LEARN MORE...

96368340_republic_of_the_philippines_case_study_constitution.docx

Content type

User Generated

Uploaded By

Nffvtazragrkcreg96

Pages

Showing Page:

1/5

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT

Manila

EN BANC

G.R. No. 101083 July 30, 1993

JUAN ANTONIO, ANNA ROSARIO and JOSE ALFONSO, all surnamed OPOSA, minors, and

represented by their parents ANTONIO and RIZALINA OPOSA, ROBERTA NICOLE

SADIUA, minor, represented by her parents CALVIN and ROBERTA SADIUA, CARLO,

AMANDA SALUD and PATRISHA, all surnamed FLORES, minors and represented by their

parents ENRICO and NIDA FLORES, GIANINA DITA R. FORTUN, minor, represented by her

parents SIGRID and DOLORES FORTUN, GEORGE II and MA. CONCEPCION, all surnamed

MISA, minors and represented by their parents GEORGE and MYRA MISA, BENJAMIN

ALAN V. PESIGAN, minor, represented by his parents ANTONIO and ALICE PESIGAN,

JOVIE MARIE ALFARO, minor, represented by her parents JOSE and MARIA VIOLETA

ALFARO, MARIA CONCEPCION T. CASTRO, minor, represented by her parents FREDENIL

and JANE CASTRO, JOHANNA DESAMPARADO,

minor, represented by her parents JOSE and ANGELA DESAMPRADO, CARLO JOAQUIN

T. NARVASA, minor, represented by his parents GREGORIO II and CRISTINE CHARITY

NARVASA, MA. MARGARITA, JESUS IGNACIO, MA. ANGELA and MARIE GABRIELLE, all

surnamed SAENZ, minors, represented by their parents ROBERTO and AURORA SAENZ,

KRISTINE, MARY ELLEN, MAY, GOLDA MARTHE and DAVID IAN, all surnamed KING,

minors, represented by their parents MARIO and HAYDEE KING, DAVID, FRANCISCO and

THERESE VICTORIA, all surnamed ENDRIGA, minors, represented by their parents

BALTAZAR and TERESITA ENDRIGA, JOSE MA. and REGINA MA., all surnamed ABAYA,

minors, represented by their parents ANTONIO and MARICA ABAYA, MARILIN, MARIO, JR.

and MARIETTE, all surnamed CARDAMA, minors, represented by their parents MARIO and

LINA CARDAMA, CLARISSA, ANN MARIE, NAGEL, and IMEE LYN, all surnamed OPOSA,

minors and represented by their parents RICARDO and MARISSA OPOSA, PHILIP

JOSEPH, STEPHEN JOHN and ISAIAH JAMES, all surnamed QUIPIT, minors, represented

by their parents JOSE MAX and VILMI QUIPIT, BUGHAW CIELO, CRISANTO, ANNA,

DANIEL and FRANCISCO, all surnamed BIBAL, minors, represented by their parents

FRANCISCO, JR. and MILAGROS BIBAL, and THE PHILIPPINE ECOLOGICAL NETWORK,

INC., petitioners,

vs.

THE HONORABLE FULGENCIO S. FACTORAN, JR., in his capacity as the Secretary of the

Department of Environment and Natural Resources, and THE HONORABLE ERIBERTO U.

ROSARIO, Presiding Judge of the RTC, Makati, Branch 66, respondents.

Oposa Law Office for petitioners.

The Solicitor General for respondents.

DAVIDE, JR., J.:

In a broader sense, this petition bears upon the right of Filipinos to a balanced and healthful

ecology which the petitioners dramatically associate with the twin concepts of “inter-generational

responsibility” and “inter-generational justice.” Specifically, it touches on the issue of whether the

said petitioners have a cause of action to “prevent the misappropriation or impairment” of

Philippine rainforests and “arrest the unabated hemorrhage of the country’s vital life support

systems and continued rape of Mother Earth.”

The controversy has its genesis in Civil Case No. 90-77 which was filed before Branch 66

(Makati, Metro Manila) of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), National Capital Judicial Region. The

principal plaintiffs therein, now the principal petitioners, are all minors duly represented and joined

by their respective parents. Impleaded as 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. The original defendant was the Honorable Fulgencio S. Factoran, Jr., then

Secretary of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR). His substitution in

this petition by the new Secretary, the Honorable Angel C. Alcala, was subsequently ordered

upon proper motion by the petitioners.

The complaint

was instituted as a taxpayers’ class

suit

and alleges that the plaintiffs “are all citizens of the Republic of the Philippines, taxpayers,

and entitled to the full benefit, use and enjoyment of the natural resource treasure that is the

country’s virgin tropical forests.” 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.” The minors further asseverate that they “represent their

generation as well as generations yet unborn.”

Consequently, it is prayed for that judgment be

rendered:

. . . ordering defendant, his agents, representatives and other persons acting in his behalf to —

(1) Cancel all existing timber license agreements in the country;

(2) Cease and desist from receiving, accepting, processing, renewing or approving new timber

license agreements.

and granting the plaintiffs “. . . such other reliefs just and equitable under the premises.”

The complaint starts off with the general averments that the Philippine archipelago of 7,100

islands has a land area of thirty million (30,000,000) hectares and is endowed with rich, lush and

verdant rainforests in which varied, rare and unique species of flora and fauna may be found;

these rainforests contain a genetic, biological and chemical pool which is irreplaceable; they are

also the habitat of indigenous Philippine cultures which have existed, endured and flourished

since time immemorial; scientific evidence reveals that in order to maintain a balanced and

healthful ecology, the country’s land area should be utilized on the basis of a ratio of fifty-four per

cent (54%) for forest cover and forty-six per cent (46%) for agricultural, residential, industrial,

commercial and other uses; the distortion and disturbance of this balance as a consequence of

deforestation have resulted in a host of environmental tragedies, such as (a) water shortages

resulting from drying up of the water table, otherwise known as the “aquifer,” as well as of rivers,

brooks and streams, (b) salinization of the water table as a result of the intrusion therein of salt

water, incontrovertible examples of which may be found in the island of Cebu and the Municipality

of Bacoor, Cavite, (c) massive erosion and the consequential loss of soil fertility and agricultural

productivity, with the volume of soil eroded estimated at one billion (1,000,000,000) cubic meters

per annum — approximately the size of the entire island of Catanduanes, (d) the endangering

and extinction of the country’s unique, rare and varied flora and fauna, (e) the disturbance and

dislocation of cultural communities, including the disappearance of the Filipino’s indigenous

cultures, (f) the siltation of rivers and seabeds and consequential destruction of corals and other

aquatic life leading to a critical reduction in marine resource productivity, (g) recurrent spells of

drought as is presently experienced by the entire country, (h) increasing velocity of typhoon winds

which result from the absence of windbreakers, (i) the floodings of lowlands and agricultural

plains arising from the absence of the absorbent mechanism of forests, (j) the siltation and

shortening of the lifespan of multi-billion peso dams constructed and operated for the purpose of

supplying water for domestic uses, irrigation and the generation of electric power, and (k) the

reduction of the earth’s capacity to process carbon dioxide gases which has led to perplexing and

catastrophic climatic changes such as the phenomenon of global warming, otherwise known as

the “greenhouse effect.”

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.

As their cause of action, they specifically allege that:

CAUSE OF ACTION

7. Plaintiffs replead by reference the foregoing allegations.

8. Twenty-five (25) years ago, the Philippines had some sixteen (16) million hectares of

rainforests constituting roughly 53% of the country’s land mass.

9. Satellite images taken in 1987 reveal that there remained no more than 1.2 million hectares of

said rainforests or four per cent (4.0%) of the country’s land area.

10. More recent surveys reveal that a mere 850,000 hectares of virgin old-growth rainforests are

left, barely 2.8% of the entire land mass of the Philippine archipelago and about 3.0 million

hectares of immature and uneconomical secondary growth forests.

11. Public records reveal that the defendant’s, predecessors have granted timber license

agreements (‘TLA’s') to various corporations to cut the aggregate area of 3.89 million hectares for

commercial logging purposes.

A copy of the TLA holders and the corresponding areas covered is hereto attached as Annex “A”.

12. At the present rate of deforestation, i.e. about 200,000 hectares per annum or 25 hectares

per hour — nighttime, Saturdays, Sundays and holidays included — the Philippines will be bereft

of forest resources after the end of this ensuing decade, if not earlier.

13. 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. As a matter of fact, the environmental damages enumerated in

paragraph 6 hereof are already being felt, experienced and suffered by the generation of plaintiff

adults.

14. The continued allowance by defendant of TLA holders to cut and deforest the remaining

forest stands will work great damage and irreparable injury to plaintiffs — especially plaintiff

minors and their successors — who may never see, use, benefit from and enjoy this rare and

unique natural resource treasure.

This act of defendant constitutes a misappropriation and/or impairment of the natural resource

property he holds in trust for the benefit of plaintiff minors and succeeding generations.

15. Plaintiffs have a clear and constitutional right to a balanced and healthful ecology and are

entitled to protection by the State in its capacity as the parens patriae.

Showing Page:

2/5

16. Plaintiff have exhausted all administrative remedies with the defendant’s office. On March 2,

1990, plaintiffs served upon defendant a final demand to cancel all logging permits in the country.

A copy of the plaintiffs’ letter dated March 1, 1990 is hereto attached as Annex “B”.

17. Defendant, however, fails and refuses to cancel the existing TLA’s to the continuing serious

damage and extreme prejudice of plaintiffs.

18. The continued failure and refusal by defendant to cancel the TLA’s is an act violative of the

rights of plaintiffs, especially plaintiff minors who may be left with a country that is decertified

(sic), bare, barren and devoid of the wonderful flora, fauna and indigenous cultures which the

Philippines had been abundantly blessed with.

19. Defendant’s refusal to cancel the aforementioned TLA’s is manifestly contrary to the public

policy enunciated in the Philippine Environmental Policy which, in pertinent part, states that it is

the policy of the State —

(a) to create, develop, maintain and improve conditions under which man and nature can thrive in

productive and enjoyable harmony with each other;

(b) to fulfill the social, economic and other requirements of present and future generations of

Filipinos and;

well-being. (P.D. 1151, 6 June 1977)

20. Furthermore, defendant’s continued refusal to cancel the aforementioned TLA’s is

contradictory to 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.)

21. 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.

22. There is no other plain, speedy and adequate remedy in law other than the instant action to

arrest the unabated hemorrhage of the country’s vital life support systems and continued rape of

Mother Earth.

On 22 June 1990, the original defendant, Secretary Factoran, Jr., filed a Motion to Dismiss the

complaint based on two (2) grounds, namely: (1) the plaintiffs have no cause of action against

him and (2) the issue raised by the plaintiffs is a political question which properly pertains to the

legislative or executive branches of Government. In their 12 July 1990 Opposition to the Motion,

the petitioners maintain that (1) the complaint shows a clear and unmistakable cause of action,

(2) the motion is dilatory and (3) the action presents a justiciable question as it involves the

defendant’s abuse of discretion.

On 18 July 1991, respondent Judge issued an order granting the aforementioned motion to

dismiss.

In the said order, not only was the defendant’s claim — that the complaint states no

cause of action against him and that it raises a political question — sustained, the respondent

Judge further ruled that the granting of the relief prayed for would result in the impairment of

contracts which is prohibited by the fundamental law of the land.

Plaintiffs thus filed the 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. Again, the parents of

the plaintiffs-minors not only represent their children, but have also joined the latter in this case.

On 14 May 1992, We resolved to give due course to the petition and required the parties to

submit their respective Memoranda after the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) filed a

Comment in behalf of the respondents and the petitioners filed a reply thereto.

Petitioners contend that the complaint clearly and unmistakably states a cause of action as it

contains sufficient allegations concerning their right to a sound environment based on Articles 19,

20 and 21 of the Civil Code (Human Relations), Section 4 of Executive Order (E.O.) No. 192

creating the DENR, Section 3 of Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 1151 (Philippine Environmental

Policy), Section 16, Article II of the 1987 Constitution recognizing the right of the people to a

balanced and healthful ecology, the concept of generational genocide in Criminal Law and the

concept of man’s inalienable right to self-preservation and self-perpetuation embodied in natural

law. Petitioners likewise rely on the respondent’s correlative obligation per Section 4 of E.O. No.

192, to safeguard the people’s right to a healthful environment.

It is further claimed that the issue of the respondent Secretary’s alleged grave abuse of discretion

in granting Timber License Agreements (TLAs) to cover more areas for logging than what is

available involves a judicial question.

Anent the invocation by the respondent Judge of the Constitution’s non-impairment clause,

petitioners maintain that the same does not apply in this case because TLAs are not contracts.

They likewise submit that even if TLAs may be considered protected by the said clause, it is well

settled that they may still be revoked by the State when the public interest so requires.

On the other hand, the 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.

They see nothing in the complaint but vague and nebulous allegations concerning an

“environmental right” which supposedly entitles the petitioners to the “protection by the state in its

capacity as parens patriae.” Such allegations, according to them, do not reveal a valid cause of

action. They then reiterate the theory that the question of whether logging should be permitted in

the country is a political question which should be properly addressed to the executive or

legislative branches of Government. They therefore assert that the petitioners’ resources is not to

file an action to court, but to lobby before Congress for the passage of a bill that would ban

logging totally.

As to the matter of the cancellation of the TLAs, respondents submit that the same cannot be

done by the State without due process of law. Once issued, a TLA remains effective for a certain

period of time — usually for twenty-five (25) years. During its effectivity, the same can neither be

revised nor cancelled unless the holder has been found, after due notice and hearing, to have

violated the terms of the agreement or other forestry laws and regulations. Petitioners’ proposition

to have all the TLAs indiscriminately cancelled without the requisite hearing would be violative of

the requirements of due process.

Before going any further, We must first focus on some procedural matters. Petitioners instituted

Civil Case No. 90-777 as a class suit. The original defendant and the present respondents did not

take issue with this matter. Nevertheless, 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. Consequently, since the parties are so numerous, it, becomes

impracticable, if not totally impossible, to bring all of them before the court. We likewise declare

that the plaintiffs therein are numerous and representative enough to ensure the full protection of

all concerned interests. Hence, all the requisites for the filing of a valid class suit under Section

12, Rule 3 of the Revised Rules of Court are present both in the said civil case and in the instant

petition, the latter being but an incident to the former.

This case, however, has a special and novel element. 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.

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.

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.

The locus standi of the petitioners having thus been addressed, We shall now proceed to the

merits of the petition.

After a careful perusal of the complaint in question and a meticulous consideration and evaluation

of the issues raised and arguments adduced by the parties, We do not hesitate to find for the

petitioners and rule against the respondent Judge’s challenged order for having been issued with

grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction. The pertinent portions of the said

order reads as follows:

xxx xxx xxx

After a careful and circumspect evaluation of the Complaint, the Court cannot help but agree with

the defendant. For although we believe that plaintiffs have but the noblest of all intentions, it (sic)

fell short of alleging, with sufficient definiteness, a specific legal right they are seeking to enforce

and protect, or a specific legal wrong they are seeking to prevent and redress (Sec. 1, Rule 2,

RRC). Furthermore, the Court notes that the Complaint is replete with vague assumptions and

vague conclusions based on unverified data. In fine, plaintiffs fail to state a cause of action in its

Complaint against the herein defendant.

Furthermore, the Court firmly believes that the matter before it, being impressed with political

color and involving a matter of public policy, may not be taken cognizance of by this Court without

Showing Page:

3/5

End of Preview - Want to read all 5 pages?

Access Now

Unformatted Attachment Preview

Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila EN BANC G.R. No. 101083 July 30, 1993 JUAN ANTONIO, ANNA ROSARIO and JOSE ALFONSO, all surnamed OPOSA, minors, and represented by their parents ANTONIO and RIZALINA OPOSA, ROBERTA NICOLE SADIUA, minor, represented by her parents CALVIN and ROBERTA SADIUA, CARLO, AMANDA SALUD and PATRISHA, all surnamed FLORES, minors and represented by their parents ENRICO and NIDA FLORES, GIANINA DITA R. FORTUN, minor, represented by her parents SIGRID and DOLORES FORTUN, GEORGE II and MA. CONCEPCION, all surnamed MISA, minors and represented by their parents GEORGE and MYRA MISA, BENJAMIN ALAN V. PESIGAN, minor, represented by his parents ANTONIO and ALICE PESIGAN, JOVIE MARIE ALFARO, minor, represented by her parents JOSE and MARIA VIOLETA ALFARO, MARIA CONCEPCION T. CASTRO, minor, represented by her parents FREDENIL and JANE CASTRO, JOHANNA DESAMPARADO, minor, represented by her parents JOSE and ANGELA DESAMPRADO, CARLO JOAQUIN T. NARVASA, minor, represented by his parents GREGORIO II and CRISTINE CHARITY NARVASA, MA. MARGARITA, JESUS IGNACIO, MA. ANGELA and MARIE GABRIELLE, all surnamed SAENZ, minors, represented by their parents ROBERTO and AURORA SAENZ, KRISTINE, MARY ELLEN, MAY, GOLDA MARTHE and DAVID IAN, all surnamed KING, minors, represented by their parents MARIO and HAYDEE KING, DAVID, FRANCISCO and THERESE VICTORIA, all surnamed ENDRIGA, minors, represented by their parents BALTAZAR and TERESITA ENDRIGA, JOSE MA. and REGINA MA., ...
Purchase document to see full attachment