Political Law Review

Atty. Jack Jimenez

Article II
Section 1
ACCFA v. ACCFA Supervisors Association
November 29, 1969
- A collective bargaining agreement was entered into, effective for one year. The Unions
started protesting against alleged violations and non-implementation of said agreement.
They declared a strike, and filed a case for acts of unfair labor practice: violation of the
collective bargaining agreement in order to discourage the members of the Unions in the
exercise of their right to self-organiation, discrimination against said members in the matter
of promotions, and refusal to bargain..
- A!!"A#s defenses: lack of $urisdiction% illegality of the bargaining contract, expiration of the
contract, and lack of approval by the &' of the fringe benefits.
o (ote: )uring the pendency of the above mentioned case *+.,. (o. --./0102,
specifically on August 1, /345, the 'resident of the 'hilippines signed into law the
Agricultural -and ,eform !ode *,epublic Act (o. 51002, which among other things
re6uired the reorganiation of the administrative machinery of the Agricultural
!redit and !ooperative "inancing Administration *A!!"A2 and changed its name to
Agricultural !redit Administration *A!A2.
- !7,: ruled in favor of the unions.
Issue: wn t!e respon"ent court !as #uris"iction over t!is case, w!ic! in turn "epen"s on
w!et!er or not ACCFA e$ercise" %overnmental or proprietar& 'unctions.
(el": No, because ACCFA e$ercises %overnmental 'unctions. The respondent Unions are not
entitled to the certification election. 8uch certification is admittedly for purposes of bargaining in
behalf of the employees with respect to terms and conditions of employment, 7(!-U)7(+ the right to
strike as a coercive economic weapon, as in fact the said unions did strike in /34. against the A!!"A
*+.,. (o. --./1.02.
4
This is contrary to 8ection // of ,epublic Act (o. 19: *'rohibition Against 8trike
in the +overnment.2
- 8ection 5 of the Agricultural -and ,eform !ode the A!A was established, among other
governmental agencies,

to extend credit and similar assistance to agriculture. The
implementation of such is found in 8ec. //;-//1 of the -and ,eform !ode. 8ections //5 to
//1, inclusive, invest the A!A with certain rights and powers not accorded to non-
governmental entities *auditing, prosecution of officials, writing off unsecured and
outstanding loans, etc.2 The power to audit the operations of farmers< cooperatives and
otherwise in6uire into their affairs, as given by 8ection //5, is in the nature of the visitorial
power of the sovereign, which only a government agency specially delegated to do so by the
!ongress may legally exercise.
- The implementation o' t!e lan" re'orm pro%ram o' t!e %overnment accor"in% to
)epublic Act No. *+,, is most certainl& a %overnmental, not a proprietar&, 'unction%
and for that purpose =xecutive &rder (o. 9: has placed the A!A under the -and ,eform
'ro$ect Administration together with the other member agencies, the personnel complement
of all of which are placed in one single pool and made available for assignment from one
agency to another, sub$ect only to !ivil 8ervice laws, rules and regulations, position
classification and wage structures.
- The appointing authority in respect of the officials and employees of the A!A is the 'resident
of the 'hilippines
- >hen the Agricultural ,eform !ode was being considered by the !ongress: 8enator
Tolentino: . . . . ?The A!A is not going to be a profit making institution. 7t is supposed to be a
public service of the government to the lessees and farmer-owners of the lands that may be
bought after expropriation from owners. 7t is the government here that is the lender. The
Fel. Jill. Lauren. Mon. Tara.
Political Law Review
Atty. Jack Jimenez
government should not exact a higher interest than what we are telling a private landowner
now in his relation to his tenants if we give to their farmers a higher rate of interest . . . .?
!onstituent functions:
- -!ese 'unctions ma& not be strictl& w!at .resi"ent /ilson "escribe" as
0constituent0 1as "istin%uis!e" 'rom 0ministrant02,
,
suc! as t!ose relatin% to t!e
maintenance o' peace an" t!e prevention o' crime, t!ose re%ulatin% propert& an"
propert& ri%!ts, t!ose relatin% to t!e a"ministration o' #ustice an" t!e
"etermination o' political "uties o' citi3ens, an" t!ose relatin% to national "e'ense
an" 'orei%n relations.
o 4n"er t!is tra"itional classi'ication, suc! constituent 'unctions are
e$ercise" b& t!e State as attributes o' soverei%nt&, an" not merel& to
promote t!e wel'are, pro%ress an" prosperit& o' t!e people t!ese letter
'unctions bein% ministrant !e e$ercise o' w!ic! is optional on t!e part o'
t!e %overnment.
- The growing complexities of modern society, however, have rendered this traditional
classification of the functions of government 6uite unrealistic, not to say obsolete. The areas
which used to be left to private enterprise and initiative and which the government was called
upon to enter optionally, and only ?because it was better e6uipped to administer for the
public welfare than is any private individual or group of individuals,?
:
continue to lose t!eir
well5"e'ine" boun"aries an" to be absorbe" wit!in activities t!at t!e %overnment
must un"erta6e in its soverei%n capacit& i' it is to meet t!e increasin% social
c!allen%es o' t!e times. @ere as almost everywhere else the tendency is undoubtedly
towards a %reater sociali3ation o' economic 'orces. @ere of course this development was
envisioned, indeed adopted as a national policy, by the !onstitution itself in its declaration of
principle concerning the promotion of social $ustice.
- 'urpose: t!e lan" re'orm pro%ram contemplate" in t!e sai" Co"e is be&on" t!e
capabilities o' an& private enterprise to translate into realit&. It is a purel&
%overnmental 'unction, no less than, say, the establishment and maintenance of public
schools and public hospitals.
- &ther factors to be considered: the law itself declares that the A!A is a government office,
with the formulation of policies, plans and programs vested no longer in a Aoard of
+overnors, as in the case of the A!!"A, but in the (ational -and ,eform !ouncil, itself a
government instrumentality% and that its personnel are sub$ect to !ivil 8ervice laws and to
rules of standardiation with respect to positions and salaries, any vestige of doubt as to the
governmental character of its functions disappears.
- 7n view of the foregoing premises, we hold that the respondent Unions are not entitled to the
certification election sought in the !ourt below. 8uch certification is admittedly for purposes
of bargaining in behalf of the employees with respect to terms and conditions of employment,
including the right to strike as a coercive economic weapon, as in fact the said unions did
Fel. Jill. Lauren. Mon. Tara.
Political Law Review
Atty. Jack Jimenez
strike in /34. against the A!!"A *+.,. (o. --./1.02.
4
This is contrary to 8ection // of
,epublic Act (o. 19: *'rohibition Against 8trike in the +overnment.2
Issue: wn t!e collective bar%ainin% a%reements 'rin%e bene'its are alrea"& en'orceable.
(el": 78S
- A!!"A#s argument: the fringe benefits have not become enforceable because the condition
that they should first be approved by the &ffice of the 'resident has not been complied with.
- Unions: no such condition existed in the bargaining contract
- under 8ection 5, Article B7C, of the agreement, the same ?shall not become effective unless
and until the same is duly ratified by the Aoard of +overnors of the Administration.? 8uch
approval was given even before the formal execution of the agreement, AUT with the proviso
that ?the fringe benefits contained therein shall take effect only if approved by the office of
the 'resident.? The condition is, therefore, deemed to be incorporated into the agreement by
reference. The &' signed, provided the salaries are in accord with the laws and are
reasonable.
- The payment of the fringe benefits agreed upon, to our mind, shows that the same were
within the financial capability of the A!!"A then, and hence $ustifies the conclusion that this
particular condition imposed by the &ffice of the 'resident in its approval of the bargaining
contract was satisfied.
Separate 9pinion: Fernan"o: , the government is freed from the compulsion exerted by the Aacani
doctrine of the ?constituent-ministrant? test as a criterion for the type of activity in which it may
engage. 7ts constricting effect is consigned to oblivion.
- there is a definite re$ection of the ?constituent-ministrant? criterion of governmental
functions, followed in Aacani v. (ational !oconut !orporation.
- :acani: governmental functions are classified into constituent and ministrant.
o Constituent: those which constitute the very bonds of society and are compulsory
in nature%
*/2 The keeping of order and providing for the protection of persons and
property from violence and robbery.
*.2 The fixing of the legal relations between man and wife and between
parents and children.
*52 The regulation of the holding, transmission, and interchange of
property, and the determination of its liabilities for debt or for crime.
*02 The determination of contract rights between individuals.
*:2 The definition and punishment of crime.
*42 The administration of $ustice in civil cases.
*92 The determination of the political duties, privileges, and relations of
Fel. Jill. Lauren. Mon. Tara.
Political Law Review
Atty. Jack Jimenez
citiens.
*12 )ealings of the state with foreign powers: the preservation of the state
from external danger or encroachment and the advancement of its
international interests.< ?
o ;inistrant: those that are undertaken only by way of advancing the general
interests of society, and are merely optional. *public works, public education, public
charity, health and safety regulations, and regulations of trade and industry.2
principles "eterminin% w!et!er or not a %overnment s!all e$ercise
certain o' t!ese optional 'unctions are:
*/2 that a government should do for the public welfare those
things which private capital would not naturally undertake and
*.2 that a government should do these things which by its very
nature it is better e6uipped to administer for the public welfare
than is any private individual or group of individuals.?
,e$ection of the laisse-faire concept in the 'hil.
- The >ilson classification reflected the primacy of the dominant laissez-faire concept carried
into the sphere of governmentD"or a long time, legislation tending to reduce economic
ine6uality foundered on the rock that was the due process clause, enshrining as it did the
liberty of contract. , the laissez-faire principle resulted in the contraction of the sphere where
governmental entry was permissible. The ob$ect was to protect property even if thereby the
needs of the general public would be left unsatisfied.
- The influence exerted by American constitutional doctrines unavoidable when the 'hilippines
was still under American rule notwithstanding, an influence that has not altogether vanished
even after independence, the laissez-faire principle never found full acceptance in this
$urisdiction, even during the period of its full flowering in the United 8tates. Eoreover, to
erase any doubts, the !onstitutional !onvention saw to it that our fundamental law embodies
a policy of the responsibility thrust on government to cope with social and economic
problems and an earnest and sincere commitment to the promotion of the general welfare
through state action.
- 7t must be made clear that the ob$ection to the ?constituent-ministrant? classification of
governmental functions is not to its formulation as such. "rom the standpoint of law as logic,
it is not without merit. Aut 7t must not be lost sight of though that logic and $ural symmetry
while undoubtedly desirable are not the prime consideration. This is especially so in the field
of public law. >hat was said by @olmes, almost nine decades ago, carry greater conviction
now. ?The life of the law has not been logic% it has been experience.
- The !onstitution is distinguished precisely by a contrary philosophy. The regime of liberty if
provided for, with the realiation that under the then prevalent social and economic
conditions, it may be attained only through a government with its sphere of activity ranging
far and wide, not excluding matters hitherto left to the operation of free enterprise. As
rightfully stressed in our decision today in line with what was earlier expressed by Fustice
-aurel, the government that we have established has as a fundamental principle the
promotion of social $ustice.
- >ith the decision reached by us today, the government is freed from the compulsion exerted
by the Aacani doctrine of the ?constituent-ministrant? test as a criterion for the type of
activity in which it may engage. 7ts constricting effect is consigned to oblivion.
)ep. v. .resi"in% <u"%e
Sept. 11, 19+=
Fel. Jill. Lauren. Mon. Tara.
Political Law Review
Atty. Jack Jimenez
- ,espondent 8ison filed a complaint against the ,ice and !orn Administration *,!A for short2
for a sum of money. ,!A filed a motion to dismiss the said complaint on the ground of non-
suability of the ,!A as a mere governmental agency of the ,epublic of the 'hilippines. Then,
8ison filed a motion to amend the complaint for the purpose of showing his actionable
interest as assignee of the purchase price of unpaid deliveries of corn grains to the ,!A.
- T!: in favor of 87son
o ,!A appealed, but failed to pay the legal fees and appeal bond. The Fudge held that
the ,!A, being a mere instrumentality of the +overnment of the 'hilippines, is not
exempt from the payment of legal fees as well as the posting of an appeal bond, and
dismissing the ,!A<s appeal for its failure to file the re6uired appeal bond.
Issue: wn t!e )CA is e$empt 'rom pa&in% t!e le%al 'ees an" 'rom postin% an appeal bon".
1.reliminar&: Is )CA a %overnmental a%enc& wit!out a separate, "istinct an" in"epen"ent
le%al personalit& 'rom t!e latter>2
(el": 7es, it bein% a %overnmental a%enc&, as "eclare" in )amos v. CI).
- Not 'or pro'it: ,A 50:.: the policy of the +overnment that in order to stabilie the price of
palay, rice and corn, it shall engage in the <purchase of these basic foods< directly from those
tenants, farmers, growers, producers and landowners in the 'hilippines who wish to dispose
of their produce at a price that will afford them a fair and just return for their labor and
capital investment and whenever circumstances brought about by any cause, natural or
artificial, should so re6uire, shall sell and dispose of these commodities to the consumers at
areas of consumption at a price that is within their reach.
- :& law, )CA "epen"s 'or its continuous operation on appropriations &earl& set asi"e
b& t!e ?eneral Appropriations Act. 8o says 8ection /0 of ,epublic Act 50:.
- not possesse" o' a separate an" "istinct corporate e$istence: by the law of its
creation, it is an office directly under the &ffice of the 'resident of the 'hilippines.
- As to 8ison#s argument that the ,!A has been created to succeed to the corporate assets,
liabilities, functions and powers of the abolished (ational ,ice G !orn !orporation which is a
government-owned and controlled corporation separate and distinct from the +overnment of
the ,epublic of the 'hilippines, A() that the ,!A, being a duly capitalied entity doing
mercantile activity engaged in the buying and selling of palay, rice, and corn cannot be the
same as the ,epublic of the 'hilippines% rather, it is an entity separate and distinct from the
,epublic of the 'hilippines. 9nl& inci"ent to its primar& 'unction
o The mercantile activity of ,!A in the buying and selling of palay, rice, and corn is
only incident to its primary governmental function which is to carry out its declared
policy of subsidiing and stabiliing the price of palay, rice, and corn in order to
make it well within the reach of average consumers, an ob$ect obviously 7dentified
with the primary function of government to serve the well-being of the people.
;ar@uerra v. :orra
Sept. A, 196B
Fel. Jill. Lauren. Mon. Tara.
Political Law Review
Atty. Jack Jimenez
- ,A. 00./ re6uires ?all candidates for national, provincial, city and municipal offices? to post a
surety bond e6uivalent to the one-year salary or emoluments of the position to which he is a
candidate, which bond shall be forfeited in favor of the national, provincial, city or municipal
government concerned if the candidate, except when declared winner, fails to obtain at least
/;H of the votes cast for the office to which he has filed his certificate of candidacy, there
being not more than four *02 candidates for the same office%?
- !&E=-=! re6uired the candidates for 'res, C', 8enator and !ong. To file a surety bond.
- Thus, every candidate has to pay the premium charged by bonding companies, and, to offer
thereto, either his own properties, worth, at least, the amount of the surety bond, or
properties of the same worth, belonging to other persons willing to accommodate him, by
way of counter-bond in favor of said bonding companies
Issue: wn )A ,,21, w!ic! re@uires t!e postin% o' a bon" in or"er to run 'or o''ice, is
constitutional
(el": No, 'or it imposes propert& @uali'ications. -!is is inconsistent wit! t!e )epublican
s&stem.
- the effect of said ,epublic Act (o. 00./ is, therefore, to prevent or dis6ualify from running
for 'resident, Cice-'resident, 8enator or Eember of the @ouse of ,epresentatives those
persons who, although having the 6ualifications prescribed by the !onstitution therefore,
cannot file the surety bond aforementioned, owing to failure to pay the premium charged by
the bonding company andIor lack of the property necessary for said counter-bond.
- 7t has the effect of imposing property 6ualifications in order that a person could run for a
public office and that the people could validly vote for him%
o This is inconsistent with the nature and essence of the ,epublican system ordained
in our !onstitution and the principle of social $ustice underlying the same, for said
political system is premised upon the tenet that soverei%nt& resi"es in t!e
people an" all %overnment aut!orit& emanates 'rom t!em, and this, in turn,
implies necessaril& t!at t!e ri%!t to vote an" to be vote" 'or s!all not be
"epen"ent upon t!e wealt! o' t!e in"ivi"ual concerne", whereas social
#ustice presupposes e@ual opportunit& 'or all, rich and poor alike, and that,
accordingly, no person shall, by reason of poverty, be denied the chance to be
elected to public office%
- The re6uirement of the bond is arbitrary and oppressive, it being not predicated upon the
necessity of defraying certain expenses or of compensating services given in connection with
elections
:en%3on, Concurrin%:
- A democratic form of government re6uires that political rights be en$oyed by the citiens
regardless of social or economic distinctions. Among the political rights of a "ilipino citien is
the right to vote and be voted for a public office. The !onstitution has given the right of
suffrageD
- 7t is within the power of !ongress, however, to prescribe the manner of exercising political
rights so long as it does not run counter to the !onstitution. The avowed purpose of ,epublic
Act 00./ in re6uiring a candidate to post a bond e6ual to a year<s salary of the office for
which he will run is to curb t!e practice o' so5calle" nuisance can"i"ates.
- 8uch an ob$ective is indeed within the competence of the legislature to provide for.
Fel. Jill. Lauren. Mon. Tara.
Political Law Review
Atty. Jack Jimenez
(onetheless, the purpose alone does not resolve the constitutionality of a statute. 7t must
also be asked w!et!er the effect o' sai" law is or is not to trans%ress t!e
'un"amental law. The 6uestion is: Coes t!e law, it ma& t!en be as6e", operate to
bar bona fide can"i"ates 'rom runnin% 'or o''ice because o' t!eir 'inancial inabilit&
to meet t!e bon" re@uire"> )epends on the amountD
o >here it is fixed at an amount that will impose no hardship on any person for whom
there should be any desire to vote as a nominee for an office, and yet enough to
prevent the filing of certificates of candidates by anyone, regardless of whether or
not he is a desirable candidate, it is a reasonable means to regulate elections.
o &n the otherhand, if it puts a real barrier that would stop many suitable men and
women from presenting themselves as prospective candidates, it becomes
un$ustifiable, for it would defeat its very ob$ective of securing the right of honest
candidates to run for public office.
- in the foregoing the deposits or fees are based on or constitute a certain percentage of the
yearly salary. The amount of the bond re6uired by ,A 00./ is e6ual to the one-year salary or
emolument of the office. 7t is 6uite evident that several or a considerable number of
deserving, honest and sincere prospective candidates for that office would be prevented from
running in the election solely due to their being less endowed with the material things in life.
- Thus, the amount of a one-year salary is considered by the law itself to be substantial
enough to finance the entire election campaign of the candidate. "or !ongress, therefore, to
re6uire such amount to be posted in the form of surety bond, with the danger of forfeiting
the same in the event of failure to obtain the re6uired percentage of votes, unless there are
more than four candidates, places a financial burden on honest candidates that will in effect
dis6ualify some of them who would otherwise have been 6ualified and bona fide candidates.
,epublic Act 00./, moreover, relates a person<s right to run for office to the degree of success he will
show at the polls.
- A candidate, however, has no less a right to run when he faces prospects of defeat as when
he is expected to win. !onse6uently, for the law to impose on said candidate should he
lose by the fatal margin a financial penalty not imposed on others would unreasonably
deny him e6ual protection of the law.
Section 12
.ierce v. Societ& o' Sisters, (ill ;ilitar& Aca"em&
- These appeals are from decrees, based upon undenied allegations, which granted preliminary
orders restraining J.41 U.8. :/;, :5;K appellants from threatening or attempting to enforce
the !ompulsory =ducation Act/ adopted (ovember 9, /3..
- The challenged act, effective 8eptember /, /3.4, re6uires every parent, guardian, or other
person having control or charge or custody of a child between 1 and /4 years to send him <to
a public school for the period of time a public school shall be held during the current year< in
the district where the child resides% and failure so to do is declared a misdemeanor.
o There areexemptions-not specially important here-for children who are not normal,
or who have completed the eighth grade, or whose parents or private teachers
reside at considerable distances from any public school, or who hold special permits
from the county superintendent.
o The manifest purpose is to compel general attendance at public schools by normal
Fel. Jill. Lauren. Mon. Tara.
Political Law Review
Atty. Jack Jimenez
children, between 1 and /4, who have not completed the eight grade. And without
doubt enforcement of the statute would seriously impair, perhaps destroy, the
profitable features of appellees< business and greatly diminish the value of their
property.
- the 8ociety of 8isters is an &regon corporation, with power to care for orphans, educate and
instruct the youth, establish and maintain academies or schools, and ac6uire necessary real
and personal property. 7t has long devoted its property and effort to the secular and religious
education and care of children, and has ac6uired the valuable good will of many parents and
guardians. 7t conducts interdependent primary and high schools and junior colleges, and
maintains orphanages for the custody and control of children between and !".
o 7n its primary schools many children between those ages are taught the sub$ects
usually pursued in &regon public schools during the first eight years. 8ystematic
religious instruction and moral training according to the tenets of the ,oman
!atholic !hurch are also regularly provided. All courses of study, both temporal and
religious, contemplate continuity of training under appellee<s charge%
o the primary schools are essential to the system and the most profitable. The
!ompulsory =ducation Act of /3.. has already caused the withdrawal from its
schools of children who would otherwise continue, and their income has steadily
declined. The appellants, public officers, have proclaimed their purpose strictly to
enforce the statute.
- @ill Eilitary Academy is a private corporation organied in /3;1 under the laws of &regon,
engaged in owning, operating, and conducting for profit an elementary, college preparatory,
and military training school for boys between the ages of # and $! years.
- The average attendance is /;;, and the annual fees received for each student amount to
some L1;;. The elementary department is divided into eight grades, as in the public schools%
the college preparatory department has four grades, similar to those of the public high
schools% the courses of study conform to the re6uirements of the state board of education.
Eilitary instruction and training are also given, under the supervision of an army officer. The
business and incident good will are very valuable. 7n order to conduct its affairs, long time
contracts must be made
- 8ociety of 8isters# arguments:
o that the enactment conflicts with the right of parents to choose schools where their
children will receive appropriate mental and religious training, the right of the child
to influence the parents< choice of a school, the right of schools and teachers therein
to engage in a useful business or profession, and is accordingly repugnant to the
!onstitution and void.
o that unless enforcement of the measure is en$oined the corporation<s business and
property will suffer irreparable in$ury.
- @ill Academy#s argument: that the challenged act contravenes the corporation<s rights
guaranteed by the "ourteenth Amendment and that unless appellants are restrained from
proclaiming its validity and threatening to enforce it irreparable in$ury will result
Issue: wn t!e Act contravenes wit! t!e libert& o' parents to "irect t!e upbrin%in% o' t!eir
c!il"ren
Fel. Jill. Lauren. Mon. Tara.
Political Law Review
Atty. Jack Jimenez
(el": 7es
- Act of /3.. unreasonably interferes with the liberty of parents and guardians to direct the
upbringing and education of under their control.
- ,ights guaranteed by the !onstitution may not be abridged by legislation which has no
reasonable relation to some purpose within the competency of the state. -!e 'un"amental
t!eor& o' libert& upon w!ic! all %overnments in t!is 4nion repose e$clu"es an&
%eneral power o' t!e state to stan"ar"i3e its c!il"ren b& 'orcin% t!em to accept
instruction 'rom public teac!ers onl&. -!e c!il" is not t!e mere creature o' t!e
stateD t!ose w!o nurture !im an" "irect !is "estin& !ave t!e ri%!t, couple" wit! t!e
!i%! "ut&, to reco%ni3e an" prepare !im 'or a""itional obli%ations.
- Appellees are corporations, and therefore, it is said, they cannot claim for themselves the
liberty which the "ourteenth Amendment guarantees. Accepted in the proper sense, this is
true. Aut they have business and property for which they claim protection. These are
threatened with destruction through the unwarranted compulsion which appellants are
exercising over present and prospective patrons of their schools. And this court has gone
very far to protect against loss threatened by such action.
o Appellees asked protection against arbitrary, unreasonable, and unlawful
interference with their patrons and the conse6uent destruction of their business and
property. Their interest is clear and immediate
o The suits were not premature. The in$ury to appellees was present and very real,
not a mere possibility in the remote future. 7f no relief had been possible prior to the
effective date of the act, the in$ury would have become irreparable. 'revention of
impending in$ury by unlawful action is a well-recognied function of courts of e6uity.
Sec. 16
9posa v. Factoran
<ul& *=, 199*
- The principal plaintiffs therein, now the principal petitioners, are all minors duly represented
and $oined by their respective parents. 7mpleaded as an additional plaintiff is the 'hilippine
=cological (etwork, 7nc. *'=(72, a domestic, non-stock and non-profit corporation organied
for the purpose of, inter alia, engaging in concerted action geared for the protection of our
environment and natural resources. The original defendant was the @onorable "ulgencio 8.
"actoran, Fr., then 8ecretary of the )epartment of =nvironment and (atural ,esources
*)=(,2. @is substitution in this petition by the new 8ecretary, the @onorable Angel !. Alcala.
The complaint
.
was instituted as a taxpayers< class suit.
- 'etitioners argue that .: yrs ago, the 'hil. @ad /4E hectares of rainforests, but satellite
images in /319 sow that only about /..E hectares remained. Also, a mere 1:;,;;; hectares
of virgin old-growth rainforests are left, barely . of the entire land mass of the 'hilippine
archipelago and about 5.; million hectares of immature and uneconomical secondary growth
forests.
- 'ublic records reveal that the defendant<s, predecessors have granted timber license
Fel. Jill. Lauren. Mon. Tara.
Political Law Review
Atty. Jack Jimenez
agreements *<T-A<s<2 to various corporations to cut the aggregate area of 5.13 million
hectares for commercial logging purposes. The continued allowance by defendant of T-A
holders to cut and deforest the remaining forest stands will work great damage and
irreparable in$ury to plaintiffs especially plaintiff minors and their successors who may
never see, use, benefit from and en$oy this rare and uni6ue natural resource treasure.
- The adverse effects, disastrous conse6uences, serious in$ury and irreparable damage of this
continued trend of deforestation to the plaintiff minor<s generation and to generations yet
unborn are evident and incontrovertible. As a matter of fact, the environmental damages
enumerated in paragraph 4 hereof are already being felt, experienced and suffered by the
generation of plaintiff adults. *the distortion and disturbance of this balance as a
conse6uence of deforestation have resulted in a host of environmental tragedies, such as *a2
water shortages resulting from drying up of the water table, otherwise known as the
?a6uifer,? as well as of rivers, brooks and streams, *b2 saliniation of the water table as a
result of the intrusion therein of salt water, incontrovertible examples of which may be found
in the island of !ebu and the Eunicipality of Aacoor, !avite, *c2 massive erosion and the
conse6uential loss of soil fertility and agricultural productivity, with the volume of soil eroded
estimated at one billion */,;;;,;;;,;;;2 cubic meters per annum approximately the sie
of the entire island of !atanduanes, *d2 the endangering and extinction of the country<s
uni6ue, rare and varied flora and fauna, *e2 the disturbance and dislocation of cultural
communities, including the disappearance of the "ilipino<s indigenous cultures, *f2 the
siltation of rivers and seabeds and conse6uential destruction of corals and other a6uatic life
leading to a critical reduction in marine resource productivity, *g2 recurrent spells of drought
as is presently experienced by the entire country, *h2 increasing velocity of typhoon winds
which result from the absence of windbreakers, *i2 the floodings of lowlands and agricultural
plains arising from the absence of the absorbent mechanism of forests, *$2 the siltation and
shortening of the lifespan of multi-billion peso dams constructed and operated for the
purpose of supplying water for domestic uses, irrigation and the generation of electric power,
and *k2 the reduction of the earth<s capacity to process carbon dioxide gases which has led to
perplexing and catastrophic climatic changes such as the phenomenon of global warming,
otherwise known as the ?greenhouse effect.?2
- Thus, petitioners sought for:
o The cancellation of the existing timber license agreements in the country
o !ease and desist order from receiving, accepting, processing, renewing or approving
new timber license agreements.
7ssue: wIn this is a class suit:
@eld: Mes
- The sub$ect matter of the complaint is of common and general interest not $ust to several,
but to all citiens of the 'hilippines. !onse6uently, since the parties are so numerous, it,
becomes impracticable, if not totally impossible, to bring all of them before the court. >e
likewise declare that the plaintiffs therein are numerous and representative enough to ensure
the full protection of all concerned interests.
- 'etitioners minors assert that they represent their generation as well as generations yet
unborn. t!e& can, 'or t!emselves, 'or ot!ers o' t!eir %eneration an" 'or t!e
succee"in% %enerations, 'ile a class suit. Their personality to sue in behalf of the
succeeding generations can only be based on the concept o' inter%enerational
responsibilit& insofar as the right to a balanced and healthful ecology is concerned.
o 8uch a right, as hereinafter expounded, considers the ?rhythm and harmony of
nature.? (ature means the created world in its entirety. %uch rhythm and harmony
indispensably include, inter alia, the judicious disposition, utilization, management,
renewal and conser&ation of the country<s forest, mineral, land, waters, fisheries,
wildlife, off-shore areas and other natural resources to the end that their
exploration, development and utiliation be e6uitably accessible to the present as
well as future generations.
o (eedless to say, ever& %eneration !as a responsibilit& to t!e ne$t to preserve
Fel. Jill. Lauren. Mon. Tara.
Political Law Review
Atty. Jack Jimenez
t!at r!&t!m an" !armon& 'or t!e 'ull en#o&ment o' a balance" an" !ealt!'ul
ecolo%&. 'ut a little differently, the minors< assertion of their right to a sound
environment constitutes, at the same time, the performance of their obligation to
ensure the protection of that right for the generations to come.
Issue: wn t!e sai" petitioners !ave a cause o' action see6 t!e cancellation o' t!e -EAs an"
prevent 'urt!er processin% t!ereo'.
- 'etitioners# argument: that it has proven its cause of action as its complaint contains
sufficient allegations concerning their right to a sound environment based on Articles /3, .;
and ./ of the !ivil !ode *@uman ,elations2, 8ection 0 of =xecutive &rder *=.&.2 (o. /3.
creating the )=(,, 8ection 5 of 'residential )ecree *'.).2 (o. //:/ *'hilippine
=nvironmental 'olicy2, 8ection /4, Article 77 of the /319 !onstitution recogniing the right of
the people to a balanced and healthful ecology, the concept of generational genocide in
!riminal -aw and the concept of man<s inalienable right to self-preservation and self-
perpetuation embodied in natural law. 'etitioners likewise rely on the respondent<s
correlative obligation per 8ection 0 of =.&. (o. /3., to safeguard the people<s right to a
healthful environment.
- "actoran: that they have no cause of action against him.
o 'et: issue of the respondent 8ecretary<s alleged grave abuse of discretion in
granting Timber -icense Agreements *T-As2 to cover more areas for logging than
what is available involves a $udicial 6uestion.
- ,esp: petitioners failed to allege in their complaint a specific legal right violated by the
respondent 8ecretary for which any relief is provided by law. They see nothing in the
complaint but vague and nebulous allegations concerning an ?environmental right? which
supposedly entitles the petitioners to the ?protection by the state in its capacity as parens
patriae.? 8uch allegations, according to them, do not reveal a valid cause of action. 'lus, the
6uestion of whether logging should be permitted in the country is a political 6uestion which
should be properly addressed to the executive or legislative branches of +overnment.
(el": 7es.
- The complaint focuses on one specific fundamental legal right: the right to a balanced and
healthful ecology which, for the first time in our nation<s constitutional history, is solemnly
incorporated in the fundamental law. 8ection /4, Article 77 of the /319 !onstitution explicitly
provides:
o 8ec. /4. The 8tate shall protect and advance the right of the people to a balanced
and healthful ecology in accord with the rhythm and harmony of nature.
o 8ec. /:. The 8tate shall protect and promote the right to health of the people and
instill health consciousness among them.
- /!ile t!e ri%!t to a balance" an" !ealt!'ul ecolo%& is to be 'oun" un"er t!e
Ceclaration o' .rinciples an" State .olicies an" not un"er t!e :ill o' )i%!ts, it "oes
not 'ollow t!at it is less important t!an an& o' t!e civil an" political ri%!ts
enumerate" in t!e latter.
o 8uch a right belongs to a different category of rights altogether for it concerns
nothing less than self-preservation and self-perpetuation D7f they are now explicitly
mentioned in the fundamental charter, it is because of the well-founded fear of its
framers that unless the rights to a balanced and healthful ecology and to health are
mandated as state policies by the !onstitution itself, thereby highlighting their
continuing importance and imposing upon the state a solemn obligation to preserve
the first and protect and advance the second, the day would not be too far when all
else would be lost not only for the present generation, but also for those to come
generations which stand to inherit nothing but parched earth incapable of sustaining
Fel. Jill. Lauren. Mon. Tara.
Political Law Review
Atty. Jack Jimenez
life.
- -!e ri%!t to a balance" an" !ealt!'ul ecolo%& carries wit! it t!e correlative "ut& to
re'rain 'rom impairin% t!e environment. The said right implies, among many other
things, the $udicious management and conservation of the country<s forests.
- =& /3.: mandates that the )epartment of =nvironment and (atural ,esources ?shall be the
primary government agency responsible for the conservation, management, development
and proper use of the country<s environment and natural resources, specifically D licensing
and regulation of all natural resources as may be provided for by law in order to ensure
e6uitable sharing of the benefits derived therefrom for the welfare of the present and future
generations of "ilipinos.? The policy is restated in the Admin. !ode of /319. 7t stresses ?the
necessity of maintaining a sound ecological balance and protecting and enhancing the 6uality
of the environment.? There are other laws paying special attention to the environmental
right: '.). (o. //:/ *'hilippine =nvironmental 'olicy2 and '.). (o. //:. *'hilippine
=nvironment !ode2
- Thus, the right of the petitioners *and all those they represent2 to a balanced and healthful
ecology is as clear as the )=(,<s duty under its mandate and by virtue of its powers and
functions under =.&. (o. /3. and the Administrative !ode of /319 to protect and advance
the said right.
Issue: wn t!e issue on t!e -EAs raises a political @uestion.
(el": No
- After careful examination of the petitioners< complaint, >e find the statements under the
introductory affirmative allegations, as well as the specific averments under the sub-heading
!AU8= &" A!T7&(, to be ade6uate enough to show, prima facie, the claimed violation of
their rights.
- nonetheless, the political 6uestion doctrine is no longer, the insurmountable obstacle to the
exercise of $udicial power or the impenetrable shield that protects executive and legislative
actions from $udicial in6uiry or review.
o the new provision vests in the $udiciary, and particularly the 8upreme !ourt, the
power to rule upon even the wisdom of the decisions of the executive and the
legislature and to declare their acts invalid for lack or excess of $urisdiction because
tainted with grave abuse of discretion. The catch, of course, is the meaning of
?grave abuse of discretion,? which is a very elastic phrase that can expand or
contract according to the disposition of the $udiciary.
Issue: wn t!e pra&er sou%!t 'or is violative o' t!e non5impairment clause
- 'et: 7t does not apply in this case because T-As are not contracts. They likewise submit that
even if T-As may be considered protected by the said clause, it is well settled that they may
still be revoked by the 8tate when the public interest so re6uires.
- ,esp: the same cannot be done by the 8tate without due process of law. &nce issued, a T-A
remains effective for a certain period of time usually for twenty-five *.:2 years. )uring its
effectivity, the same can neither be revised nor cancelled unless the holder has been found,
after due notice and hearing, to have violated the terms of the agreement or other forestry
laws and regulations.
(el": No, all licenses ma& t!us be revo6e" or rescin"e" b& e$ecutive action. It is not a
Fel. Jill. Lauren. Mon. Tara.
Political Law Review
Atty. Jack Jimenez
contract, propert& or a propert& ri%!t proteste" b& t!e "ue process clause o' t!e
Constitution.
- 7f the 8ec. had invoked this in the ET), he would have acted with utmost infidelity to the
+overnment by providing undue and unwarranted benefits and advantages to the timber
license holders because he would have forever bound the +overnment to strictly respect the
said licenses according to their terms and conditions regardless of changes in policy and the
demands of public interest and welfare.
- 8ec. .; of the "orestry ,eform !ode must be read in every T-A: That when the national
interest so re6uires, the 'resident may amend, modify, replace or rescind any contract,
concession, permit, licenses or any other form of privilege granted herein . . .
- all licenses ma& t!us be revo6e" or rescin"e" b& e$ecutive action. It is not a
contract, propert& or a propert& ri%!t proteste" b& t!e "ue process clause o' t!e
Constitution.
o A timber license is an instrument by which the 8tate regulates the utiliation and
disposition of forest resources to the end that public welfare is promoted. A timber
license is not a contract within the purview of the due process clause% it is only a
license or privilege, which can be validly withdrawn whenever dictated by public
interest or public welfare as in this case.
o A license is merely a permit or privilege to do what otherwise would be unlawful,
and is not a contract between the authority, federal, state, or municipal, granting it
and the person to whom it is granted% neither is it property or a property right, nor
does it create a vested right% nor is it taxation *59 !.F. /412. Thus, this !ourt held
that the granting of license does not create irrevocable rights, neither is it property
or property rights *'eople vs. &ng Tin, :0 &.+. 9:942.
- even if it is to be assumed that the same are contracts, the instant case does not involve a
law or even an executive issuance declaring the cancellation or modification of existing
timber licenses. @ence, the non-impairment clause cannot as yet be invoked.
- "urther, even if it was a law, etc, it could have only been passed in the exercise of the police
power of the state for the purpose of advancing the right of the people to a balanced and
healthful ecology, promoting their health and enhancing the general welfare. The non-
impairment clause must yield to the police power of the state.
- "inally, it is difficult to imagine, as the trial court did, how the non-impairment clause could
apply with respect to the prayer to en$oin the respondent 8ecretary from receiving,
accepting, processing, renewing or approving new timber licenses for, save in cases of
renewal, no contract would have as of yet existed in the other instances. Eoreover, with
respect to renewal, the holder is not entitled to it as a matter of right.
Fel. Jill. Lauren. Mon. Tara.
Political Law Review
Atty. Jack Jimenez
Section 19
?arcia vs. :9I 1199=2
"acts:
1. This is a petition to annul and set aside the decision of the A&7 approving the transfer of
the site of the proposed petrochemical plant from Aataan to Aatangas and the shift of
feedstock for that plant from naphtha only to naphtha andIor li6uefied petroleum gas.
*se6uel to the +arcia vs A&7 of /3132
2. @e claims that the law abdicates all regulation of foreign enterprises in this country and
gives them unfair advantages over local investments which are practically elbowed out in
their own land with the complicity of their own government.
3. 'etitioner further claims that the transitory provisions of ,A 9;0., which allow practically
unlimited entry of foreign investments for three years, sub$ect only to a supposed
Transitory "oreign 7nvestment (egative -ist, not only completely deregulates foreign
investments but would place "ilipino enterprises at a fatal disadvantage in their own
country.
7ssue: >I( the A&7 committed committed a grave abuse of discretion in approving the transfer of the
petrochemical plant from Aataan to Aatangas and authoriing the change of feedstock from naphtha
only to naphtha andIor -'+ for the main reason that the final say is in the in&estor all other
circumstances to the contrary notwithstanding.
@eld: T@=,= 78 +,AC= AAU8= &" )78!,=T7&(
/. (o cogent advantage to the government has been shown by this transfer. This is a
repudiation of the independent policy of the government expressed in numerous laws
and the !onstitution to run its own affairs the way it deems best for the national
interest.
.. Aataan was the original choice as the plant site of the A&7 to which the A'! agreed. That
is why it organied itself into a corporation bearing the name Aataan.
5. The respondents have not shown nor reiterated that the alleged peace and order
situation in Aataan or unstable labor situation warrant a transfer of the plant site to
Aatangas.
0. (aphtha as feedstock has been exempted
:. by law from the ad valorem tax by the approval of ,A 4949 by 'resident A6uino but
excluding -'+ from exemption from ad valorem tax. The law was enacted specifically for
the petrochemical industry. (either A&7 nor a foreign investor should disregard or
contravene expressed policy by shifting the feedstock from naphtha to -'+.
4. 7 f the plant site is maintained in Aataan, the '(&! shall be a partner in the venture to
the great benefit and advantage of the government.
9. 7n the light of all the clear advantages manifest in the plant<s remaining in Aataan,
practically nothing is shown to $ustify the transfer to Aatangas except a near-absolute
discretion given by A&7 to investors not only to freely choose the site but to transfer it
from their own first choice for reasons which remain murky to say the least.
)issenting &pinion of Eelencio-@errera:
- 7t is true that the $udicial power embodied in Article C777 of the /319 !onstitution speaks
of the duty of !ourts of $ustice to determine whether or not there has been grave abuse
of discretion amounting to lack or excess of $urisdiction on the part of any branch or
instrumentality of the +overnment. Ay no means, however, does it vest in the !ourts the
power to enter the realm of policy considerations under the guise of the commission of
Fel. Jill. Lauren. Mon. Tara.
Political Law Review
Atty. Jack Jimenez
grave abuse of discretion.
- !onsistent with my dissent in the first case, 7 concur in the dissent herein of Fustice
A6uino and merely wish to add that in its )ecision, the ma$ority has actually imposed its
own views on matters falling within the competence of a policy-making body of the
+overnment. 7t decided upon the wisdom of the transfer of the site of the proposed
pro$ect% the reasonableness of the feedstock to be used% the undesirability of the
capitaliation aspect of the pro$ect, and in$ected its own concept of the national interest
as regards the establishment of a basic industry of strategic importance to the country.
Fel. Jill. Lauren. Mon. Tara.