MODULE 1:

Constitutional Bases for

Environmental and
Natural Resources Law
 Guide Questions for Discussion

1. What is the traditional perception of the nature of the

provisions under Article II of the 1987 Constitution?
2. How has Oposa v. Factoran (G.R. No. 101083, 30 July 1993)
affected that traditional perception?
3. What are the important legal principles involved in Oposa v.
Factoran?
 Specific Learning Objectives

To determine some constitutional To identify the nature of such

bases for environmental and constitutional law bases
natural resources laws in the
Philippines.

To illustrate the implications of

these constitutional bases for
environmental and natural
resources laws
 Article I, 1987 Constitution:

The national territory comprises the Philippine

archipelago, with all the islands and waters embraced therein,
and all other territories over which the Philippines has
sovereignty or jurisdiction, consisting of its terrestrial, fluvial, and
aerial domains, including its territorial sea, the seabed, the
subsoil, the insular shelves, and other submarine areas. The
waters around, between, and connecting the islands of the
archipelago, regardless of their breadth and dimensions, form
part of the internal waters of the Philippines.
 Section 2, Article XII

Section 2. All lands of the public domain, waters, minerals,

coal, petroleum, and other mineral oils, all forces of potential
energy, fisheries, forests or timber, wildlife, flora and fauna, and
other natural resources are owned by the State. With the
exception of agricultural lands, all other natural resources shall
not be alienated. The exploration, development, and utilization
of natural resources shall be under the full control and
supervision of the State. […]
 Section 2, Article XII

Section 2. All lands of the public domain, waters, minerals,

coal, petroleum, and other mineral oils, all forces of potential
energy, fisheries, forests or timber, wildlife, flora and fauna, and
other natural resources are owned by the State. With the
exception of agricultural lands, all other natural resources shall
not be alienated. The exploration, development, and utilization
of natural resources shall be under the full control and
supervision of the State. […]
 Section 2, Article XII

Section 2. All lands of the public domain, waters, minerals,

coal, petroleum, and other mineral oils, all forces of potential
energy, fisheries, forests or timber, wildlife, flora and fauna, and
other natural resources are owned by the State. With the
exception of agricultural lands, all other natural resources shall
not be alienated. The exploration, development, and utilization
of natural resources shall be under the full control and
supervision of the State. […]
 Section 7, Article XIII

Section 7. The State shall protect the rights of subsistence

fishermen, especially of local communities, to the preferential use of local
marine and fishing resources, both inland and offshore. It shall provide
support to such fishermen through appropriate technology and research,
adequate financial, production, and marketing assistance, and other
services. The State shall also protect, develop, and conserve such
resources. The protection shall extend to offshore fishing grounds of
subsistence fishermen against foreign intrusion. Fishworkers shall receive
a just share from their labor in the utilization of marine and fishing
resources.
 Section 7, Article XIII

Section 7. The State shall protect the rights of subsistence

fishermen, especially of local communities, to the preferential use of local
marine and fishing resources, both inland and offshore. It shall provide
support to such fishermen through appropriate technology and research,
adequate financial, production, and marketing assistance, and other
services. The State shall also protect, develop, and conserve such
resources. The protection shall extend to offshore fishing grounds of
subsistence fishermen against foreign intrusion. Fishworkers shall receive
a just share from their labor in the utilization of marine and fishing
resources.
 Section 5, Article XII

Section 5. The State, subject to the provisions of this

Constitution and national development policies and programs,
shall protect the rights of indigenous cultural communities to
their ancestral lands to ensure their economic, social, and
cultural well-being.
 Section 16, Article II

Section 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 in nature.
 Section 16, Article II

Section 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 in nature.
Can these provisions be enforced directly?
Are these provisions self-executory?
 Presumed Self-Executory

[U]nless it is expressly provided that a legislative act is

necessary to enforce a constitutional mandate, the presumption
now is that all provisions of the constitution are self-executing. If
the constitutional provisions are treated as requiring legislation
instead of self-executing, the legislature would have the power
to ignore and practically nullify the mandate of the fundamental
law.

(Manila Prince Hotel v. GSIS, et. al., G.R. No. 122156, 3 February 1997)
 Presumed Self-Executory

[U]nless it is expressly provided that a legislative act is

necessary to enforce a constitutional mandate, the presumption
now is that all provisions of the constitution are self-executing. If
the constitutional provisions are treated as requiring legislation
instead of self-executing, the legislature would have the power
to ignore and practically nullify the mandate of the fundamental
law.

(Manila Prince Hotel v. GSIS, et. al., G.R. No. 122156, 3 February 1997)
 Presumed Self-Executory

[U]nless it is expressly provided that a legislative act is

necessary to enforce a constitutional mandate, the presumption
now is that all provisions of the constitution are self-executing. If
the constitutional provisions are treated as requiring legislation
instead of self-executing, the legislature would have the power
to ignore and practically nullify the mandate of the fundamental
law.

(Manila Prince Hotel v. GSIS, et. al., G.R. No. 122156, 3 February 1997)
 Exception

A provision which lays down a general principle, such as

those found in Article II of the 1987 Constitution, is usually not
self-executing.

(Manila Prince Hotel v. GSIS, et. al., G.R. No. 122156, 3 February 1997)
 Exception

A provision which lays down a general principle, such as

those found in Article II of the 1987 Constitution, is usually not
self-executing.

(Manila Prince Hotel v. GSIS, et. al., G.R. No. 122156, 3 February 1997)
 Section 16, Article II

Section 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 in nature.
Is Section 16, Article II self-executory?
 Case study:
Oposa v. Factoran,
(G.R. No. 101083, 30 July 1993)
 Timber Licenses sought to be Government Asked to dismiss
Timber Licenses issued
Annulled for being violative of the case for lack of cause of
by the DENR Section 16, Article II action

No cause of action because RTC:

the plaintiffs failed to point to Case dismissed;
a specific legal right. No cause of action

Direct Appeal to the Supreme

Is the RTC correct?
Court
Did the plaintiffs fail to cite a specific legal right?
Plaintiff were able to cite a
specific legal right!
 There was a specific legal right.

We do not agree with the trial court's conclusion 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.

(Oposa v. Factoran, Jr., G.R. No. 101083, [July 30, 1993])

What right is that?
Section 16, Article II, 1987
Constitution!
Isn’t that not self-executory, as it is in Article II of the 1987
Constitution?
 Section 16 is self-executory

While the right to a balanced and healthful ecology is to be found

under the Declaration of Principles and State Policies and not under the
Bill of Rights, it does not follow that it is less important than any of the civil
and political rights enumerated in the latter. Such a right belongs to a
different category of rights altogether for it concerns nothing less than self-
preservation and self-perpetuation — aptly and fittingly stressed by the
petitioners — the advancement of which may even be said to predate all
governments and constitutions.

(Oposa v. Factoran, Jr., G.R. No. 101083, [July 30, 1993])

 Section 16 is self-executory

While the right to a balanced and healthful ecology is to be found

under the Declaration of Principles and State Policies and not under the
Bill of Rights, it does not follow that it is less important than any of the civil
and political rights enumerated in the latter. Such a right belongs to a
different category of rights altogether for it concerns nothing less than self-
preservation and self-perpetuation — aptly and fittingly stressed by the
petitioners — the advancement of which may even be said to predate all
governments and constitutions.

(Oposa v. Factoran, Jr., G.R. No. 101083, [July 30, 1993])

 Section 16 is self-executory

While the right to a balanced and healthful ecology is to be found

under the Declaration of Principles and State Policies and not under the
Bill of Rights, it does not follow that it is less important than any of the civil
and political rights enumerated in the latter. Such a right belongs to a
different category of rights altogether for it concerns nothing less than self-
preservation and self-perpetuation — aptly and fittingly stressed by the
petitioners — the advancement of which may even be said to predate all
governments and constitutions.

(Oposa v. Factoran, Jr., G.R. No. 101083, [July 30, 1993])

 Section 16 is self-executory

While the right to a balanced and healthful ecology is to be found

under the Declaration of Principles and State Policies and not under the
Bill of Rights, it does not follow that it is less important than any of the civil
and political rights enumerated in the latter. Such a right belongs to a
different category of rights altogether for it concerns nothing less than self-
preservation and self-perpetuation — aptly and fittingly stressed by the
petitioners — the advancement of which may even be said to predate all
governments and constitutions.

(Oposa v. Factoran, Jr., G.R. No. 101083, [July 30, 1993])

 Right need not be written in the Constitution

As a matter of fact, these basic rights need not even be written

in the Constitution for they are assumed to exist from the inception of
humankind. If 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 Constitution 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 life.

(Oposa v. Factoran, Jr., G.R. No. 101083, [July 30, 1993])

 Right need not be written in the Constitution

As a matter of fact, these basic rights need not even be written

in the Constitution for they are assumed to exist from the inception of
humankind. If 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 Constitution 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 life.

(Oposa v. Factoran, Jr., G.R. No. 101083, [July 30, 1993])

Right is established Cause of Action
NOT YET!
 A corresponding duty of A violation of that duty to
Right to a balanced and
the State to protect and protect and that right to
healthful ecology is
refrain from destroying a balanced and healthful
established
the environment ecology

Cause of Action
Right to a balanced and A corresponding duty of The granting of the TLAs
healthful ecology is the State to protect and with grave abuse of
established under refrain from destroying discretion is a violation
Section 16, Article II the environment of that right

Cause of Action
 NOTE:

The principle of inter-generational responsibility and transcendental

importance are NOT relevant to the discussion of whether Section 16,
Article II is self-executory. It is only relevant on the matter of LEGAL
STANDING of the minors to represent their generation and the next
generations.
 The case of Oposa v. Factoran, Jr., 224 SCRA 792 (1993) is
different. Citizens' standing to bring a suit seeking the cancellation of
timber licenses was sustained in that case because the Court considered
Art. II, §16 a right-conferring provision which can be enforced in the courts.

(Kilosbayan, Inc. v. Morato, G.R. No. 118910 (Resolution), 16 November 1995)

NEXT.
Module 2: The Basic Structure of Enforcement of Environmental Laws in the Philippines