You are on page 1of 8

Oposa vs.



A taxpayers class suit was filed by minors Juan Antonio Oposa, et al., representing their
generation and generations yet unborn, and represented by their parents against
Fulgencio Factoran Jr., Secretary of DENR. They prayed that judgment be rendered
ordering the defendant, his agents, representatives and other persons acting in his
behalf to:

1. Cancel all existing Timber Licensing Agreements (TLA) in the country;

2. Cease and desist from receiving, accepting, processing, renewing, or

appraising new TLAs;

and granting the plaintiffs such other reliefs just and equitable under the premises.
They alleged that they have a clear and constitutional right to a balanced and healthful
ecology and are entitled to protection by the State in its capacity as parens patriae.
Furthermore, they claim that the act of the defendant in allowing TLA holders to cut and
deforest the remaining forests constitutes a misappropriation and/or impairment of the
natural resources property he holds in trust for the benefit of the plaintiff minors and
succeeding generations.

The defendant filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on the following grounds:

1. Plaintiffs have no cause of action against him;

2. The issues raised by the plaintiffs is a political question which properly

pertains to the legislative or executive branches of the government.


Do the petitioner-minors have a cause of action in filing a class suit to prevent the
misappropriation or impairment of Philippine rainforests?


Yes. Petitioner-minors assert that they represent their generation as well as generations
to come. The Supreme Court 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 harmony of nature which indispensably include, inter
alia, the judicious disposition, utilization, management, renewal and conservation of the
countrys 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.

Needless to say, every generation has a responsibility to the next to preserve that
rhythm and harmony for the full enjoyment of a balanced and healthful ecology. Put 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.

Soriao vs. Pineda (Not sure if Soriano or Soriao) CA-G.R. SP No. 31546 August 10, 1994


Louie Soriao was a high school student in the sub province of Dinalungan, Aurora (S.Y.
1993 to 1994). Due to his reputation of talking back to school authority during the past
years, he was refused readmission to complete his fourth and final year of high school
through a verbal notice not to readmit. Soriao questioned the notice, averring that he
was deprived of a hearing on the matter and thus

the verbal notice was a denial of his right to due process. The administration ignored the
plea to reconsider its

decision to deny him readmission claiming, it was their prerogative.

Seeking further remedies to no avail, Soriao filed a petition for certiorari to the CA.


Whether or not the petitioner was denied his right to education.


YES. The Court of Appeals ordered Pineda, Head Teacher of the Juan C. Angara
Memorial High School to allow Soriao to enroll and study after he was meted out a
disciplinary action without due process. The Court of Appeals invoked the 1987
Constitution and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Article XIV, Sections 1 and 2
and Article II, Sections 13 and 17 of the 1987 Constitution provide: Article XIV, Section 1:
The State shall protect and promote the right of all citizens to quality education at all
levels, and shall take appropriate steps to make such education accessible to all. Section
2: The State shall: (1)

Establish, maintain, and support a complete, adequate, and integrated system of

education relevant to the needs of the people and society; (2)

Establish and maintain, a system of free public education in the elementary and high
school levels. Without limiting the natural right of parents to rear their children,
elementary education is compulsory for all children of school age; (3)

Establish and maintain a system of scholarship grants, student loan programs, subsidies,
and other incentives which shall be available to deserving students in both public and
private schools, especially to the under-privileged; (4)

Encourage non-formal, informal, and indigenous learning system, as well as self-study

programs particularly those that respond to community needs; and (5)
Provide adult citizens, the disabled, and out-of-school youth with training in civics,
vocational efficiency, and other skills. Article II, Section 13: The State recognizes the vital
role of the youth in nation-building and shall promote and protect their physical, moral,
spiritual, intellectual, and social well-being. It shall inculcate in the youth patriotism and
nationalism, and encourage their involvement in public and civic affairs. Section 17: The
State shall give priority to education, science and technology, arts, culture, and sports to
foster patriotism and nationalism, accelerate social progress, and promote total human
liberation and development./

David vs. GMA


In February 2006, due to the escape of some Magdalo members and the discovery of a
plan (Oplan Hackle I) to assassinate GMA she declared PP 1017 and is to be
implemented by GO 5. The said law was aimed to suppress lawlessness and the
connivance of extremists to bring down the government. Pursuant to such PP, GMA
cancelled all plans to celebrate EDSA I and at the same time revoked all

permits issued for rallies and other public organization/meeting. Notwithstanding the
cancellation of their rally permit, KMU head Randolf David proceeded to rally which led
to his arrest. Later that day, the Daily Tribune, which Cacho-Olivares is the editor, was
raided by the CIDG and they seized and confiscated anti-GMA articles and write ups.
Later still, another known anti-GMA news agency (Malaya) was raided and seized. On
the same day, Beltran of Anakpawis, was also arrested. His arrest was however grounded
on a warrant of arrest issued way back in 1985 for his actions against Marcos. His
supporters cannot visit him in jail because of the current imposition of PP 1017 and GO
5. In March, GMA issued PP 1021 w/c declared that the state of national emergency
ceased to exist. David and some opposition Congressmen averred that PP1017 is
unconstitutional for it has no factual basis and it cannot be validly declared by the
president for such power is reposed in Congress. Also such declaration is actually a
declaration of martial law. Olivares-Cacho also averred that the emergency
contemplated in the Constitution are those of natural calamities and that such is an
overbreadth. Petitioners claim that PP 1017 is an overbreadth because it encroaches
upon protected and unprotected rights. The Sol-Gen argued that the issue has become
moot and academic by reason of the lifting of PP 1017 by virtue of the declaration of PP
1021. The Sol-Gen averred that PP 1017 is within the presidents calling out power, take
care power and take over power.

ISSUE:Whether or not PP 1017 and GO 5 is constitutional.


The issue cannot be considered as moot and academic by reason of the lifting of the
questioned PP. It is still in fact operative because there are parties still affected due to
the alleged violation of the said PP. Hence, the SC can take cognition of the case at bar.
The SC ruled that PP 1017 is constitutional in part and at the same time some provisions
of which are unconstitutional. The SC ruled in the following way;

Resolution by the SC on the Factual Basis of its declaration

The petitioners were not able to prove that GMA has factual basis in issuing PP 1017 and
GO 5. A reading of the Solicitor Generals Consolidated Comment and Memorandum
shows a detailed narration of the events leading to the issuance of PP 1017, with
supporting reports forming part of the records. Mentioned are the escape of the
Magdalo Group, their audacious threat of the Magdalo D-Day, the defections in the
military, particularly in the Philippine Marines, and the reproving statements from the
communist leaders. There was also the Minutes of the Intelligence Report and Security
Group of the Philippine Army showing the growing alliance between the NPA and the
military. Petitioners presented nothing to refute such events. Thus, absent any contrary
allegations, the Court is convinced that the President was justified in issuing PP 1017
calling for military aid. Indeed, judging the seriousness of the incidents, GMA was not
expected to simply fold her arms and do nothing to prevent or suppress what she
believed was lawless violence, invasion or rebellion. However, the exercise of such
power or duty must not stifle liberty.

Resolution by the SC on the Overbreadth Theory

First and foremost, the overbreadth doctrine is an analytical tool developed for testing
on their faces statutes in free speech cases. The 7 consolidated cases at bar are not
primarily freedom of speech cases. Also, a plain reading of PP 1017 shows that it is not
primarily directed to speech or even speech-related conduct. It is actually a call upon the
AFP to prevent or suppress all forms of lawless violence. Moreover, the overbreadth
doctrine is not intended for testing the validity of a law that reflects legitimate state
interest in maintaining comprehensive control over harmful, constitutionally
unprotected conduct. Undoubtedly, lawless violence, insurrection and rebellion are
considered harmful and constitutionally unprotected conduct. Thus, claims of facial
overbreadth are entertained in cases involving statutes which, by their terms, seek to
regulate only spoken words and again, that overbreadth claims, if entertained at all,
have been curtailed when invoked against ordinary criminal laws that are sought to be
applied to protected conduct. Here, the incontrovertible fact remains that PP 1017
pertains to a spectrum of conduct, not free speech, which is manifestly subject to state

Resolution by the SC on the Calling Out Power Doctrine

On the basis of Sec 17, Art 7 of the Constitution, GMA declared PP 1017. The SC
considered the Presidents calling-out power as a discretionary power solely vested in
his wisdom, it stressed that this does not prevent an examination of whether such
power was exercised within permissible constitutional limits or whether it was exercised
in a manner constituting grave abuse of discretion. The SC ruled that GMA has validly
declared PP 1017 for the Constitution grants the President, as Commander-in-Chief, a
sequence of graduated powers. From the most to the least benign, these are: the
calling-out power, the power to suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, and
the power to declare Martial Law. The only criterion for the exercise of the calling-out
power is that whenever it becomes necessary, the President may call the armed forces
to prevent or suppress lawless violence, invasion or rebellion. And such criterion has
been met.

Resolution by the SC on the Take Care Doctrine

Pursuant to the 2ndsentence of Sec 17, Art 7 of the Constitution (He shall ensure that
the laws be faithfully executed.) the president declared PP 1017. David et al averred that
PP 1017 however violated Sec 1, Art 6 of the Constitution for it arrogated legislative
power to the President. Such power is vested in Congress. They assail the clause to
enforce obedience to all the laws and to all decrees, orders and regulations promulgated
by me personally or upon my direction. The SC noted that such provision is similar to
the power that granted former President Marcos legislative powers (as provided in PP
1081). The SC ruled that the assailed PP 1017 is unconstitutional insofar as it grants GMA
the authority to promulgate decrees. Legislative power is peculiarly within the province
of the Legislature. Sec 1, Article 6 categorically states that [t]he legislative power shall
be vested in the Congress of the Philippines which shall consist of a Senate and a House
of Representatives. To be sure, neither Martial Law nor a state of rebellion nor a state of
emergency can justify GMA[s exercise of legislative power by issuing decrees. The
president can only take care of the carrying out of laws but cannot create or enact

Resolution by the SC on the Take Over Power Doctrine

The president cannot validly order the taking over of private corporations or institutions
such as the Daily Tribune without any authority from Congress. On the other hand, the
word emergency contemplated in the constitution is not limited to natural calamities but
rather it also includes rebellion. The SC made a distinction; the president can declare the
state of national emergency but her exercise of emergency powers does not come
automatically after it for such exercise needs authority from Congress. The authority
from Congress must be based on the following:

1 There must be a war or other emergency.

(2) The delegation must be for a limited period only.

(3) The delegation must be subject to such restrictions as the Congress may prescribe.

(4) The emergency powers must be exercised to carry out a national policy declared by
Resolution by the SC on the Issue that PP 1017 is a Martial Law Declaration

The SC ruled that PP 1017 is not a Martial Law declaration and is not tantamount to it. It
is a valid