OPOSA v.

FACTORAN
GR NO. 101083/JULY 30, 1993
J. DAVIDE JR.

DECISION: GRANTED
SEPARATE: J. FELICIANO
CASE TOPIC: Inter-generational responsibility and Inter-generational justice

FACTS:

 PETITIONERS: Juan Antonio Oposa et. al, minors, represented by their parents +
Philippine Ecological Network (PENI), a domestic, non-stock and non-profit organization
geared for the protection of the environment and natural resources.
 RESPONDENTS: DENR Sec. Fulgencio Factoran Jr. substituted by Sec. Angel Alcala, and
Judge Eriberto Rosario (RTC Makati, Branch 66)
 TAXPAYERS’ CLASS SUIT: Representation of the current generation as well as
generations yet unborn. They prayed for the judgment: 1) Cancel all existing timber
license agreements in the country; 2) CDO from receiving, accepting, processing,
renewing, or approving new timber license agreements.
 START OF THE COMPLAINT:
 7,100 islands = 30,000,000 hectares (Philippines)
 Science stated: 54:46 (54% = forest cover; 46% = agricultural, residential,
industrial, commercial, etc) // In order to maintain a balanced and
healthful ecology.
 Disturbance + Distortion = environmental tragedies (1) water shortages
or ‘aquifer’; 2) salinization of the water (Cebu, and Bacoor, Cavite); 3)
massive erosion at one billion cubic meters per annum – similar to the
size of Catanduanes; 4) extinction of flora and fauna; 5) dislocation of
cultural communities; 6) siltation of rivers and seabeds which led to the
reduction of marine source productivity; 7) drought; 8) increasing velocity
of typhoon winds (due to the absence of windbreakers); 9) floodings in
lowlands and agricultural plains; 10) siltation and shortening of billion-
peso dams; 11) reduction of capacity to process CO2.
 Presented expert witness, documentary, photographic, and film evidence
in the trial.
 CAUSE OF ACTION:
 25 years ago. 16M hectares of rainforests (53% landmass)
 Satellite images (1987): 1.2M hectares of rainforests (4% land area)
 Other surveys: 850K hectares of virgin old-growth rainforests ONLY
(barely 2.8% of the landmass), and 3M hectares of immature and
uneconomical secondary growth forests.

FULL DIGEST VER. of Ma. Florence P. Tarcina

  Defendant’s predecessors have granted Timber License Agreements (TLA)
to various corporations. TLA: Cut the aggregate area of 3.89M hectares
for COMMERCIAL LOGGING PURPOSES. (Source: Public records)
 Deforestation (present): 200,000 hectares/annum or 25 hectares/hour.
 Environmental damages are being felt.
 The continued operation of TLA holders to cut and deforest will injure the
current generation and their successors.
 The act of the defendants is a misappropriation and impairment of the
natural resource property he holds in trust.
 PLAINTIFFS have a clear constitutional right to a balanced and healthful
ecology and are entitled to protection by the State in its capacity as the
PARENS PATRIAE. (“Parent of the Nation”. Power of the State to
intervene)
 March 2, 1990, demanded the defendant to cancel all logging permits in
the country. (Demanding ka, te?)
 DEFENDANT REFUSED. The refusal is violative of the rights of the
plaintiffs, contrary to public policy as stated in the Philippine
Environmental Policy (PD 1151) ; a) improve conditions for man and
nature; b) fulfill social and economic requirements for the future
generation; c) ensure the attainment of environmental quality,
contradictory to Art. XII, Sec.1 , Art. XIV, Sec. 14 , and Art. II, Sec. 16 of
the Constitution.

 RESPONDENT FACTORAN JR. filed a MOTION TO DISMISS: 1) the plaintiffs have no

cause of action; 2) the issue is a POLITICAL QUESTION (It involves discretion and sound
judgment of the authority involved). Hence, it is addressed to the legislative and
executive branch.
 PETITIONERS MAINTAINED; 1) the complaint shows a clear and unmistakable cause of
action; 2) the motion is dilatory; 3) the action presents a justiciable question (within the
ambit of the judiciary) as it involves the defendant’s ABUSE OF DISCRETION.

NOTE: RESPONDENT JUDGE GRANTED THE MOTION TO DISMISS. SUSTAINED THAT THE
CAUSE OF ACTION RAISES A POLITICAL QUESTION. GRANTING OF THE RELIEF PRAYED WOULD
RESULT TO IMPAIRMENT OF CONTRACTS.

PLAINTIFFS FILED AN INSTANT CIVIL ACTION FOR CERTIORARI. MINORS + PARENTS

CONTENTIONS:

 PETITIONERS: 1) Grave Abuse of Discretion in granting TLA is a justiciable question; 2)

TLAs are not contracts; hence, not protected by the non-impairment of contracts clause;
3) It contains sufficient allegations concerning their right on a sound environment as
stated in Art. 19-21 of the CC.

FULL DIGEST VER. of Ma. Florence P. Tarcina

  RESPONDENTS: 1) P failed to provide the legal right violated by Factoran; 2) Vague and
nebulous allegations on environmental right; 3) The question in logging is a political
question. Therefore, it should be lobbied before Congress for the passage of bill to ban
logging. 4) Cancellation of TLAs cannot be done without due process of law (25-year
contract)

ISSUE:

 W/N THE PETITIONERS HAVE A CAUSE OF ACTION IN FILING A CLASS SUIT TO PREVENT
THE MISAPPROPRIATION OR IMPAIRMENT OF PHILIPPINE RAINFORESTS.

RULING:

 CLASS SUIT: Correct. No complaints from the respondents. (P represented their

generation as well as generations yet unborn)
 A DENIAL OR VIOLATION OF THAT RIGHT BY THE OTHER WHO HAS THE CORRELATIVE
DUTY OR OBLIGATION TO RESPECT OR PROTECT THE SAME GIVES RISE TO A CAUSE OF
ACTION. Since the granting of TLA was done with the grave abuse of discretion, no
further TLA should be renewed or granted.

RELATED CASE/S:

 Militante v. Edrosolano (J. Dizon): The judiciary should exercise the utmost care
and circumspection in passing an MD on the ground of the absence thereof (cause
of action) lest, by its failure to manifest a correct appreciation of the facts alleged
and deemed hypothetically admitted, when the law grants or recognizes is
effectively nullified. If that happens, there is a blot on the legal order. The law itself
stands in disrepute.
 Tan v. Director of Forestry: A timber license is an instrument by which the state
regulates the utilization and disposition of forest resources to the that public welfare
is promoted. A timber license is not a contract within the purview of the due process
clause; it is only a license or privilege, which can be validly withdrawn whenever
dictated by public interest or public welfare as in this case.
 Felipe Ysmael, Jr. and Co, Inc. v. Deputy Executive Secretary: Timber licenses xxx
may be amended, modified, replaced, or rescinded by the Chief Executive when
national interests so require.

YES. Petitioners assert that they represent their generation as well as the generations to come.
The SC ruled that they can, for themselves, for others of their generation, and for the
succeeding generation, file a class suit. Their personality to sue in behalf of succeeding
generations is based on the concept of INTERGENERATIONAL RESPONSIBILITY insofar as the
right to a balanced and healthful ecology is concerned. Such a right considers the rhythm and

FULL DIGEST VER. of Ma. Florence P. Tarcina

harmony of nature which indispensably include, inter alia, the judicious disposition, utilization,
management, renewal and conservation of the country’s forest, mineral, land, waters, fisheries,
wildlife, offshore areas, and other natural resources to the end that their exploration,
development, and utilization be equitably accessible to the present as well as the future
generations.

Hence, petition is GRANTED.

SEPARATE OPINION:
J. FELICIANO

 The Court states that the petitioners have the locus standi to sustain and bring the
maintenance of the suit.
 The Court declared that the complaint has focused on one legal right - the right to a
balanced and a healthful ecology.
 Suggestion: the petitioners must show a more specific legal right other than Art. II, Sec.
15.

FULL DIGEST VER. of Ma. Florence P. Tarcina

 MANILA PRINCE HOTEL v. GSIS
GR NO. 122156/FEBRUARY 3, 1997
J. BELLOSILLO

CASE TOPIC: Filipino first policy

FACTS:

 Respondent GSIS decided to sell through public bidding 30% - 51% of the issued shares
of respondent Manila Hotel Corporation (MHC). (pursuant to the privatization program
of the Philippine Government under Proc. No. 50)
 For the winning bidder/strategic partner: provide management expertise, international
marketing/reservation system, and financial support.
 TWO BIDDERS: 1) Manila Prince Hotel Corporation – 51% of the MHC or P15,300,000
shares at P41.38/share; 2) Renong Berhad, a Malaysian Firm (ITT-Sheraton, Hotel
Operator) – 51% for P44/share. P2.42 higher.
 THE DECLARATION of Renong Berhad was pending. The petitioner sent a letter to GSIS
with a manager’s check issued by the PhilTrust Bank for P33M as a bid to match the
Malaysian group. However, GSIS DISREGARDED THE LETTER.
 PETITIONER came to the SC for prohibition and mandamus. Court issued a TRO
enjoining respondent from perfecting and consummating the sale to RB.

CONTENTIONS:

PETITIONERS:

 Invoked Sec. 10, Art. XII of the Constitution: Manila Hotel has been a historical
monument. (Also a part of the national patrimony)
 51% of the shares of the MHC is owned by GSIS, GOCC. The business is part of the
tourism industry; hence, it’s a part of the national economy. Therefore, 51% of the
shares = national economy. P matched the bid, so it must be preferred.
 P stated the mandate; if for any reason, the highest bidder cannot be awarded the Block
of Shares, GSIS may offer this to the other qualified bidders that have validly submitted
bids provided that these qualified bidders are willing to match the highest bid in terms of
price per share.

RESPONDENTS:

 Art. XII, Sec. 10 is not a self-executing provision and requires an implementing

legislation.
 Manila Hotel does not fall to national economy (lands of the public domain, waters,
minerals, coal, petroleum, mineral oils. All forces of potential energy, etc.)

FULL DIGEST VER. of Ma. Florence P. Tarcina

  N/A for only shares are sold not the edifice or the land.
 If it is contrary to the Constitution, P should have questioned it not after it had lost in
the bidding.
 The quoted provision is applicable only when the highest bidder failed to comply with
the requirements.

ISSUE:

 W/N Sec. 10, Art. XII is self-executing.

RULING:

 YES. It is a mandatory positive command which needs no further guidelines or

implementing laws or rules for its enforcement. Judicially enforceable when the
constitution mandates that in the grant of rights, privileges, and concessions covering
national economy and patrimony, the State shall give preference to qualified Filipinos.
FILIPINO FIRST POLICY. (the highest bid is not an assurance that the highest bidder will
be declared the winning bidder).
 HISTORY: Cultural center of the 1930’s; Official Guest House of the Philippine
Government; Converted into Japanese Military Administration; Won international
recognitions; Historical where it is associated with the struggle for sovereignty,
independence, and nationhood.
 STATE ACTION, subject to the Constitutional Command.
 APPLY FILIPINO FIRST POLICY: Foreigners must be awarded the sale ONLY if no Filipino
qualifies, or if the qualified Filipino fails to match the highest bid.
 ENCOURAGEMENT: The court encourages and welcomes more business opportunities
but avowedly sanctions the preference for Filipinos whenever such preference is
ordained by the Constitution.
 CJ NARVASA: While it is no business of the Court to intervene in contracts of the kind
referred to or set itself up as the judge of whether they are viable or attainable, it is its
bounden duty to make sure that they do not violate the Constitution or the laws xxx.
 It is not just a commodity to be sold, it is a HISTORIC RELIC.

HENCE, CDO FROM SELLING 51% TO RB, BUT AWARDED TO MANILA PRINCE HOTEL.

FULL DIGEST VER. of Ma. Florence P. Tarcina

 ABAKADA v. PURISIMA
GR NO. 166715/AUGUST 14, 2008
J. CORONA

CASE TOPIC: Prohibition to implement to RA 9335 (a law which intends to encourage BIR and
BOC employees to exceed their revenue targets). (Attrition Act of 2005)

FACTS:

 RA 9335 – the creation of the Rewards and Incentives Fund (RIF) and Revenue
Performance Evaluation Board (Board) to encourage employees to exceed their revenue
targets. Applicable to BOC and BIR employees who are working for at least six months
now.
 FUND: Sourced from the excess revenue targets of collection of BIR and BOC as
determined by the Development Budget Coordinating Committee (DBCC).
 BOARDS IN BIR-BOC: Finance Secretary and Undersecretary, Budget and Management
Secretary and Undersecretary, NEDA DG and Deputy DG, BIR-BOC Commissioners and
Deputy Commissioners, two reps from rank-and-file employees, and a rep from the
officials recognized by the organization. DUTY: 1) prescribe rules and guidelines for the
allocation, distribution, and release of the fund; 2) set criteria and procedures for
removing from the service officials and employees whose revenue collection falls short
of the target; 3) terminate personnel in accordance with the criteria adopted by the
board; 4) prescribe a system for performance evaluation; 5) perform other functions,
including the issuance of rules and regulations, and; 6) submit an annual report to
Congress.
 DBM, NEDA, BOC, BIR, DOF, and CSC to promulgate and issue the IRR of RA 9335,
subject to the approval of the Joint Congressional Oversight Committee created for the
purpose of approving the formulate IRR. After the approval of the IRR, JCOO become
functus officio and ceased to exist.

CONTENTIONS:

PETITIONERS:

 Challenges the constitutionality of RA 9335 (tax reform legislation) as taxpayers.

 BOUNTY HUNTERS AND MERCENARIES: Through the system of rewards and incentives.
It invites corruption and undermines the constitutional mandate of the said officials and
employees (serve the people with utmost responsibility, integrity, loyalty, and efficiency.
 Violates the EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE, because it is limited only to employees of BIR
and BOC. In addition, there is no valid classification and distinction as to why it’s not
open to all government employees.
 Law ---- President --- fix revenue targets.

FULL DIGEST VER. of Ma. Florence P. Tarcina

  Sec. 7(b) and (c), RA 9335 provides that BIR and BOC may be dismissed if their
collections fall short of the target by at least 7.5%. However, there is no fixed revenue
targets to be achieved.
 MAIN: ASSAILED the creation of the JOINT CONGRESSIONAL OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE
as it violates the Doctrine of the Separation of Powers. (It permits legislative
participation in the implementation an enforcement of the law, when legislative
function should have been deemed accomplished and completed upon the enactment
of the law.

RESPONDENTS: (through OSG)

 QUESTIONED THE PETITION AS THERE IS NO ACTUAL CONTROVERSY YET.

 The allegation that the reward system will create mercenaries and bounty hunters is a
MERE SPECULATION.
 ONLY BIR and BOC because their functions are different from the other government
agencies.
 CONGRESSIONAL OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE: Enhances separation of powers, and
ensures the fulfillment of the legislative policy.

ISSUE:

 W/N the creation of the JCOO violates the Doctrine of Separation of Powers under the
Constitution.

NOTE: THE COURT FINDS THAT PETITIONERS HAVE FAILED TO OVERCOME THE PRESUMPTION
OF CONSTITUTIONALITY IN FAVOR OF RA 9335, EXCEPT:

RULING:

YES.

 Petitioners failed to demonstrate the injury or the impact of the law to

them. Hence, the petition is procedurally INFIRMED.
 ART. XII, SEC. 1 (Public office is a public trust). Public officers enjoy the
presumption of regularity in the performance of their duties.
 Presumption ---- in favor of the BIR and BOC employees/officials ---- RA
9335 ---- Reward system ---- Encourage employees to exceed their
revenue targets. Cannot be overturned by mere conjecture.
 PETITIONERS “bounty hunters and mercenaries” are pure speculative.
 CITE: US v. Matthews, Dorsheimer v. US, reward the zeal and industry in
detecting fraudulent attempts to evade payment of duties and taxes.
SAME with the case at hand, the employees are entitled to a reward
when they exceed their revenue targets as stated in RA 9335.

FULL DIGEST VER. of Ma. Florence P. Tarcina

  EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE: The guaranty of the equal protection of
laws is not a guaranty of the equality in the application of laws upon all
citizens of the state. IT ALLOWS CLASSIFICATIONS - classification that has
a reasonable foundation or rational basis and not arbitrary. ON THE
OTHER HAND, a law is not invalid because of a simple inequality.
 BIR and BOC – they have a common distinct primary function of
generating revenues for the national government.
 PAGES 27-28 ESCRA FOR THE FUNCTIONS OF BOC AND BIR

MAIN TOPIC:

 The JCOO in Sec. 12 of RA 9335 having approved the IRR would become
functus officio and ceased to exist. Hence, the issue of its alleged
encroachment on the executive function of implementing and enforcing
the law may be considered moot and academic.
 CONGRESSIONAL OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE is not UNCONSTITUTIONAL:
Not only to monitor and evaluate the implementation of the said law, but
also to review, revise, amend and approve the IRR promulgated by the
COMELEC as held in Macalintal. IT NEITHER CONSTITUTES AN
ENCROACHMENT ON THE EXECUTIVE POWER TO IMPLEMENT LAWS
NOR UNDERMINES THE CONSTITUTIONAL SEPARATION OF POWERS.
 UNDUE DELEGATION: 1) Completeness Test (Sets the policy to be
executed, carried out, or implemented by the delegate); 2) Sufficient
Standard Test (When it provides adequate guidelines or limitations in the
law to map out the boundaries of the delegate’s authority and prevent
the delegation from running riot.
 POWERS: CONGRESS; 1) Scrutiny (May request information and report
from the other branches of the government or give recommendations);
2) Congressional Investigation (More intense digging of facts); 3)
Legislative Supervision (Veto Power).
 TWO BASIC RESTRAINTS TO FORESTALL THE DANGER OF
CONGRESSIONAL ENCROACHMENT: 1) It may not vest itself, any of its
committees or its members with either executive or judicial power; 2)
When it exercises legislative power, it must follow the single, finely
wrought and exhaustively considered procedures.
 JCOO must be confined by the following:1) Scrutiny based primarily on
Congress’ power of appropriation and the budget hearings conducted in
connection with it; 2) Investigation and monitoring of the
implementation of laws pursuant to the power of Congress to conduct
inquiries in the aid of legislation.
 NOTE: ANY ACTION OR STEP BEYOND THAT WILL UNDERMINE THE
SEPARATION OF POWERS GUARANTEED BY THE CONSTITUTION.
LEGISLATIVE VETOES FALL IN THIS CLASS.

FULL DIGEST VER. of Ma. Florence P. Tarcina

 Administrative regulations enacted by the administrative agencies to
implement and interpret the law which they are entrusted to enforce
have the force of the law and are entitled to respect.
 CONGRESS AS AN OVERSEER, may not pass upon their legality by
subjecting them to its stamp of approval without disturbing the
calculated balance of powers established by the Constitution.
 In exercising discretion to approve or disapprove the IRR based on a
determination of whether or not they conformed with the provisions of
RA 9335, Congress arrogated judicial power unto itself, a power
exclusively vested in this Court by the Constitution.
 From the moment the law becomes effective, any provision of law that
empowers to play any role in the implementation or enforcement of the
law violates the principle of separation of powers.
 SEC. 12 of RA 9335 should be struck down as UNCONSTITUTIONAL
following the principle of the separation of powers. Other provisions may
not be taken down as it is indicated in Sec. 13 or the Separability Clause.
EXCEPTION: When the provisions are mutually dependent and
connected.
 HENCE, PETITION IS PARTIALLY GRANTED. JCOO to approve IRR is
declared UNCONSTITUTIONAL and therefore NULL and VOID.

FULL DIGEST VER. of Ma. Florence P. Tarcina