Cadet It-itan

RB
Cadet Tuario
FD
Cadet
Sermona
Cadet
Casiraya
Cadet Aganon
Sec C

Subject Matter: Oposa vs. Factoran, GR NO. 101083, 1993-07-30

Facts of the Case:

In March 1990, the Philippine Ecological Network Inc.

represented by Antonio Oposa filed a suit against the DENR secretary
the Honorable Fulgencio S. Factoran, Jr. concerning the preservation
of the country’s virgin tropical forest. The plaintiffs in their suit order
the defendants to cancel all existing timber license agreements in the
country and cease and desist from receiving, accepting, processing,
renewing or approving new timber license agreements. The cause of
action of the plaintiff are the following: the forest cover of the
Philippines has reduced to not more than 1.2 million hectares in 1987
compared to 16 million hectares of forest 25 years ago, the defendants
had issued TLA’s to different corporation authorizing them to cut 3.89
million hectares for commercial purposes, the adverse effects,
disastrous consequences, serious injury and irreparable damage of this
continued trend of deforestation to the plaintiff minor's generation and
to generations yet unborn are evident and incontrovertible such as
water shortages, salinization of water table, massive erosion and loss
of fertility, endangering and extinction of flora and fauna, dislocation of
cultural communities, etc., failure of the defendant to cancel the TLA’s
is a violation of the right of the plaintiffs right to a healthful and
balanced ecology and has protection by the state in its capacity as the
parens patriae, and violation of the constitutional policy of the state to:

a. effect "a more equitable distribution of opportunities, income

and wealth" and "make full and efficient use of natural resources (sic)."
(Section 1, Article XII of the Constitution);

b. "protect the nation's marine wealth." (Section 2, ibid);

c. "conserve and promote the nation's cultural heritage and

resources (sic)" (Section 14, Article XIV, id.);
 d. "protect and advance the right of the people to a balanced and
healthful ecology in accord with the rhythm and harmony of nature."
(Section 16, Article II, id.)

Finally, defendant's act is contrary to the highest law of

humankind — the natural law — and violative of plaintiffs' right to self-
preservation and perpetuation.

In June 1990, the defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss the case

based on the following: the plaintiffs have no cause of action against
him and the raised issue is political question which pertains to the
legislative and executive sectors of the government. The respondent
judge granted the motion to dismiss based on the defendants claim and
granting the relief prayed for will result in impairment of contracts
which is prohibited by the fundamental laws of the land.

In this regard, the plaintiffs filed instant special civil action for
certiorari under Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court and ask this
Court to rescind and set aside the dismissal order on the ground that
the respondent Judge gravely abused his discretion in dismissing the
action.

Issues of the Case:

1. Whether or not the petitioners have the right to bring action to the judicial
power of the Court
2. Whether or not 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
3. Whether or not petitioners’ proposition to have all the TLAs indiscriminately
cancelled without the requisite hearing violates the requirements of due
process.

Decision of the court:

First, the court ruled that the petitioners, who were minors, had
the legal standing to file a case on behalf of future generations. The
court recognized that the minors had a right to a balanced and
healthful ecology, which is essential to their well-being and survival.
The court also noted the concept of intergenerational responsibility
that every generation has a responsibility to preserve the environment
for the enjoyment of future generations.

Second, the court ruled that the government has a duty to protect
and preserve the environment for the benefit of present and future
generations. The court noted that this duty is enshrined in the
Philippine Constitution and in various international agreements and
conventions. The court also emphasized that the government must
balance economic development with environmental protection and that
it must ensure that natural resources are used in a sustainable and
equitable manner.

Next, the court ruled that the petitioners had presented sufficient
evidence to show that their right to a balanced and healthful ecology
had been violated by the defendant's actions. The court noted that the
defendant had granted timber license agreements and mining permits
without regard for the environmental impact of these activities. The
court also noted that the defendant had failed to enforce
environmental laws and regulations, and had allowed the destruction
of forests, watersheds, and other natural resources.

Further, the court was shocked with the decision of the

respondent secretary to dismiss the case due to the non-impairment of
contracts clause given that he was aware of the Sec 20 of the Forest
Reform Code which states that the Executive has the power to amend,
modify, invoke, rescind or replace any contract with regard to national
interest which was pointed out by the petitioners. Licenses are not
considered as contracts granted by the state to whom it is granted
under the due process clause but merely a permit or privilege to do
otherwise what is unlawful. Timber licenses are instrument of the
government to regulate the utilization of forest resources to attain
public ends thus, it is not covered in the non-impairment clause.

In response to the defendants claim that the Civil Case No. 90-
777 raise a political question, the court ruled that policy formulation or
determination by the legislative and executive branch is not an issue
but the enforcement of a right or policy that was formulated. Hence,
the political question doctrine is no longer an obstacle to the exercise
of judicial power or a shield that protects executive and legislative
actions from judicial inquiry or review under Section 1, Article VIII of
the Constitution states that the Judicial power includes the duty of the
courts of justice to settle actual controversies involving rights which
are legally demandable and enforceable, and to determine whether or
not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or
excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of
the Government.

Finally, the court ordered the defendant to cancel the timber

license agreements and mining permits that had been granted without
regard for environmental impact. The court also ordered the defendant
to enforce environmental laws and regulations and to take other
measures to protect and preserve the environment. The court
emphasized that the government has a continuing duty to monitor and
regulate activities that may have an impact on the environment and to
ensure that natural resources are used in a sustainable and equitable
manner.

Hence, the instant Petition is hereby GRANTED, and the challenged Order of
respondent Judge of 18 July 1991 dismissing Civil Case No. 90-777 was set aside.
The petitioners amend their complaint to implead as defendants the holders or
grantees of the questioned timber license agreements.