Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 4

OPOSA vs.

FACTORAN
FACTS:
The petitioners, all minors, sought the help of the Supreme Court to order the respondent, then
Secretar of !"NR, to cancel all e#isting Tim$er %icense Agreement &T%A' in the countr and to
cease and desist from receiving, accepting, processing, rene(ing or approving ne( T%As. The
alleged that the massive commercial logging in the countr is causing vast a$uses on rainforest.
The furthered the rights of their generation and the rights of the generations et un$orn to a
$alanced and healthful ecolog.
)ssue: *hether or not the petitioners have a locus standi.
+eld:
%ocus standi means the right of the litigant to act or to $e heard.
The SC decided in the affirmative.
,nder Section -., Article )) of the -/01 constitution, it states that:
The state shall protect and advance the right of the people to a $alanced and healthful ecolog
in accord (ith the rhthm and harmon of nature.
Petitioners, minors assert that the represent their generation as (ell as generation et un$orn.
*e find no difficult in ruling that the can, for themselves, for others of their generation and for
the succeeding generations, file a class suit. Their personalit to sue in $ehalf of the succeeding
generations can onl $e $ased on the concept of intergenerational responsi$ilit insofar as the
right to a $alanced and healthful ecolog is concerned. Such a right, as hereinafter e#pounded
considers the 2rhthm and harmon of nature3. Nature means the created (orld in its entiret.
Such rhthm and harmon indispensa$l include, inter alia, the 4udicious disposition, utili5ation,
management, rene(al and conservation of the countr6s forest, mineral, land, (aters fisheries,
(ildlife, off7 shore areas and other natural resources to the end that their e#ploration,
development and utili5ation $e e8uita$l accessi$le to the present as (ell as future generations.
Needless to sa, ever generation has a responsi$ilit to the ne#t to preserve that rhthm and
harmon for the full en4oment of a $alanced and healthful ecolog. Put a little differentl, the
minor6s assertion of their right to a sound environment constitutes, at the same time, the
performance of their o$ligation to ensure the protection of that right for the generations to come.
This landmar9 case has $een ruled as a class suit $ecause the su$4ect matter of the complaint
is of common and general interest, not 4ust for several $ut for A%% C)T):"NS OF T+"
P+)%)PP)N"S.
;ottom line:
These minors have fought for our rights up to the highest level of legal remed. These minors
thought of our interest and right. These minors $attled for our sons and daughters and those et
to come. These minors (ere concern for us to live in a $alanced and healthful ecolog. Sadl,
(e, (ho are learned and (ith discernment, are o$livious. ,ntil (hen do (e learn our lesson<
Remem$er, (e have an =)NT"R>"N"RAT)ONA% R"SPONS);)%)T?= to our future generations.
LAGUNA LAKE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY vs COURT OF APPEALS (Romero
1
, 199!
FACTS
1
I love Justice Romero. Her decisions are so organised. <3
The residents of Tala Estate, Barangay Camarin, Caloocan City raised a complaint with the Laguna Lake Development
Authority (LLDA, seeking to stop the operation of the City !overnment of Caloocan of an "#$ hectare open gar%age
dumpsite in Tala Estate, due to its harmful effects on the health of the residents and the pollution of the surrounding water#
LLDA discovered that the City !overnment of Caloocan has %een maintaining the open dumpsite at the Camarin Area
without a re&uisite Environmental Compliance Certificate from the Environmental 'anagement Bureau of the DE()# They
also found the water to have %een directly contaminated %y the operation of the dumpsite#
LLDA issued a Ce"se "#$ Des%s& Or$er against the City !overnment and other entities to completely halt, stop and desist
from dumping any form or kind of gar%age and other waste matter on the Camarin dumpsite#
The City !overnment went to the )egional Trial Court of Caloocan City to file an action for the declaration of nullity of the
cease and desist order and sought to %e declared as the sole authority empowered to promote the health and safety and
enhance the right of the people in Caloocan City to a %alanced ecology within its territorial *urisdiction#
LLDA sought to dismiss the complaint, invoking the +ollution Control Law that the review of cease and desist orders of that
nature falls under the Court of Appeals and not the )TC#
)TC denied LLDA,s motion to dismiss, and issued a writ of preliminary in*unction en*oining LLDA from enforcing the cease
and desist order during the pendency of the case#
The Court of Appeals promulgated a decision that ruled that the LLDA '"s #o (o)er "#$ "*&'or%&+ &o %ss*e " ,e"se "#$
$es%s& or$er e#-o%#%#. &'e $*m(%#. o/ ."r0".e#
The residents seek a review of the decision#
ISSUE
WoN the LLDA has authority and power to issue an order which, in its nature and effect was injunctive.
THEORY OF THE PARTIES
City !overnment of Caloocan- As a local government unit, pursuant to the general welfare provision of the Local !overnment
Code, they have the mandate to operate a dumpsite and determine the effects to the ecological %alance over its territorial
*urisdiction#
LLDA- As an administrative agency which was granted regulatory and ad*udicatory powers and functions %y )A (o# ."/0, it is
invested with the power and authority to issue a cease and desist order pursuant to various provisions in E1 (o# 234#
RULING
5E6#
7# LLDA is mandated %y law to manage the environment, preserve the &uality of human life and ecological systems and
prevent undue ecological distur%ances, deterioration and pollution in the Laguna Lake area and surrounding provinces and
cities, including Caloocan#
8hile pollution cases are generally under the +ollution Ad*udication Board under the Department of Environment and
(atural )esources, it does not preclude mandate from special laws that provide another forum#
9n this case, )A (o# ."/0 provides that mandate to the LLDA# 9t is mandated to pass upon or approve or disapprove
plans and programs of local government offices and agencies within the region and their underlying
environmental:ecological repercussions#
The DE() even recogni;ed the primary *urisdiction of the LLDA over the case when the DE() acted as intermediary
at a meeting among the representatives of the city government, LLDA and the residents#
3# LLDA has the authority to issue the cease and desist order#
a# E<plicit in the law#
=., par# (> e<plicitly authori;es the LLDA to make whatever order may %e necessary in the e<ercise of its
*urisdiction#
8hile LLDA was not e<pressly conferred the power ?to issue an ex-parte cease and desist order@ in that language,
the provision granting authority to ?make (! orders re&uiring the discontinuance of pollution@, has the same
effect#
%# (ecessarily implied powers#
Assuming ar"uendo that the cease and desist order@ was not e<pressly conferred %y law, there is *urisprudence
enough to the effect#
8hile it is a fundamental rule that "# "$m%#%s&r"&%ve ".e#,+ '"s o#1+ s*,' (o)er "s e2(ress1+ .r"#&e$ &o %&
0+ 1"), it is likewise a settled rule that "# "$m%#%s&r"&%ve ".e#,+ '"s "1so s*,' (o)ers "s "re #e,ess"r%1+
%m(1%e$ %# &'e e2er,%se o/ %&s e2(ress (o)ers3 1therwise, it will %e reduced to a ?toothless@ paper agency#
9n #o$$ution Adjudication %oard vs &ourt of Appea$s, the Court ruled that the +AB has the power to issue an ex-
parte cease and desist order on prima facie evidence of an esta%lishment e<ceeding the allowa%le standards set
%y the antiApollution laws of the country#
LLDA has %een vested with sufficiently %road powers in the regulation of the pro*ects within the Laguna Lake
region, and this includes the implementation of relevant antiApollution laws in the area#