6. De Leon vs. Esguerra (G.R. No.

78059 | August 31, 1987)

Effectivity of the 1987 Constitution

Facts:

 May 17, 1982: Petitioners won in the Barangay Elections as Barangay Captain and Councilmen of
Barangay Dolores, Taytay, Rizal.
 February 2, 1987: Ratification and effectivity of the 1987 Constitution
 February 9, 1987: Petitioners received Memorandum antedated December 1, 1986 but signed by
respondent OIC Governor Benjamin Esguerra on February 8, 1987 designating other respondents as
Barangay Captain and Councilmen.
 Petitioners’ prayer: That subject Memoranda be declared null and void on the bases of:
o Barangay Election Act of 1982 (BP 222) which provides their term of office of 6 years which
shall commence on June 7, 1982 and shall continue until their successors shall have elected
and shall have qualified," or up to June 7, 1988
o With the ratification of the 1987 Constitution, respondent OIC Governor no longer has the
authority to replace them and to designate their successors.
 Respondents’ position: Section 2, Article III of the 1986 Provisional Constitution, promulgated on
March 25, 1986, which provided:
“SECTION 2. All elective and appointive officials and employees under the 1973
Constitution shall continue in office until otherwise provided by proclamation or executive
order or upon the designation or appointment and qualification of their successors, if such
appointment is made within a period of one year from February 25,1986.”

Issue: Which constitution shall be applied to the case: 1986 Provisional Constitution or 1987?

Held:

 Considering the candid Affidavit of respondent OIC Governor of antedating the Memoranda,
February 8, 1987 should be considered as the effective date of replacement and not December 1,
1986, in keeping with the dictates of justice.
 The 1987 Constitution was ratified in a plebiscite on February 2, 1987. By that date, the Provisional
Constitution must be deemed to have been superseded. Having become inoperative, respondent OIC
Governor could no longer rely on Section 2, Article III, thereof to designate respondents to the
elective positions occupied by petitioners.

Dispositive portion: WHEREFORE, (1) The Memoranda issued by respondent OIC Governor on
February 8, 1987 designating respondents as the Barangay Captain and Barangay Councilmen,
respectively, of Barangay Dolores, Taytay, Rizal, are both declared to be of no legal force and effect; and
(2) the Writ of Prohibition is granted enjoining respondents perpetually from proceeding with the
ouster/take-over of petitioners' positions subject of this Petition. Without costs.
10. Oposan vs. Factoran (G.R. No. 101083 | July 30, 1993)
Doctrine of Intergenerational Responsibility on the environment in the Philippine legal system
Facts:

 Petitioners (minors), represented by their parents, filed a petition to the Makati RTC praying that the
defendant:
o Cancel all existing timber license agreements (TLAs) in the country;
o Cease and desist from receiving, accepting, processing, renewing or approving new timber
license agreements
 Makati RTC denied such petition, hence, Petitioners filed a special civil action for Certiorari to
rescind and set aside the dismissal order.
 Legal standing alleged by the Petitioners:
o As taxpayers who are “entitled to the full benefit, use and enjoyment of the natural resource
treasure that is the country's virgin tropical forests"
o The same was filed for themselves and others who are equally concerned about the
preservation of said resource but are "so numerous that it is impracticable to bring them all
before the Court."
o The minors further asseverate that they "represent their generation as well as generations yet
unborn."
 Petitioners assert that the continued deforestation, as evidenced by the TLAs, is against the
constitutional right to a balanced and healthful ecology and are entitled to protection by the State in
its capacity as the parens patriae. (Section 16, Article II of the 1987 Constitution)
 Respondents’ POV: (1) no cause of action, (2) the issue raised is a political question which properly
pertains to the legislative or executive branches of Government and (3) cancellation of the TLAs
would amount to "impairment of contracts"
Issue: WON the petitioners have (1) legal standing, (2) legal right, and (3) cause of action
Held:
1. Petitioners’ personality to sue in behalf of the succeeding generations can only be based on the
concept of intergenerational responsibility insofar as the right to a balanced and healthful ecology
is concerned. Every generation has a responsibility to the next to preserve that rhythm and harmony
of nature for the full enjoyment of a balanced and healthful ecology.
2. The complaint focuses on one specific fundamental legal right — the right to a balanced and healthful
ecology which is solemnly incorporated in Section 16, Article II of the 1987 Constitution)
"Sec. 16. The State shall protect and advance the right of the people to a balanced and
healthful ecology in accord with the rhythm and harmony of nature.”
The right to a balanced and healthful ecology carries with it the correlative duty to refrain from
impairing the environment.
3. The right of the petitioners (and all those they represent) to a balanced and healthful ecology is as
clear as the DENR's duty — under its mandate and by virtue of its powers and functions under E.O.
No. 192 and the Administrative Code of 1987 — to protect and advance the said right. 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.