After discussions that ended on 04. 08. 1997, the representatives of the Government and Freeport Mac Moran of USA and its affiliate IMCO Agrico initialled the final drafts of the Mineral Investment Agreement and subsidiary documents in respect of a deposit of phosphate rock at Eppawela in the Anuradhapura district. The proposed agreement granted the Company the sole and exclusive right (a) to search and explore for phosphate and other minerals in the Exploration Area (b) to conduct test or pilot operations at any location within the Contract Area (c) to develop and mine under Mining Licences any phosphate deposits (including associated minerals) found in the Exploration Area.

The petitioners being residents of Eppawela engaged in cultivation and owning lands there, one of whom was the Viharadhipati of a temple, complained of infringement of their rights under Articles 12(1), 14(1)(g) and 14(1)(h) of the Constitution by reason of the proposed agreement. They relied on the analysis of several professional experts and reports of the National Academy of Science and the National Science Foundation who were of the opinion that the proposed agreement will not only be an environmental disaster but an economic disaster.

Court ruling:

In the introduction to the proposed Mineral Investment Agreement, it is stated, "The Government seeks to advance the economic development of the people of Sri Lanka and to that end desires to encourage and promote the rational exploration and development of the phosphate mineral resources of Sri Lanka." (The emphasis is mine.)

Undoubtedly, the State has the right to exploit its own resources, pursuant, however to its own environmental and development policies. (Cf. Principle 21 of the U.N. Stockholm Declaration (1972) and Principle 2 of the U.N. Rio De Janeiro Declaration (1992). Rational planning constitutes an essential tool for reconciling any conflict between the needs of development and the need to protect and improve the environment. (Principle 14, Stockholm Declaration). Human beings are at the centre of concerns for sustainable development. They are entitled to a healthy and productive life in harmony with nature. (Principle 1, Rio De Janeiro Declaration). In order to achieve sustainable development, environmental protection shall constitute an integral part of the development process and cannot be considered in isolation from it. (Principle 4, Rio De Janeiro Declaration). In my view, the proposed agreement must be considered in the light of the foregoing principles. Admittedly, the principles set out in the Stockholm and Rio De Janeiro Declarations are not legally binding in the way in which an Act of our Parliament would be. It may be. It may be regarded merely as `soft law'. Nevertheless, as a Member of the United Nations, they could hardly be ignored by Sri Lanka. Moreover, they would, in my view, be binding if they have been either expressly enacted or become a part of the domestic law by adoption by the superior Courts of record and by the Supreme Court in particular, in their decisions.

                                                    xxx                                        xxx                                     xxx

It is unnecessary for the purposes of the task in hand to enter into the matter of the alleged beneficial nature of the proposed agreement: The petitioners' case is that there is an imminent infringement of their fundamental rights guaranteed by Articles 12(1), 14(1)(g) and 14(1)(h). I have stated my reasons for upholding their complaints. The "balancing" exercise referred to by learned counsel has been already done for us and the Constitution sets out the circumstances when any derogations and restrictions are permissible. Article 15(7) of the fundamental rights declared and recognized by Articles 12 and 14 are "subject to such restrictions as may be prescribed by law", among other things, for "meeting the just requirements of the general welfare of a democratic society." In the light of the available evidence, I am not convinced that the proposed project is necessary to meet such requirements. In any event, the circumstances leading to the imminent infringements have not been, "prescribed by law" but arise out of a mere proposed contract, and therefore do not deserve to be even considered as permissible.

For the reasons set out in my judgment, I declare that an imminent infringment of the fundamental rights of the petitioners guaranteed by Articles 12(1), 14(1)(g) and 14(1)(h) has been established.

http://www.asianlii.org/lk/cases/LKSC/2000/18.html

In December 1992, the Sri Lankan government called for proposals to establish a Joint Venture for the manufacture of Phosphate fertilizer using the apatite deposit at Eppawela. The proposal of Freeport MacMoran Resource Partners of USA was accepted.

In October 1999, seven Sri Lankans filed a petition to stop the project on the ground of violaton of their fundamental rights under the Constitution.

Court ruling

On the issue of development of natural resources and protection of the environment:

Undoubtedly, the state has the right to exploit its own resources pursuant, however, to its own environmental and development policies. (Cf. Principle 21 of the U.N Stockholm Declaration (1972) and Principle 2 of the U.N. Rio De Janeiro Declaration (1992) Rational Planning Constitutes   an essential tool for recognizing any conflict between the needs of development and the need to protect and improve the environment.  (Principle 14, Stockholm Declaration)  Human beings are at the centre of concerns for sustainable development.  They are entitled  to a healthy and productive life  in harmony with nature. (Principle 1, Rio De Janeiro Declaration).  In order to achieve sustainable development, environmental protection shall constitute an integral part of the development process and cannot be considered in isolation from it.  (Principle 4, Rio De Janeiro Declaration).  In my vie, the proposed agreement must be considered in the light of the foregoing principles.  Admittedly, the principles set out in the Stockholm and Rio De Janeiro Declarations are not legally buiding in the way in which and Act of our Parliament would be.  It may be regarded merely as ‘soft law’ Nevertheless, as a Member of the United Nations, they could hardly be ignored by Sri Lanka.  Moreover, they would, in my view, be binding if they have been either expressly enacted or become a part of the domestic law by adoption by the superior courts of record and by the supreme Court in particular, in their decisions.
                                                         xxx                                   xxx                            xxx

International standard setting instruments have clearly recognized the principle of inter-generational equity.  It has been stated that humankind bears a solemn responsibility to protect and improve the environment for present and future generations.  (Principle 1,  Stockholm Declaration) .  The natural resources of the earth including the air, water, land flora and fauna must be safeguarded  for the benefit of present and future generations. (Principle 2, Stockholm Declaration). The non-renewable resources of the earth must be employed in such a way as to guard against their future exhaustion and to ensure that benefits from such employment are shared by all humankind  (Principle 5, Stockholm Declaration)  The right to development must be fulfilled so as to equitably meet developmental and environmental needs of present and future generations.  (Principle 3,  Rio De Janeiro  Declaration).  The inter-generational principle in my view, should be regarded  as axiomatic in the decision making process in relation to matters concerning the natural resources and the environment of Sri Lanka in general, and particularly in the case before us.  It is not something new to us, although memories may need to  be jogged. Judge C.G. Weeramantry, in his separate opinion in the Danube case (Hungary v. Slovakia - [1997]), (supra), referred to the “imperative of balancing the needs of the present generation with those of posterity”.  Judge weramantry referred at length to the irrigation works of ancient Sri Lanka, the Philosophy of not permitting even a drop of water to flow into the sea without benefiting humankind, and  pointed out that sustainable development had been already consciously practiced with much success for several millenia in Sri Lanka.  Judge Weeramantry said; “The notion of not causing harm to others and hence sic utere tuo ut alienum non laedas  was a central notion of Buddhism.  It translated well into environmental attitudes.  “Alienum’ in this context would be extended by Buddhism to future generations as well, and to other component elements of the natural order beyond man himself, for the Buddhist concept of duty had an enormously long reach”.

https://www.globalhealthrights.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/Sri-Lanka-Bulankulama-v.-Ministry-of-Industrial-Development-eppawala.pdf

Private respondent International School, Inc. (the School, for short), pursuant to Presidential Decree 732, is a domestic educational institution established primarily for dependents of foreign diplomatic personnel and other temporary residents. The School hires both foreign and local teachers as members of its faculty, classifying the same into two: (1) foreign-hires and (2) local-hires. The School grants foreign-hires certain benefits not accorded local-hires. These include housing, transportation, shipping costs, taxes, and home leave travel allowance. Foreign-hires are also paid a salary rate twenty-five percent (25%) more than local-hires. The School justifies the difference on two "significant economic disadvantages" foreign-hires have to endure, namely: (a) the "dislocation factor" and (b) limited tenure. When negotiations for a new collective bargaining agreement were held on June 1995, petitioner International School Alliance of Educators, "a legitimate labor union and the collective bargaining representative of all faculty members"[4] of the School, contested the difference in salary rates between foreign and local-hires. This issue, as well as the question of whether foreign-hires should be included in the appropriate bargaining unit, eventually caused a deadlock between the parties.

Court ruling:

That public policy abhors inequality and discrimination is beyond contention. Our Constitution and laws reflect the policy against these evils. The Constitution[8] in the Article on Social Justice and Human Rights exhorts Congress to "give highest priority to the enactment of measures that protect and enhance the right of all people to human dignity, reduce social, economic, and political inequalities." The very broad Article 19 of the Civil Code requires every person, "in the exercise of his rights and in the performance of his duties, [to] act with justice, give everyone his due, and observe honesty and good faith."

International law, which springs from general principles of law,[9] likewise proscribes discrimination. General principles of law include principles of equity,[10] i.e., the general principles of fairness and justice, based on the test of what is reasonable.[11] The Universal Declaration of Human Rights,[12] the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights,[13] the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination,[14] the Convention against Discrimination in Education,[15] the Convention (No. 111) Concerning Discrimination in Respect of Employment and Occupation[16] - all embody the general principle against discrimination, the very antithesis of fairness and justice. The Philippines, through its Constitution, has incorporated this principle as part of its national laws.

In the workplace, where the relations between capital and labor are often skewed in favor of capital, inequality and discrimination by the employer are all the more reprehensible.

https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/elibsearch