avert environmental harm.
While rectifying the impermissible vagueness within the Agreement was necessary, the Court directed Congress and the ministries to introduce additional measures aimed at further ensuring environmental protection.
Emphasizing international developments
In assessing the Agreement’s proportionality, the Court emphasized the municipality’s effort to parallel the global movement towards banning single-use plastics. By drawing comparisons with analogous laws in Rwanda, Argentina, and France, the Court presented the Agreement as less burdensome on industries than initially assumed, thereby establishing its justifiability. Considering the broader international context and the evolving international practice of such regulations, the Court leaned towards validating the Agreement’s legitimacy while diminishing concerns about its potential impact on industry.
Take Aways
The case exemplifies industry interests attempting to overturn environmental protections, including the Right to a Healthy Environment (R2HE), by invoking other constitutionally protected fundamental rights. Despite these attempts, the Court predominantly upheld the municipality’s actions, affirming that they operated within their prescribed powers and fulfilled their constitutional obligations. In a landscape where numerous cases highlight governmental failures in fulfilling their duty as a guarantor, this case stands as a contrasting example. The Court staunchly defended robust environmental protections and aimed to align government policies with the progressive environmental practices observed in other states.
Terms
Element
Pollution
R2HE encompasses protection against pollution through its substantive elements – particularly the elements of Non-Toxic Environments, Clean Air, Safe and Sufficient Water and Healthy Biodiversity and Ecosystems – because pollution in excess of a certain standard may compromise the “healthy environment” to which all individuals have a right. Individuals are entitled to live in environments that are devoid of various forms of harmful pollution, including harmful contaminants, emissions and pollutants. Consequently, R2HE emphasizes the need for clean air, water, soil and surroundings that are free from contaminants detrimental to human health and well-being. It stresses the obligation of states to take action to prevent pollution. ‘Pollution’ may refer to air, water, marine, noise and/or chemical pollution.
Element
Procedural Elements / Components
R2HE encompasses and guarantees a range of core procedural rights. Corresponding obligations include the duty to: (i) ensure access to environmental information, (ii) enable public participation in environmental decision-making, (iii) guarantee access to justice and effective remedies, and (iv) mandate the execution of Environmental Impact Assessments prior to the commencement of potentially impactful operations or activities.
Strategy
Emphasizing international developments
Referencing or examining recent international legal developments related to R2HE in order to support the protection of R2HE. International developments may include emerging case law, policy evolution, state practice, regional agreements or international treaties, among others. Commonly referenced international developments include, for example, the Paris Agreement and the UN Resolutions on R2HE.
Strategy
Emphasizing the obligation to cooperate internationally or nationally
Underscoring the need for governments, sub-governments and other actors to coordinate, cooperate and commonly work toward effective protection of R2HE. This strategy may emphasize the need for cooperation at the domestic level, international level or both, and can entail varying levels of specificity.
Strategy
Emphasizing the State's duty to regulate or its failure to observe its due diligence obligations
Invoking a government’s affirmative obligations under national and/or international law to regulate and implement policy to advance and monitor the protection of R2HE. One common instance of this strategy appears in the climate change context, where a plaintiff might argue that the government has taken insufficient action to mitigate climate change or reduce emissions. Another common context is that of corporate pollution, which might prompt a plaintiff to argue the government did not do enough to ensure a polluter’s compliance with environmental standards.
Strategy
Focusing on youth
Emphasizing the disproportionate and inequitable vulnerability of young people, children and/or future generations to climate change, biodiversity loss and environmental degradation. This emphasis is often articulated through the principles of Intergenerational Equity and Sustainable Development, which generally provide that governments and other entities must ensure the basic needs and rights of future generations when making decisions that bear on the environment. Additionally, the principles suggest that all individuals have a responsibility to care for future generations by limiting environmental degradation and consumption in the present.
Strategy
Using an established domestic body of law
Invoking well-established national laws, norms and/or legal principles in support of arguments related to R2HE. Where R2HE is present in a country’s constitution, the constitution will serve as the primary authoritative source for the right. Other, secondary sources of established domestic law commonly include statutory law and requirements governing public participation and/or the assessment of environmental risks. Environmental principles enshrined in domestic sources of law – for example, the precautionary principle – may also be emphasized to further the protection of R2HE.
Strategy
Using an established international body of law to support R2HE
Relying on well-established international treaties, norms and principles in making arguments advancing and protecting R2HE. Commonly cited international bodies of law include UN Reports, jurisprudence from international and/or regional courts, General Comments by UN bodies, Declarations and more.
Good Practices
Expansive reading of the scope and content of R2HE
An expansive definition of R2HE refers to the broad and inclusive nature or interpretation of a particular concept, document, principle or legal provision related to R2HE. Legal definitions of the complex R2HE and associated concepts often lack specificity as applied to real-world circumstances, leading many courts to ‘fill in the gaps’ by situating the right within wider contextual frameworks of law, policy and science. As the triple planetary crisis of climate change, biodiversity loss and pollution intensifies, courts are increasingly reading the scope and content of R2HE broadly to address a growing variety and number of environmental harms. By providing inclusive and robust definitions of guarantees associated with the right – for example, by confirming R2HE ensures a safe climate, protects biodiversity and/or entails a duty to regulate – courts can help to ensure and further the right’s protections and utility.
Intergenerational Equity
This international and environmental law principle provides that states and other entities must regard the impact of their public policies on the environment on present and future generations equally. In other words, actions that allow present generations to meet their needs and wants but sacrifice the ability of future generations to meet their basic needs and live lives of dignity contravene Intergenerational Equity.
Polluter Pays Principle
This environmental law principle provides that it is the entities that pollute – whether it be land, air, water or food – who bear the costs associated with the prevention, control and cleanup of pollution, rather than passing those costs on to society, the environment or future generations.
Precautionary Principle
This environmental law principle provides that, where there exists a risk of serious and/or irreversible harm, scientific uncertainty about the extent of the harm or about the exact consequences of a particular action or process does not justify failing to implement measures to combat associated risks of environmental degradation or destruction. In other words, in the face of scientific uncertainty, authorities should still take measures to address environmental threats.
Sustainable Development
This concept provides that states should pursue measures that allow present generations to meet their essential needs without compromising the ability of future generations to do the same. Moreover, it recognizes the need for states to work towards their economic development while also ensuring the realization and protection of fundamental human rights. In some jurisdictions, sustainable development is regarded as a guiding principle, while in others, it is treated as a right with binding consequences.
