000			02405nam a22002657a 4500
003			OSt
005			20190710165124.0
008			190608b xxu||||| |||| 00| 0 eng d
040			_aUniversity of Cebu- Banilad _cUniversity of Cebu- Banilad
100			_aOquias, Ma. Nikka Andrea F.
245			_aThreat, uncertainty and the burden of proof : _ba legal review of the standards of the precautionary principle / _cMa. Nikka Andrea F. Oquias
260			_aCebu City : _bUniversity of Cebu, _c2018.
300			_aviii, 86 leaves : _billustrations ;
336			_2rdacontent _atext
337			_2rdamedia _aunmediated
338			_2rdacarrier _avolume
501			_aThesis (Degree of Juris Doctor)-- University of Cebu- Banilad, 2018.
504			_aIncludes references (leaves 81-85).
520			_aSummary: The precautionary principle emerged to address the struggle against the growing reactive approach to environmental protection. Its core is the idea that decision makers should act in advance to protect the environment when there is threat of harm despite uncertainty.The study takes a closer look at the jurisprudential application of the precautionary principle to investigate the procedural arrangements that trigger its application. This is done because majority of those instances where the precautionary principle was invoked resulted to a denial for its application. Using qualitative and appreciative inquiry, this study examines relevant domestic,ICJ, and EU jurisprudence. This paper reveals how current threshold of threat and uncertainty set by the courts remains high and still grounded in the traditional rules of evidence, thereby undermining the true essence of the precautionary principle.This inclination to demand higher evidentiary threshold to trigger the application of the precautionary principle renders environmental protection and ultimately the constitutional right to a healthy and balanced ecology inferior.This paper claims that a procedural arrangement ,which lowers the evidentiary standard of proving harm and high tolerance to scientific uncertainty, and the shift in the burden of proof, ought to be implemented in environmental cases to remain consistent with the principle's substantive essence.
541			_xBaldomero Estenzo _yLaw _zLaw
546			_aEnglish
942			_2ddc _cTHE
998			_ccrislyn[new] _d06/08/2019
999			_c10233 _d10233