OPOSA

vs.
FACTORAN
G.R. No. 101083 July 30, 1993
By Richard Troy A. Colmenares
USA College of Law
6/25/14 1:08:24 PM
Nature of the Case
A direct petition for certiorari before the Supreme Court seeking to set aside the dismissal order of respondent judge for lack of cause of action.

Facts
The issue revolves around the cancellation of timber license agreements (TLAs) granted by respondent DENR. The same petition, instituted as a citizens
class suit, also seeks to prevent further receipt, acceptance, processing and renewal or approval of new TLAs, among other reliefs just and equitable under
the premises considered. Respondent DENR filed a motion to dismiss, which was granted by respondent judge, the latter sustaining the motion, that: (1) the
petitioner has no cause of action [against respondent DENR]; and (2) the issue involves a political question within the ambit of the executive or legislative
branch. On top of that, respondent judge ruled that granting relief to petitioners would violate the constitutional mandate on non-impairment of contracts
TLAs, according to respondent judge, being a contract. Petitioners opposed the motion to dismiss because the complaint: (1) shows clear and unmistakable
cause of action; (2) the motion to dismiss was dilatory; and (3) the action presents a justiciable question involving respondent DENRs grave abuse of
discretion in granting the TLAs in question. Thus, this direct petition for certiorari.

Issue(s)
(1). Does petitioner 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"]?

Held
(1). Yes.

There is locus standi
The action was an un-contested class suit the subject matter of the complaint being xxx 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.

The novelty of the case lies on the assertion of the petitioner minors seeking relief on behalf of their generation and the generation yet unborn
fundamentally based on the concept of intergenerational responsibility.

The right to a balanced and healthful ecology is a cause for action
RBHE implies judicious management and conservation of the countrys forest
The right to a balanced and healthful ecology (RBHE), although found in the Declaration of Principles and State Policies, is a right which
xxx belongs to a different category of rights altogether for it concerns nothing less than self-preservation and self-perpetuation xxx the
advancement of which may even be said to predate all governments and constitutions. Such right xxx need not even be written in the
Constitution for they are assumed to exist from the inception of humankind xxx. This right is anchored on the right to health (RTH),
imposing upon the State xxx to preserve the first [RBHE] and protect and advance the second [RTH] xxx. RBHE carries with it the xxx
correlative duty to refrain from impairing the environment xxx, as aptly stated by Constitutional Commissioner Azcuna: xxx The right to
healthful (sic) environment necessarily carries with it the correlative duty of not impairing the same and, therefore, sanctions may be
provided for impairment of environmental balance. xxx, affirming the question that RBHE mandates the State to provide sanctions
against all forms of pollution air, water and noise pollution. Be that as it may, the RBHE implies, among many other things, the
judicious management and conservation of the country's forests.

It is DENRs duty to protect and advance RBHE
The declaration of state policies under E.O. 192 (10 June 1987) and the Administrative Code of 1987 forms the basis for the policy
formulation and mandate of DENR. Even earlier laws, such as PD 1151 (Philippine Environmental Policy)
1
and P.D. No. 1152 (Philippine
Environment Code), speaks of the "responsibilities of each generation as trustee and guardian of the environment for succeeding
generations." This duty or obligation is as clear as the right of the petitioners to a healthful and balanced ecology. A violation of RBHE is
clearly a valid cause of action
2
to advance and protect such right.

There is sufficient cause for action and within judicial power
The motion to dismiss on the ground of lack of cause of action involves sufficiency of facts not the veracity of the facts. This SC found
sufficient prima-facie cause of action, not because the issue pertains to justiciable questions but because the same is within the ambit of
judicial power

which states that [j]udicial 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.

TLAs are not contracts which grants rights but are revocable privileges
Respondent judge erred in considering the TLA as a contract. It is merely a privilege and thus revocable, as aptly stated in People vs. Ong Tin, 54
O.G. 7576 xxx [a] timber license is not a contract within the purview of the due process clause; it is only a license or privilege, which can be validly
withdrawn whenever dictated by public interest or public welfare xxx. Since TLAs are not contracts, the non-impairment clause cannot be invoked.
On the other hand, granting that a TLA is a contract, the same is never absolute for it is limited by the States police power xxx in the interest of
public health, safety, moral and general welfare xxx. Respondent judge also erred in invoking non-impairment clause as regards non-existent TLAs.

1
Imposes the uuty (a) to cieate, uevelop, maintain anu impiove conuitions unuei which man anu natuie can thiive in piouuctive anu enjoyable haimony with each othei, (b) to fulfill the
social, economic anu othei iequiiements of piesent anu futuie geneiations of Filipinos, anu (c) to insuie the attainment of an enviionmental quality that is conuucive to a life of uignity anu
well-being."
!"
As its goal, it speaks of the "iesponsibilities of each geneiation as tiustee anu guaiuian of the enviionment foi succeeuing geneiations."

2
an act oi omission of one paity in violation of the legal iight oi iights of the othei; anu its essential elements aie legal iight of the plaintiff, coiielative obligation of the uefenuant, anu act
oi omission of the uefenuant in violation of saiu legal iight. (Na-ao Sugai Cential Co. vs. Baiiios, 79 Phil. 666 |1947j; Community Investment anu Finance Coip. vs. uaicia, 88 Phil. 21S
|19S1j; Remiteie vs. vua. ue Yulo, 16 SCRA 2S1 |1966j; Caseas vs. Rosales, 19 SCRA 462 |1967j; viiata vs. Sanuiganbayan, 2u2 SCRA 68u |1991j; Nauiona vs. Rosal, 2u4 SCRA 1 |1991j)