Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC

G.R. No. 101083 July 30, 1993
JUAN ANTONIO, ANNA ROSARIO and JOSE ALFONSO, all u!na"#d OPOSA,
"$no!, and !#%!##n&#d 'y &(#$! %a!#n& ANTONIO and RI)ALINA OPOSA,
RO*ERTA NICOLE SA+IUA, "$no!, !#%!##n&#d 'y (#! %a!#n& CAL,IN and
RO*ERTA SA+IUA, CARLO, AMAN+A SALU+ and PATRIS-A, all u!na"#d
FLORES, "$no! and !#%!##n&#d 'y &(#$! %a!#n& ENRICO and NI+A FLORES,
GIANINA +ITA R. FORTUN, "$no!, !#%!##n&#d 'y (#! %a!#n& SIGRI+ and
+OLORES FORTUN, GEORGE II and MA. CONCEPCION, all u!na"#d MISA,
"$no! and !#%!##n&#d 'y &(#$! %a!#n& GEORGE and M.RA MISA, *ENJAMIN
ALAN ,. PESIGAN, "$no!, !#%!##n&#d 'y ($ %a!#n& ANTONIO and ALICE
PESIGAN, JO,IE MARIE ALFARO, "$no!, !#%!##n&#d 'y (#! %a!#n& JOSE and
MARIA ,IOLETA ALFARO, MARIA CONCEPCION T. CASTRO, "$no!, !#%!##n&#d
'y (#! %a!#n& FRE+ENIL and JANE CASTRO, JO-ANNA +ESAMPARA+O,
"$no!, !#%!##n&#d 'y (#! %a!#n& JOSE and ANGELA +ESAMPRA+O, CARLO
JOA/UIN T. NAR,ASA, "$no!, !#%!##n&#d 'y ($ %a!#n& GREGORIO II and
CRISTINE C-ARIT. NAR,ASA, MA. MARGARITA, JESUS IGNACIO, MA. ANGELA
and MARIE GA*RIELLE, all u!na"#d SAEN), "$no!, !#%!##n&#d 'y &(#$!
%a!#n& RO*ERTO and AURORA SAEN), 0RISTINE, MAR. ELLEN, MA., GOL+A
MART-E and +A,I+ IAN, all u!na"#d 0ING, "$no!, !#%!##n&#d 'y &(#$!
%a!#n& MARIO and -A.+EE 0ING, +A,I+, FRANCISCO and T-ERESE
,ICTORIA, all u!na"#d EN+RIGA, "$no!, !#%!##n&#d 'y &(#$! %a!#n&
*ALTA)AR and TERESITA EN+RIGA, JOSE MA. and REGINA MA., all u!na"#d
A*A.A, "$no!, !#%!##n&#d 'y &(#$! %a!#n& ANTONIO and MARICA A*A.A,
MARILIN, MARIO, JR. and MARIETTE, all u!na"#d CAR+AMA, "$no!,
!#%!##n&#d 'y &(#$! %a!#n& MARIO and LINA CAR+AMA, CLARISSA, ANN
MARIE, NAGEL, and IMEE L.N, all u!na"#d OPOSA, "$no! and !#%!##n&#d
'y &(#$! %a!#n& RICAR+O and MARISSA OPOSA, P-ILIP JOSEP-, STEP-EN
JO-N and ISAIA- JAMES, all u!na"#d /UIPIT, "$no!, !#%!##n&#d 'y &(#$!
%a!#n& JOSE MA1 and ,ILMI /UIPIT, *UG-A2 CIELO, CRISANTO, ANNA,
+ANIEL and FRANCISCO, all u!na"#d *I*AL, "$no!, !#%!##n&#d 'y &(#$!
%a!#n& FRANCISCO, JR. and MILAGROS *I*AL, and T-E P-ILIPPINE
ECOLOGICAL NET2OR0, INC., petitioners,
vs.
T-E -ONORA*LE FULGENCIO S. FACTORAN, JR., $n ($ 3a%a3$&y a &(#
S#3!#&a!y o4 &(# +#%a!&"#n& o4 En5$!on"#n& and Na&u!al R#ou!3#, and T-E
-ONORA*LE ERI*ERTO U. ROSARIO, P!#$d$n6 Jud6# o4 &(# RTC, Ma7a&$,
*!an3( 88, respondents.
Oposa Law Office for petitioners.
The Solicitor General for respondents.

+A,I+E, JR., J.:
In a broader sense, this petition bears upon the right of Filipinos to a balanced and
healthful ecolog !hich the petitioners dra"aticall associate !ith the t!in concepts of
#inter$generational responsibilit# and #inter$generational %ustice.# &pecificall, it
touches on the issue of !hether the said petitioners have a cause of action to #prevent
the "isappropriation or i"pair"ent# of Philippine rainforests and #arrest the unabated
he"orrhage of the countr's vital life support sste"s and continued rape of Mother
Earth.#
(he controvers has its genesis in Civil Case No. )*$++ !hich !as filed before Branch
,, -Ma.ati, Metro Manila/ of the Regional (rial Court -R(C/, National Capital 0udicial
Region. (he principal plaintiffs therein, no! the principal petitioners, are all "inors dul
represented and %oined b their respective parents. I"pleaded as an additional plaintiff
is the Philippine Ecological Net!or., Inc. -PENI/, a do"estic, non$stoc. and non$profit
corporation organi1ed for the purpose of, inter alia, engaging in concerted action
geared for the protection of our environ"ent and natural resources. (he original
defendant !as the 2onorable Fulgencio &. Factoran, 0r., then &ecretar of the
3epart"ent of Environ"ent and Natural Resources -3ENR/. 2is substitution in this
petition b the ne! &ecretar, the 2onorable Angel C. Alcala, !as subse4uentl
ordered upon proper "otion b the petitioners.
1
(he co"plaint
9
!as instituted as a
ta5paers' class suit
3
and alleges that the plaintiffs #are all citi1ens of the Republic of
the Philippines, ta5paers, and entitled to the full benefit, use and en%o"ent of the
natural resource treasure that is the countr's virgin tropical forests.# (he sa"e !as
filed for the"selves and others !ho are e4uall concerned about the preservation of
said resource but are #so nu"erous that it is i"practicable to bring the" all before the
Court.# (he "inors further asseverate that the #represent their generation as !ell as
generations et unborn.#
:
Conse4uentl, it is praed for that %udg"ent be rendered6
. . . ordering defendant, his agents, representatives and other persons acting in his
behalf to 7
-8/ Cancel all e5isting ti"ber license agree"ents in the countr9
-:/ Cease and desist fro" receiving, accepting, processing, rene!ing or approving
ne! ti"ber license agree"ents.
and granting the plaintiffs #. . . such other reliefs %ust and e4uitable under the
pre"ises.#
;
(he co"plaint starts off !ith the general aver"ents that the Philippine archipelago of
+,8** islands has a land area of thirt "illion -;*,***,***/ hectares and is endo!ed
1
!ith rich, lush and verdant rainforests in !hich varied, rare and uni4ue species of flora
and fauna "a be found9 these rainforests contain a genetic, biological and che"ical
pool !hich is irreplaceable9 the are also the habitat of indigenous Philippine cultures
!hich have e5isted, endured and flourished since ti"e i""e"orial9 scientific evidence
reveals that in order to "aintain a balanced and healthful ecolog, the countr's land
area should be utili1ed on the basis of a ratio of fift$four per cent -<=>/ for forest
cover and fort$si5 per cent -=,>/ for agricultural, residential, industrial, co""ercial
and other uses9 the distortion and disturbance of this balance as a conse4uence of
deforestation have resulted in a host of environ"ental tragedies, such as -a/ !ater
shortages resulting fro" dring up of the !ater table, other!ise .no!n as the #a4uifer,#
as !ell as of rivers, broo.s and strea"s, -b/ salini1ation of the !ater table as a result
of the intrusion therein of salt !ater, incontrovertible e5a"ples of !hich "a be found
in the island of Cebu and the Municipalit of Bacoor, Cavite, -c/ "assive erosion and
the conse4uential loss of soil fertilit and agricultural productivit, !ith the volu"e of
soil eroded esti"ated at one billion -8,***,***,***/ cubic "eters per annu" 7
appro5i"atel the si1e of the entire island of Catanduanes, -d/ the endangering and
e5tinction of the countr's uni4ue, rare and varied flora and fauna, -e/ the disturbance
and dislocation of cultural co""unities, including the disappearance of the Filipino's
indigenous cultures, -f/ the siltation of rivers and seabeds and conse4uential
destruction of corals and other a4uatic life leading to a critical reduction in "arine
resource productivit, -g/ recurrent spells of drought as is presentl e5perienced b the
entire countr, -h/ increasing velocit of tphoon !inds !hich result fro" the absence
of !indbrea.ers, -i/ the floodings of lo!lands and agricultural plains arising fro" the
absence of the absorbent "echanis" of forests, -%/ the siltation and shortening of the
lifespan of "ulti$billion peso da"s constructed and operated for the purpose of
suppling !ater for do"estic uses, irrigation and the generation of electric po!er, and
-./ the reduction of the earth's capacit to process carbon dio5ide gases !hich has led
to perple5ing and catastrophic cli"atic changes such as the pheno"enon of global
!ar"ing, other!ise .no!n as the #greenhouse effect.#
Plaintiffs further assert that the adverse and detri"ental conse4uences of continued
and deforestation are so capable of un4uestionable de"onstration that the sa"e "a
be sub"itted as a "atter of %udicial notice. (his not!ithstanding, the e5pressed their
intention to present e5pert !itnesses as !ell as docu"entar, photographic and fil"
evidence in the course of the trial.
As their cause of action, the specificall allege that6
CAUSE OF ACTION
+. Plaintiffs replead b reference the foregoing allegations.
?. (!ent$five -:</ ears ago, the Philippines had so"e si5teen -8,/ "illion hectares of
rainforests constituting roughl <;> of the countr's land "ass.
). &atellite i"ages ta.en in 8)?+ reveal that there re"ained no "ore than 8.: "illion
hectares of said rainforests or four per cent -=.*>/ of the countr's land area.
8*. More recent surves reveal that a "ere ?<*,*** hectares of virgin old$gro!th
rainforests are left, barel :.?> of the entire land "ass of the Philippine archipelago
and about ;.* "illion hectares of i""ature and unecono"ical secondar gro!th
forests.
88. Public records reveal that the defendant's, predecessors have granted ti"ber
license agree"ents -'(@A's'/ to various corporations to cut the aggregate area of ;.?)
"illion hectares for co""ercial logging purposes.
A cop of the (@A holders and the corresponding areas covered is hereto attached as
Anne5 #A#.
8:. At the present rate of deforestation, i.e. about :**,*** hectares per annu" or :<
hectares per hour 7 nightti"e, &aturdas, &undas and holidas included 7 the
Philippines !ill be bereft of forest resources after the end of this ensuing decade, if not
earlier.
8;. (he adverse effects, disastrous conse4uences, serious in%ur and irreparable
da"age of this continued trend of deforestation to the plaintiff "inor's generation and
to generations et unborn are evident and incontrovertible. As a "atter of fact, the
environ"ental da"ages enu"erated in paragraph , hereof are alread being felt,
e5perienced and suffered b the generation of plaintiff adults.
8=. (he continued allo!ance b defendant of (@A holders to cut and deforest the
re"aining forest stands !ill !or. great da"age and irreparable in%ur to plaintiffs 7
especiall plaintiff "inors and their successors 7 !ho "a never see, use, benefit
fro" and en%o this rare and uni4ue natural resource treasure.
(his act of defendant constitutes a "isappropriation andAor i"pair"ent of the natural
resource propert he holds in trust for the benefit of plaintiff "inors and succeeding
generations.
8<. Plaintiffs have a clear and constitutional right to a balanced and healthful ecolog
and are entitled to protection b the &tate in its capacit as the parens patriae.
8,. Plaintiff have e5hausted all ad"inistrative re"edies !ith the defendant's office. Bn
March :, 8))*, plaintiffs served upon defendant a final de"and to cancel all logging
per"its in the countr.
A cop of the plaintiffs' letter dated March 8, 8))* is hereto attached as Anne5 #B#.
8+. 3efendant, ho!ever, fails and refuses to cancel the e5isting (@A's to the continuing
serious da"age and e5tre"e pre%udice of plaintiffs.
8?. (he continued failure and refusal b defendant to cancel the (@A's is an act
violative of the rights of plaintiffs, especiall plaintiff "inors !ho "a be left !ith a
2
countr that is desertified -sic/, bare, barren and devoid of the !onderful flora, fauna
and indigenous cultures !hich the Philippines had been abundantl blessed !ith.
8). 3efendant's refusal to cancel the afore"entioned (@A's is "anifestl contrar to
the public polic enunciated in the Philippine Environ"ental Polic !hich, in pertinent
part, states that it is the polic of the &tate 7
-a/ to create, develop, "aintain and i"prove conditions under !hich "an and nature
can thrive in productive and en%oable har"on !ith each other9
-b/ to fulfill the social, econo"ic and other re4uire"ents of present and future
generations of Filipinos and9
-c/ to ensure the attain"ent of an environ"ental 4ualit that is conductive to a life of
dignit and !ell$being. -P.3. 88<8, , 0une 8)++/
:*. Further"ore, defendant's continued refusal to cancel the afore"entioned (@A's is
contradictor to the Constitutional polic of the &tate to 7
a. effect #a "ore e4uitable distribution of opportunities, inco"e and !ealth# and #"a.e
full and efficient use of natural resources -sic/.# -&ection 8, Article CII of the
Constitution/9
b. #protect the nation's "arine !ealth.# -&ection :, ibid/9
c. #conserve and pro"ote the nation's cultural heritage and resources -sic/# -&ection
8=, Article CID, id./9
d. #protect and advance the right of the people to a balanced and healthful ecolog in
accord !ith the rhth" and har"on of nature.# -&ection 8,, Article II, id./
:8. Finall, defendant's act is contrar to the highest la! of hu"an.ind 7 the natural
la! 7 and violative of plaintiffs' right to self$preservation and perpetuation.
::. (here is no other plain, speed and ade4uate re"ed in la! other than the instant
action to arrest the unabated he"orrhage of the countr's vital life support sste"s
and continued rape of Mother Earth.
8
Bn :: 0une 8))*, the original defendant, &ecretar Factoran, 0r., filed a Motion to
3is"iss the co"plaint based on t!o -:/ grounds, na"el6 -8/ the plaintiffs have no
cause of action against hi" and -:/ the issue raised b the plaintiffs is a political
4uestion !hich properl pertains to the legislative or e5ecutive branches of
Eovern"ent. In their 8: 0ul 8))* Bpposition to the Motion, the petitioners "aintain
that -8/ the co"plaint sho!s a clear and un"ista.able cause of action, -:/ the "otion
is dilator and -;/ the action presents a %usticiable 4uestion as it involves the
defendant's abuse of discretion.
Bn 8? 0ul 8))8, respondent 0udge issued an order granting the afore"entioned
"otion to dis"iss.
<
In the said order, not onl !as the defendant's clai" 7 that the
co"plaint states no cause of action against hi" and that it raises a political 4uestion 7
sustained, the respondent 0udge further ruled that the granting of the relief praed for
!ould result in the i"pair"ent of contracts !hich is prohibited b the funda"ental la!
of the land.
Plaintiffs thus filed the instant special civil action for certiorari under Rule ,< of the
Revised Rules of Court and as. this Court to rescind and set aside the dis"issal order
on the ground that the respondent 0udge gravel abused his discretion in dis"issing
the action. Again, the parents of the plaintiffs$"inors not onl represent their children,
but have also %oined the latter in this case.
8
Bn 8= Ma 8)):, Fe resolved to give due course to the petition and re4uired the
parties to sub"it their respective Me"oranda after the Bffice of the &olicitor Eeneral
-B&E/ filed a Co""ent in behalf of the respondents and the petitioners filed a repl
thereto.
Petitioners contend that the co"plaint clearl and un"ista.abl states a cause of
action as it contains sufficient allegations concerning their right to a sound environ"ent
based on Articles 8), :* and :8 of the Civil Code -2u"an Relations/, &ection = of
E5ecutive Brder -E.B./ No. 8): creating the 3ENR, &ection ; of Presidential 3ecree
-P.3./ No. 88<8 -Philippine Environ"ental Polic/, &ection 8,, Article II of the 8)?+
Constitution recogni1ing the right of the people to a balanced and healthful ecolog,
the concept of generational genocide in Cri"inal @a! and the concept of "an's
inalienable right to self$preservation and self$perpetuation e"bodied in natural la!.
Petitioners li.e!ise rel on the respondent's correlative obligation per &ection = of E.B.
No. 8):, to safeguard the people's right to a healthful environ"ent.
It is further clai"ed that the issue of the respondent &ecretar's alleged grave abuse of
discretion in granting (i"ber @icense Agree"ents -(@As/ to cover "ore areas for
logging than !hat is available involves a %udicial 4uestion.
Anent the invocation b the respondent 0udge of the Constitution's non$i"pair"ent
clause, petitioners "aintain that the sa"e does not appl in this case because (@As
are not contracts. (he li.e!ise sub"it that even if (@As "a be considered protected
b the said clause, it is !ell settled that the "a still be revo.ed b the &tate !hen the
public interest so re4uires.
Bn the other hand, the respondents aver that the petitioners failed to allege in their
co"plaint a specific legal right violated b the respondent &ecretar for !hich an
relief is provided b la!. (he see nothing in the co"plaint but vague and nebulous
allegations concerning an #environ"ental right# !hich supposedl entitles the
petitioners to the #protection b the state in its capacit as parens patriae.# &uch
3
allegations, according to the", do not reveal a valid cause of action. (he then
reiterate the theor that the 4uestion of !hether logging should be per"itted in the
countr is a political 4uestion !hich should be properl addressed to the e5ecutive or
legislative branches of Eovern"ent. (he therefore assert that the petitioners'
resources is not to file an action to court, but to lobb before Congress for the passage
of a bill that !ould ban logging totall.
As to the "atter of the cancellation of the (@As, respondents sub"it that the sa"e
cannot be done b the &tate !ithout due process of la!. Bnce issued, a (@A re"ains
effective for a certain period of ti"e 7 usuall for t!ent$five -:</ ears. 3uring its
effectivit, the sa"e can neither be revised nor cancelled unless the holder has been
found, after due notice and hearing, to have violated the ter"s of the agree"ent or
other forestr la!s and regulations. Petitioners' proposition to have all the (@As
indiscri"inatel cancelled !ithout the re4uisite hearing !ould be violative of the
re4uire"ents of due process.
Before going an further, Fe "ust first focus on so"e procedural "atters. Petitioners
instituted Civil Case No. )*$+++ as a class suit. (he original defendant and the present
respondents did not ta.e issue !ith this "atter. Nevertheless, Fe hereb rule that the
said civil case is indeed a class suit. (he sub%ect "atter of the co"plaint is of co""on
and general interest not %ust to several, but to all citi1ens of the Philippines.
Conse4uentl, since the parties are so nu"erous, it, beco"es i"practicable, if not
totall i"possible, to bring all of the" before the court. Fe li.e!ise declare that the
plaintiffs therein are nu"erous and representative enough to ensure the full protection
of all concerned interests. 2ence, all the re4uisites for the filing of a valid class suit
under &ection 8:, Rule ; of the Revised Rules of Court are present both in the said
civil case and in the instant petition, the latter being but an incident to the for"er.
(his case, ho!ever, has a special and novel ele"ent. Petitioners "inors assert that
the represent their generation as !ell as generations et unborn. Fe find no difficult
in ruling that the can, for the"selves, for others of their generation and for the
succeeding generations, file a class suit. (heir personalit to sue in behalf of the
succeeding generations can onl be based on the concept of intergenerational
responsibilit insofar as the right to a balanced and healthful ecolog is concerned.
&uch a right, as hereinafter e5pounded, considers
the #rhth" and har"on of nature.# Nature "eans the created !orld in its entiret.
9

&uch rhth" and har"on indispensabl include, inter alia, the %udicious disposition,
utili1ation, "anage"ent, rene!al and conservation of the countr's forest, "ineral,
land, !aters, fisheries, !ildlife, off$shore areas and other natural resources to the end
that their e5ploration, develop"ent and utili1ation be e4uitabl accessible to the
present as !ell as future generations.
10
Needless to sa, ever generation has a
responsibilit to the ne5t to preserve that rhth" and har"on for the full en%o"ent of
a balanced and healthful ecolog. Put a little differentl, the "inors' assertion of their
right to a sound environ"ent constitutes, at the sa"e ti"e, the perfor"ance of their
obligation to ensure the protection of that right for the generations to co"e.
(he locus standi of the petitioners having thus been addressed, Fe shall no! proceed
to the "erits of the petition.
After a careful perusal of the co"plaint in 4uestion and a "eticulous consideration and
evaluation of the issues raised and argu"ents adduced b the parties, Fe do not
hesitate to find for the petitioners and rule against the respondent 0udge's challenged
order for having been issued !ith grave abuse of discretion a"ounting to lac. of
%urisdiction. (he pertinent portions of the said order reads as follo!s6
555 555 555
After a careful and circu"spect evaluation of the Co"plaint, the Court cannot help but
agree !ith the defendant. For although !e believe that plaintiffs have but the noblest of
all intentions, it -sic/ fell short of alleging, !ith sufficient definiteness, a specific legal
right the are see.ing to enforce and protect, or a specific legal !rong the are see.ing
to prevent and redress -&ec. 8, Rule :, RRC/. Further"ore, the Court notes that the
Co"plaint is replete !ith vague assu"ptions and vague conclusions based on
unverified data. In fine, plaintiffs fail to state a cause of action in its Co"plaint against
the herein defendant.
Further"ore, the Court fir"l believes that the "atter before it, being i"pressed !ith
political color and involving a "atter of public polic, "a not be ta.en cogni1ance of
b this Court !ithout doing violence to the sacred principle of #&eparation of Po!ers#
of the three -;/ co$e4ual branches of the Eovern"ent.
(he Court is li.e!ise of the i"pression that it cannot, no "atter ho! !e stretch our
%urisdiction, grant the reliefs praed for b the plaintiffs, i.e., to cancel all e5isting ti"ber
license agree"ents in the countr and to cease and desist fro" receiving, accepting,
processing, rene!ing or approving ne! ti"ber license agree"ents. For to do
other!ise !ould a"ount to #i"pair"ent of contracts# abhored -sic/ b the funda"ental
la!.
11
Fe do not agree !ith the trial court's conclusions that the plaintiffs failed to allege !ith
sufficient definiteness a specific legal right involved or a specific legal !rong
co""itted, and that the co"plaint is replete !ith vague assu"ptions and conclusions
based on unverified data. A reading of the co"plaint itself belies these conclusions.
(he co"plaint focuses on one specific funda"ental legal right 7 the right to a
balanced and healthful ecolog !hich, for the first ti"e in our nation's constitutional
histor, is sole"nl incorporated in the funda"ental la!. &ection 8,, Article II of the
8)?+ Constitution e5plicitl provides6
&ec. 8,. (he &tate shall protect and advance the right of the people to a balanced and
healthful ecolog in accord !ith the rhth" and har"on of nature.
(his right unites !ith the right to health !hich is provided for in the preceding section of
the sa"e article6
4
&ec. 8<. (he &tate shall protect and pro"ote the right to health of the people and instill
health consciousness a"ong the".
Fhile the right to a balanced and healthful ecolog is to be found under the
3eclaration of Principles and &tate Policies and not under the Bill of Rights, it does not
follo! that it is less i"portant than an of the civil and political rights enu"erated in the
latter. &uch a right belongs to a different categor of rights altogether for it concerns
nothing less than self$preservation and self$perpetuation 7 aptl and fittingl stressed
b the petitioners 7 the advance"ent of !hich "a even be said to predate all
govern"ents and constitutions. As a "atter of fact, these basic rights need not even
be !ritten in the Constitution for the are assu"ed to e5ist fro" the inception of
hu"an.ind. If the are no! e5plicitl "entioned in the funda"ental charter, it is
because of the !ell$founded fear of its fra"ers that unless the rights to a balanced and
healthful ecolog and to health are "andated as state policies b the Constitution
itself, thereb highlighting their continuing i"portance and i"posing upon the state a
sole"n obligation to preserve the first and protect and advance the second, the da
!ould not be too far !hen all else !ould be lost not onl for the present generation, but
also for those to co"e 7 generations !hich stand to inherit nothing but parched earth
incapable of sustaining life.
(he right to a balanced and healthful ecolog carries !ith it the correlative dut to
refrain fro" i"pairing the environ"ent. 3uring the debates on this right in one of the
plenar sessions of the 8)?, Constitutional Co""ission, the follo!ing e5change
transpired bet!een Co""issioner Filfrido Dillacorta and Co""issioner Adolfo A1cuna
!ho sponsored the section in 4uestion6
MR. DI@@ACBR(A6
3oes this section "andate the &tate to provide sanctions against all for"s of pollution
7 air, !ater and noise pollutionG
MR. AHCINA6
Jes, Mada" President. (he right to healthful -sic/ environ"ent necessaril carries !ith
it the correlative dut of not i"pairing the sa"e and, therefore, sanctions "a be
provided for i"pair"ent of environ"ental balance.
19
(he said right i"plies, a"ong "an other things, the %udicious "anage"ent and
conservation of the countr's forests.
Fithout such forests, the ecological or environ"ental balance !ould be irreversib
disrupted.
Confor"abl !ith the enunciated right to a balanced and healthful ecolog and the
right to health, as !ell as the other related provisions of the Constitution concerning
the conservation, develop"ent and utili1ation of the countr's natural resources,
13
then
President Cora1on C. A4uino pro"ulgated on 8* 0une 8)?+ E.B. No. 8):,
1:
&ection =
of !hich e5pressl "andates that the 3epart"ent of Environ"ent and Natural
Resources #shall be the pri"ar govern"ent agenc responsible for the conservation,
"anage"ent, develop"ent and proper use of the countr's environ"ent and natural
resources, specificall forest and gra1ing lands, "ineral, resources, including those in
reservation and !atershed areas, and lands of the public do"ain, as !ell as the
licensing and regulation of all natural resources as "a be provided for b la! in order
to ensure e4uitable sharing of the benefits derived therefro" for the !elfare of the
present and future generations of Filipinos.# &ection ; thereof "a.es the follo!ing
state"ent of polic6
&ec. ;. eclaration of !olic". 7 It is hereb declared the polic of the &tate to ensure
the sustainable use, develop"ent, "anage"ent, rene!al, and conservation of the
countr's forest, "ineral, land, off$shore areas and other natural resources, including
the protection and enhance"ent of the 4ualit of the environ"ent, and e4uitable
access of the different seg"ents of the population to the develop"ent and the use of
the countr's natural resources, not onl for the present generation but for future
generations as !ell. It is also the polic of the state to recogni1e and appl a true value
sste" including social and environ"ental cost i"plications relative to their utili1ation,
develop"ent and conservation of our natural resources.
(his polic declaration is substantiall re$stated it (itle CID, Boo. ID of the
Ad"inistrative Code of 8)?+,
1;
specificall in &ection 8 thereof !hich reads6
&ec. 8. eclaration of !olic". 7 -8/ (he &tate shall ensure, for the benefit of the
Filipino people, the full e5ploration and develop"ent as !ell as the %udicious
disposition, utili1ation, "anage"ent, rene!al and conservation of the countr's forest,
"ineral, land, !aters, fisheries, !ildlife, off$shore areas and other natural resources,
consistent !ith the necessit of "aintaining a sound ecological balance and protecting
and enhancing the 4ualit of the environ"ent and the ob%ective of "a.ing the
e5ploration, develop"ent and utili1ation of such natural resources e4uitabl accessible
to the different seg"ents of the present as !ell as future generations.
-:/ (he &tate shall li.e!ise recogni1e and appl a true value sste" that ta.es into
account social and environ"ental cost i"plications relative to the utili1ation,
develop"ent and conservation of our natural resources.
(he above provision stresses #the necessit of "aintaining a sound ecological balance
and protecting and enhancing the 4ualit of the environ"ent.# &ection : of the sa"e
(itle, on the other hand, specificall spea.s of the "andate of the 3ENR9 ho!ever, it
"a.es particular reference to the fact of the agenc's being sub%ect to la! and higher
authorit. &aid section provides6
&ec. :. #andate. 7 -8/ (he 3epart"ent of Environ"ent and Natural Resources shall
be pri"aril responsible for the i"ple"entation of the foregoing polic.
5
-:/ It shall, sub%ect to la! and higher authorit, be in charge of carring out the &tate's
constitutional "andate to control and supervise the e5ploration, develop"ent,
utili1ation, and conservation of the countr's natural resources.
Both E.B. NB. 8): and the Ad"inistrative Code of 8)?+ have set the ob%ectives !hich
!ill serve as the bases for polic for"ulation, and have defined the po!ers and
functions of the 3ENR.
It "a, ho!ever, be recalled that even before the ratification of the 8)?+ Constitution,
specific statutes alread paid special attention to the #environ"ental right# of the
present and future generations. Bn , 0une 8)++, P.3. No. 88<8 -Philippine
Environ"ental Polic/ and P.3. No. 88<: -Philippine Environ"ent Code/ !ere issued.
(he for"er #declared a continuing polic of the &tate -a/ to create, develop, "aintain
and i"prove conditions under !hich "an and nature can thrive in productive and
en%oable har"on !ith each other, -b/ to fulfill the social, econo"ic and other
re4uire"ents of present and future generations of Filipinos, and -c/ to insure the
attain"ent of an environ"ental 4ualit that is conducive to a life of dignit and !ell$
being.#
18
As its goal, it spea.s of the #responsibilities of each generation as trustee
and guardian of the environ"ent for succeeding generations.#
1<
(he latter statute, on
the other hand, gave flesh to the said polic.
(hus, the right of the petitioners -and all those the represent/ to a balanced and
healthful ecolog is as clear as the 3ENR's dut 7 under its "andate and b virtue of
its po!ers and functions under E.B. No. 8): and the Ad"inistrative Code of 8)?+ 7 to
protect and advance the said right.
A denial or violation of that right b the other !ho has the corelative dut or obligation
to respect or protect the sa"e gives rise to a cause of action. Petitioners "aintain that
the granting of the (@As, !hich the clai" !as done !ith grave abuse of discretion,
violated their right to a balanced and healthful ecolog9 hence, the full protection
thereof re4uires that no further (@As should be rene!ed or granted.
A cause of action is defined as6
. . . an act or o"ission of one part in violation of the legal right or rights of the other9
and its essential ele"ents are legal right of the plaintiff, correlative obligation of the
defendant, and act or o"ission of the defendant in violation of said legal right.
18
It is settled in this %urisdiction that in a "otion to dis"iss based on the ground that the
co"plaint fails to state a cause of action,
19
the 4uestion sub"itted to the court for
resolution involves the sufficienc of the facts alleged in the co"plaint itself. No other
"atter should be considered9 further"ore, the truth of falsit of the said allegations is
beside the point for the truth thereof is dee"ed hpotheticall ad"itted. (he onl issue
to be resolved in such a case is6 ad"itting such alleged facts to be true, "a the court
render a valid %udg"ent in accordance !ith the praer in the co"plaintG
90
In #ilitante
$s. Edrosolano,
91
this Court laid do!n the rule that the %udiciar should #e5ercise the
ut"ost care and circu"spection in passing upon a "otion to dis"iss on the ground of
the absence thereof Kcause of actionL lest, b its failure to "anifest a correct
appreciation of the facts alleged and dee"ed hpotheticall ad"itted, !hat the la!
grants or recogni1es is effectivel nullified. If that happens, there is a blot on the legal
order. (he la! itself stands in disrepute.#
After careful e5a"ination of the petitioners' co"plaint, Fe find the state"ents under
the introductor affir"ative allegations, as !ell as the specific aver"ents under the
sub$heading CAI&E BF AC(IBN, to be ade4uate enough to sho!, pri%a facie, the
clai"ed violation of their rights. Bn the basis thereof, the "a thus be granted, !holl
or partl, the reliefs praed for. It bears stressing, ho!ever, that insofar as the
cancellation of the (@As is concerned, there is the need to i"plead, as part
defendants, the grantees thereof for the are indispensable parties.
(he foregoing considered, Civil Case No. )*$+++ be said to raise a political 4uestion.
Polic for"ulation or deter"ination b the e5ecutive or legislative branches of
Eovern"ent is not s4uarel put in issue. Fhat is principall involved is the
enforce"ent of a right $is&a&$is policies alread for"ulated and e5pressed in
legislation. It "ust, nonetheless, be e"phasi1ed that the political 4uestion doctrine is
no longer, the insur"ountable obstacle to the e5ercise of %udicial po!er or the
i"penetrable shield that protects e5ecutive and legislative actions fro" %udicial in4uir
or revie!. (he second paragraph of section 8, Article DIII of the Constitution states
that6
0udicial po!er includes the dut of the courts of %ustice to settle actual controversies
involving rights !hich are legall de"andable and enforceable, and to deter"ine
!hether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion a"ounting to lac. or e5cess
of %urisdiction on the part of an branch or instru"entalit of the Eovern"ent.
Co""enting on this provision in his boo., !hilippine !olitical Law,
99
Mr. 0ustice
Isagani A. Cru1, a distinguished "e"ber of this Court, sas6
(he first part of the authorit represents the traditional concept of %udicial po!er,
involving the settle"ent of conflicting rights as conferred as la!. (he second part of the
authorit represents a broadening of %udicial po!er to enable the courts of %ustice to
revie! !hat !as before forbidden territor, to !it, the discretion of the political
depart"ents of the govern"ent.
As !orded, the ne! provision vests in the %udiciar, and particularl the &upre"e
Court, the po!er to rule upon even the !isdo" of the decisions of the e5ecutive and
the legislature and to declare their acts invalid for lac. or e5cess of %urisdiction
because tainted !ith grave abuse of discretion. (he catch, of course, is the "eaning of
#grave abuse of discretion,# !hich is a ver elastic phrase that can e5pand or contract
according to the disposition of the %udiciar.
In a'a $s. Sin(son,
93
Mr. 0ustice Cru1, no! spea.ing for this Court, noted6
6
In the case no! before us, the %urisdictional ob%ection beco"es even less tenable and
decisive. (he reason is that, even if !e !ere to assu"e that the issue presented
before us !as political in nature, !e !ould still not be precluded fro" revolving it under
the e5panded %urisdiction conferred upon us that no! covers, in proper cases, even the
political 4uestion. Article DII, &ection 8, of the Constitution clearl provides6 . . .
(he last ground invo.ed b the trial court in dis"issing the co"plaint is the non$
i"pair"ent of contracts clause found in the Constitution. (he court a )uo declared
that6
(he Court is li.e!ise of the i"pression that it cannot, no "atter ho! !e stretch our
%urisdiction, grant the reliefs praed for b the plaintiffs, i.e., to cancel all e5isting ti"ber
license agree"ents in the countr and to cease and desist fro" receiving, accepting,
processing, rene!ing or approving ne! ti"ber license agree"ents. For to do
other!ise !ould a"ount to #i"pair"ent of contracts# abhored -sic/ b the funda"ental
la!.
9:
Fe are not persuaded at all9 on the contrar, Fe are a"a1ed, if not shoc.ed, b such
a s!eeping pronounce"ent. In the first place, the respondent &ecretar did not, for
obvious reasons, even invo.e in his "otion to dis"iss the non$i"pair"ent clause. If he
had done so, he !ould have acted !ith ut"ost infidelit to the Eovern"ent b
providing undue and un!arranted benefits and advantages to the ti"ber license
holders because he !ould have forever bound the Eovern"ent to strictl respect the
said licenses according to their ter"s and conditions regardless of changes in polic
and the de"ands of public interest and !elfare. 2e !as a!are that as correctl
pointed out b the petitioners, into ever ti"ber license "ust be read &ection :* of the
Forestr Refor" Code -P.3. No. +*</ !hich provides6
. . . !ro$ided, (hat !hen the national interest so re4uires, the President "a a"end,
"odif, replace or rescind an contract, concession, per"it, licenses or an other for"
of privilege granted herein . . .
Needless to sa, all licenses "a thus be revo.ed or rescinded b e5ecutive action. It
is not a contract, propert or a propert right protested b the due process clause of
the Constitution. In Tan $s. irector of Forestr",
9;
this Court held6
. . . A ti"ber license is an instru"ent b !hich the &tate regulates the utili1ation and
disposition of forest resources to the end that public !elfare is pro"oted. A ti"ber
license is not a contract !ithin the purvie! of the due process clause9 it is onl a
license or privilege, !hich can be validl !ithdra!n !henever dictated b public
interest or public !elfare as in this case.
A license is "erel a per"it or privilege to do !hat other!ise !ould be unla!ful, and is
not a contract bet!een the authorit, federal, state, or "unicipal, granting it and the
person to !ho" it is granted9 neither is it propert or a propert right, nor does it create
a vested right9 nor is it ta5ation -;+ C.0. 8,?/. (hus, this Court held that the granting of
license does not create irrevocable rights, neither is it propert or propert rights
-People vs. Bng (in, <= B.E. +<+,/.
Fe reiterated this pronounce"ent in Felipe *s%ael+ ,r. - Co.+ Inc. $s. eput"
E.ecuti$e Secretar"6
98
. . . (i"ber licenses, per"its and license agree"ents are the principal instru"ents b
!hich the &tate regulates the utili1ation and disposition of forest resources to the end
that public !elfare is pro"oted. And it can hardl be gainsaid that the "erel
evidence a privilege granted b the &tate to 4ualified entities, and do not vest in the
latter a per"anent or irrevocable right to the particular concession area and the forest
products therein. (he "a be validl a"ended, "odified, replaced or rescinded b
the Chief E5ecutive !hen national interests so re4uire. (hus, the are not dee"ed
contracts !ithin the purvie! of the due process of la! clause KSee &ections ;-ee/ and
:* of Pres. 3ecree No. +*<, as a"ended. Also, (an v. 3irector of Forestr, E.R. No. @$
:=<=?, Bctober :+, 8)?;, 8:< &CRA ;*:L.
&ince ti"ber licenses are not contracts, the non$i"pair"ent clause, !hich reads6
&ec. 8*. No la! i"pairing, the obligation of contracts shall be passed.
9<
cannot be invo.ed.
In the second place, even if it is to be assu"ed that the sa"e are contracts, the instant
case does not involve a la! or even an e5ecutive issuance declaring the cancellation
or "odification of e5isting ti"ber licenses. 2ence, the non$i"pair"ent clause cannot
as et be invo.ed. Nevertheless, granting further that a la! has actuall been passed
"andating cancellations or "odifications, the sa"e cannot still be stig"ati1ed as a
violation of the non$i"pair"ent clause. (his is because b its ver nature and purpose,
such as la! could have onl been passed in the e5ercise of the police po!er of the
state for the purpose of advancing the right of the people to a balanced and healthful
ecolog, pro"oting their health and enhancing the general !elfare. In Abe $s. Foster
/heeler
Corp.
98
this Court stated6
(he freedo" of contract, under our sste" of govern"ent, is not "eant to be absolute.
(he sa"e is understood to be sub%ect to reasonable legislative regulation ai"ed at the
pro"otion of public health, "oral, safet and !elfare. In other !ords, the constitutional
guarant of non$i"pair"ent of obligations of contract is li"ited b the e5ercise of the
police po!er of the &tate, in the interest of public health, safet, "oral and general
!elfare.
(he reason for this is e"phaticall set forth in Nebia $s. New *or0,
99
4uoted in
!hilippine A%erican Life Insurance Co. $s. Auditor General,
30
to !it6
7
Inder our for" of govern"ent the use of propert and the "a.ing of contracts are
nor"all "atters of private and not of public concern. (he general rule is that both
shall be free of govern"ental interference. But neither propert rights nor contract
rights are absolute9 for govern"ent cannot e5ist if the citi1en "a at !ill use his
propert to the detri"ent of his fello!s, or e5ercise his freedo" of contract to !or.
the" har". E4uall funda"ental !ith the private right is that of the public to regulate it
in the co""on interest.
In short, the non$i"pair"ent clause "ust ield to the police po!er of the state.
31
Finall, it is difficult to i"agine, as the trial court did, ho! the non$i"pair"ent clause
could appl !ith respect to the praer to en%oin the respondent &ecretar fro"
receiving, accepting, processing, rene!ing or approving ne! ti"ber licenses for, save
in cases of renewal, no contract !ould have as of et e5isted in the other instances.
Moreover, !ith respect to rene!al, the holder is not entitled to it as a "atter of right.
F2EREFBRE, being i"pressed !ith "erit, the instant Petition is hereb ERAN(E3,
and the challenged Brder of respondent 0udge of 8? 0ul 8))8 dis"issing Civil Case
No. )*$+++ is hereb set aside. (he petitioners "a therefore a"end their co"plaint to
i"plead as defendants the holders or grantees of the 4uestioned ti"ber license
agree"ents.
No pronounce"ent as to costs.
&B BR3ERE3.
8