BILAG, Miller Paulo D.

Human Rights - 2D

OPOSA vs FACTORAN

FACTS:
The petitioners, all minors represented and joined by their parents and an additional
plaintiff is the Philippine Ecological Network, Inc. (PENI), a domestic, non-stock and
non-profit corporation organized for the purpose of, inter alia, engaging in concerted
action geared for the protection of our environment and natural resources. They sought
the help of the Supreme Court to order the respondent, Honorable Fulgencio S.
Factoran, Jr.then Secretary of DENR, to cancel all existing Timber License Agreement
(TLA) in the country and to cease and desist from receiving, accepting, processing,
renewing or approving new Timber License Agreements. They alleged that the massive
commercial logging in the country is causing vast abuses on rain-forest. They further
asserted the rights of their generation and the rights of the generations yet unborn to a
balanced and healthful ecology which is found in Section 16, Article II of the
Constitution. Plaintiffs further assert that the adverse and detrimental consequences of
continued and deforestation are so capable of unquestionable demonstration that the
same may be submitted as a matter of judicial notice. This notwithstanding, they
expressed their intention to present expert witnesses as well as documentary,
photographic and film evidence in the course of the trial.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the petitioners have a locus standi

HELD:
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the petitioners. Locus standi means the right of the
litigant to act or to be heard.

We do not agree with the trial court's conclusions that the plaintiffs failed to allege with
sufficient definiteness a specific legal right involved or a specific legal wrong committed,
and that the complaint is replete with vague assumptions and conclusions based on
unverified data. A reading of the complaint itself belies these conclusions. Petitioners
minors assert that they represent their generation as well as generations yet unborn.
We find no difficulty in ruling that they can, for themselves, for others of their generation
and for the succeeding generations, file a class suit. Their 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.
Such a right, as hereinafter expounded, considers the "rhythm and harmony of nature."
Nature means the created world in its entirety.9 Such rhythm and harmony
indispensably include, inter alia, the judicious disposition, utilization, management,
renewal and conservation 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 utilization be equitably accessible to the present as well as future
generations. 10 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.
We hereby rule that the said civil case is indeed a class suit. The subject matter of the
complaint is of common and general interest not just to several, but to all citizens of the
Philippines.

LAGUNA LAKE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, petitioner,

vs.
COURT OF APPEALS, HON. MANUEL JN. SERAPIO, Presiding Judge RTC,
Branch 127, Caloocan City, HON. MACARIO A. ASISTIO, JR., City Mayor of
Caloocan and/or THE CITY GOVERNMENT OF CALOOCAN, respondents.

FACTS:
The LLDA Legal and Technical personnel found that the City Government of Caloocan
was maintaining an open dumpsite at the Camarin area without first securing an
Environmental Compliance Certificate (ECC) from the Environmental Management
Bureau (EMB) of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources, as
required under Presidential Decree No. 1586, and clearance from LLDA as required
under Republic Act No. 4850 and issued a CEASE and DESIST ORDER (CDO) for the
City Government of Caloocan to stop the use of the dumpsite.

ISSUE:
Does the Laguna Lake Development Authority have the power and authority to issue a
"cease and desist" order?
HELD:

 Yes.
 By its express terms, Republic Act No. 4850, as amended by P.D. No. 813 and
Executive Order No. 927, series of 1983, authorizes the LLDA to "make, alter or
modify order requiring the discontinuance or pollution." (Emphasis supplied)
Section 4, par. (d) Explicitly authorizes the LLDA to make whatever order may be
necessary in the exercise of its jurisdiction.
 To be sure, the LLDA was not expressly conferred the power "to issue an ex-
parte cease and desist order" in a language, as suggested by the City Government
of Caloocan, similar to the express grant to the defunct National Pollution Control
Commission under Section 7 of P.D. No. 984 which, admittedly was not
reproduced in P.D. No. 813 and E.O. No. 927, series of 1983. However, it would
be a mistake to draw therefrom the conclusion that there is a denial of the power
to issue the order in question when the power "to make, alter or modify orders
requiring the discontinuance of pollution" is expressly and clearly bestowed upon
the LLDA by Executive Order No. 927, series of 1983.
 The immediate response to the demands of "the necessities of protecting vital
public interests" gives vitality to the statement on ecology embodied in the
Declaration of Principles and State Policies or the 1987 Constitution. Article II,
Section 16 which provides:
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.
 As a constitutionally guaranteed right of every person, it carries the correlative duty
of non-impairment. This is but in consonance with the declared policy of the state
"to protect and promote the right to health of the people and instill health
consciousness among them." It is to be borne in mind that the Philippines is party
to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Alma Conference
Declaration of 1978 which recognize health as a fundamental human right.