Precaution requires even greater diligence than prevention, by calling for measures to safeguard the environment even if the occurrence of harm is uncertain. The precautionary principle affirms the need for urgent measures given the unpredictable patterns of the environment, and the harm resulting from its abuse.88 In a recent landmark ruling on the precautionary principle, our highest court explained: An application of the precautionary principle to the rules on evidence will enable courts to tackle future environmental problems before ironclad scientific consensus emerges.89 Furthermore, when features of uncertainty, possibility of irreversible harm, and possibility of serious harm coincide, the case for the precautionary principle is strongest according to the Supreme Court; and it advises: When in doubt, cases must be resolved in favor of the constitutional right to a balanced and healthful ecology.90 The precautionary approach has been confirmed by a group of eminent experts in human rights, environmental, and international law. On March 1, 2015 the Oslo Principles on Global Obligations to Reduce Climate Change (Oslo Principles) were adopted. The experts found that states are “bound by existing international law to assess the environmental impact of their activities and to take measures to prevent the destructive effects of climate change.”91 According to the Oslo General Principles, “[t]here is clear and convincing evidence that the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions produced by human activity are causing significant changes to the climate and that these changes pose grave risks of irreversible harm to humanity, including present and future generations, to the environment, including other living species and the entire natural habitat, and to the global economy.”92 According to the same Principle, the precautionary principle requires that: !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 88 Sub-committee on the Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases, Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases, April 29, 2010 at 82. 89 See Supreme Court Decision, dated December 8, 2015, on the consolidated cases ISAAA v. Greenpeace Southeast Asia (Philippines), et al., G.R. No. 209271, Environmental Management Bureau of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Bureau of Plant Industry and Fertilizers and Pesticides Authority of the Department of Agriculture v. Greenpeace Southeast Asia (Philippines) et al., G.R. No. 209276; University of the Philippines Los Banos Foundation, Inc. v. Greenpeace Southeast Asia (Philippines), G.R. No. 209301; and University of the Philippines v. Greenpeace Southeast Asia (Philippines), G.R. No. 209430, at 100. 90 Id. 91 For a detailed discussion of the existing international law underpinning the Oslo Principles, see Oslo Principles Commentary, available at http://www.yale.edu/macmillan/globaljustice/Oslo%20Principles%20Commentary.pdf [emphasis added]; J. Powles & T. Kahn, Climate Change: At last a breakthrough to our catastrophic political impasse?, Mar. 31, 2015, http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/mar/30/climate-change-paris-talks-osloprinciples-legal-obligations (last visited Sept. 17, 2015). 92 Oslo Principles on Global Obligations to Reduce Climate Change, Mar. 1 2015, http://www.yale.edu/macmillan/globaljustice/Oslo%20Principles.pdf (last accessed June 16, 2015) at 3. ! 32! ! ! ! ! !