Ramos, Monica May

2020-0431

The Rule on Procedure for Environmental Cases was enacted in order to a) to protect and
advance the constitutional right of the people to a balanced and healthful ecology; (b) to provide
a simplified, speedy and inexpensive procedure for the enforcement of environmental rights and
duties recognized under the Constitution, existing laws, rules and regulations, and international
agreements; (c) to introduce and adopt innovations and best practices ensuring the effective
enforcement of remedies and redress for violation of environmental laws; and (d) to enable the
courts to monitor and exact compliance with orders and judgments in environmental cases.

Article II, of the 1987 Constitution explicitly provides in Section 16 that “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.” It is the petitioners’ right 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. Wherefore when the respondent-Judge
granted the Timber License Agreements, it had been on the violation of the said policy.
Moreover, the TLA’s are not contracts and the non-impairment clause that the respondents used
as defense cannot be invoked.
The rationale of this law is protecting man from environmental harm and protecting the
environment in such a way that man’s interests (e.g. economic, esthetic) are not impeded. It
differs from the traditional approach insofar as it integrates the element of sustainability with the
person-oriented right to a healthy environment. Even more compelling is the human rights aspect
to the rights-based approach.
In Oposan v. Factoran, respondents aver that the petitioners failed to allege in their
complaint a specific legal right violated by the respondent Secretary for which any relief is
provided by law. The Court did not agree with this. The complaint focuses on one fundamental
legal right -- the right to a balanced and healthful ecology which is incorporated in Section 16
Article II of the Constitution. The said right carries with it the duty to refrain from impairing the
environment and implies, among many other things, the judicious management and conservation
of the country's forests. Section 4 of E.O. 192 expressly mandates the DENR to be the primary
government agency responsible for the governing and supervising the exploration, utilization,
development and conservation of the country's natural resources. Thus, right of the petitioners
(and all those they represent) to a balanced and healthful ecology is as clear as DENR's duty 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 or respect the same gives rise to a cause of action. Petitioners maintain that
the granting of the TLA, which they claim was done with grave abuse of discretion, violated
their right to a balance and healthful ecology. Hence, the full protection thereof requires that no
further TLAs should be renewed or granted. After careful examination of the petitioners'
complaint, the Court finds it to be adequate enough to show, prima facie, the claimed violation of
their rights.