Oposa vs. Factoran Case Digest (G.R. No.

101083, July 30, 1993)

FACTS:

The plaintiffs in this case are all minors duly represented and joined by their parents.
The first complaint was filed as a taxpayer's class suit at the Branch 66 (Makati, Metro
Manila), of the Regional Trial Court, National capital Judicial Region against defendant
(respondent) Secretary of the Department of Environment and Natural Reasources
(DENR). Plaintiffs alleged that they are entitled to the full benefit, use and enjoyment
of the natural resource treasure that is the country's virgin tropical forests. They further
asseverate that they represent their generation as well as generations yet unborn and
asserted that continued deforestation have caused a distortion and disturbance of the
ecological balance and have resulted in a host of environmental tragedies.

Plaintiffs prayed that judgement be rendered ordering the respondent, his agents,
representatives and other persons acting in his behalf to cancel all existing Timber
License Agreement (TLA) in the country and to cease and desist from receiving,
accepting, processing, renewing or approving new TLAs.

Defendant, on the other hand, filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that the
complaint had no cause of action against him and that it raises a political question.

The RTC Judge sustained the motion to dismiss, further ruling that granting of the
relief prayed for would result in the impairment of contracts which is prohibited by the
Constitution.

Plaintiffs (petitioners) thus filed the instant special civil action for certiorari and asked
the court to rescind and set aside the dismissal order on the ground that the
respondent RTC Judge gravely abused his discretion in dismissing the action.
ISSUES:
(1) Whether or not the plaintiffs have a cause of action.
(2) Whether or not the complaint raises a political issue.
(3) Whether or not the original prayer of the plaintiffs result in the impairment of
contracts.
RULING:
First Issue: Cause of Action.
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. The policy declaration of E.O. 192 is
also substantially re-stated in Title XIV Book IV of the Administrative Code of 1987.
Both E.O. 192 and Administrative Code of 1987 have set the objectives which will
serve as the bases for policy formation, and have defined the powers and functions of
the DENR. 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.
Second Issue: Political Issue.
Second paragraph, Section 1 of Article VIII of the constitution provides for the
expanded jurisdiction vested upon the Supreme Court. It allows the Court to rule upon
even on the wisdom of the decision of the Executive and Legislature and to declare
their acts as invalid for lack or excess of jurisdiction because it is tainted with grave
abuse of discretion.
Third Issue: Violation of the non-impairment clause.
The Court held that the Timber License Agreement is an instrument by which the state
regulates the utilization and disposition of forest resources to the end that public
welfare is promoted. It is not a contract within the purview of the due process clause
thus, the non-impairment clause cannot be invoked. It can be validly withdraw
whenever dictated by public interest or public welfare as in this case. The granting of
license does not create irrevocable rights, neither is it property or property rights.
Moreover, the constitutional guaranty of non-impairment of obligations of contract is
limit by the exercise by the police power of the State, in the interest of public health,
safety, moral and general welfare. In short, the non-impairment clause must yield to
the police power of the State.
The instant petition, being impressed with merit, is hereby GRANTED and the RTC
decision is SET ASIDE.

Resident Marine Mammals of the Protected Seascape of Taon

Straight v. Reyes
G.R. No. 180771, 21 April 2015

FACTS:
June 13, 2002, the Government of the Philippines, acting through the DOE,
entered into a Geophysical Survey and Exploration Contract-102 (GSEC102) with JAPEX. This contract involved geological and geophysical studies
of the Taon Strait.
May 9 to 18, 2005, JAPEX conducted seismic surveys in and around the
Taon Strait. A multi-channel sub-bottom profiling covering approximately
751 kilometers was also done to determine the areas underwater
composition.
January 31, 2007, the Protected Area Management Board of the Taon Strait
(PAMB-Taon Strait) issued Resolution No. 2007-001, wherein it adopted the
Initial Environmental Examination (IEE) commissioned by JAPEX, and
favorably recommended the approval of JAPEXs application for an ECC.
March 6, 2007, the EMB of DENR Region VII granted an ECC to the DOE and
JAPEX for the offshore oil and gas exploration project in Taon
Strait. Months later, on November 16, 2007, JAPEX began to drill an
exploratory well, with a depth of 3,150 meters, near Pinamungajan town in
the western Cebu Province. This drilling lasted until February 8, 2008.
Petitioners then applied to this Court for redress, via two separate original
petitions both dated December 17, 2007, wherein they commonly seek that
respondents be enjoined from implementing SC-46 for, among others,
violation of the 1987 Constitution.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the service contract is prohibited on the ground that there is
no general law prescribing the standard or uniform terms, conditions, and
requirements for service contracts involving oil exploration and extraction.

HELD:
No, the disposition, exploration, development, exploitation, and utilization
of indigenous petroleum in the Philippines are governed by Presidential
Decree No. 87 or the Oil Exploration and Development Act of 1972. This
was enacted by then President Ferdinand Marcos to promote the discovery
and production of indigenous petroleum through the utilization of
government and/or local or foreign private resources to yield the maximum
benefit to the Filipino people and the revenues to the Philippine
Government.
Contrary to the petitioners argument, Presidential Decree No. 87, although
enacted in 1972, before the adoption of the 1987 Constitution, remains to
be a valid law unless otherwise repealed.
Moreover, in cases where the statute seems to be in conflict with the
Constitution, but a construction that it is in harmony with the Constitution is
also possible, that construction should be preferred. This Court,

in Pangandaman v. Commission on Elections expounding on this point,

pronounced: It is a basic precept in statutory construction that a statute
should be interpreted in harmony with the Constitution and that the spirit,
rather than the letter of the law determines its construction; for that
reason,a statute must be read according to its spirit and intent.
Note that while Presidential Decree No. 87 may serve as the general law
upon which a service contract for petroleum exploration and extraction may
be authorized, as will be discussed below, the exploitation and utilization of
this energy resource in the present case may be allowed only through a law
passed by Congress, since the Taon Strait is a NIPAS area.

HELD:
(1) Sec. 17 does not in any way state that the government agencies
concerned ought to confine themselves to the containment, removal,
and cleaning operations when a specific pollution incident occurs. On
the contrary, Sec. 17 requires them to act even in the absence of a
specific pollution incident, as long as water quality has deteriorated
to a degree where its state will adversely affect its best usage. Section
17 & 20 are of general application and are not for specific pollution
incidents only. The fact that the pollution of the Manila Bay is of such
magnitude and scope that it is well -nigh impossible to draw the line
between a specific and a general pollution incident.

Metropolitan Manila Development Authority v Concerned Residents

of Manila Bay
GR No. 171947-48
December 18, 2008

FACTS:
The complaint by the residents alleged that the water quality of the Manila
Bay had fallen way below the allowable standards set by law, specifically
Presdiential Decree No. 1152 or the Philippine Environment Code and that
ALL defendants (public officials) must be jointly and/or solidarily liable and
collectively ordered to clean up Manila Bay and to restore its water quality
to class B, waters fit for swimming, diving, and other forms of contact
recreation.
ISSUES:
(1) WON Sections 17 and 20 of PD 1152 under the headings, Upgrading of
Water Quality and Clean-up Operations, envisage a cleanup in general
or are they limited only to the cleanup of specific pollution incidents;
(2) WON petitioners be compel led by mandamus to clean up and
rehabilitate the Manila Bay.
APPLICABLE LAWS:
PD 1152 Philippine Environmental Code Section 17. Upgrading of Water
Quality. Where the quality of water has deteriorated to a degree
where its state will adversely affect its best u sage, the government
agencies concerned shall take such measures as may be necessary
to upgrade the quality of such water to meet the prescribed water
quality standards. Section 20. Clean-up Operations. It
shall be the
responsibility of the polluter to contain , remove and clean - up water
pollution incidents at his own expense. In case of his failure to do
so, the government agencies concerned shall undertake containment,
removal and clean-up operations and expenses incurred in said operation
shall be charged against the persons and/ or entities responsible for such
pollution.

(2) The Cleaning or Rehabilitation of Manila Bay Can be Compelled by

Mandamus. While the implementation of the MMDA's mandated tasks
may entail a decision-making process, the enforcement of the law or the
very act of doing what the law exacts to be done is ministerial in
nature and may be compelled by mandamus. Under what other
judicial discipline describes as continuing mandamus , the Court
may, under extraordinary circumstances, issue directives with the end
in view of ensuring that its decision would not be set to naught by
administrative inaction or indifference.
NOTE: This continuing mandamus is no longer applicable, since this is
institutionalized in the rules of procedure for environmental cases.

MMDA v Concerned Residents of Manila Bay

G.R. No. 171947 : February 15, 2011
FACTS:
The Supreme Court rendered a Decision in G.R. Nos. 171947-48 ordering
petitioners to clean up, rehabilitate and preserve Manila Bay in their
different capacities.
The Manila Bay Advisory Committee was created to receive and evaluate
the quarterly progressive reports on the activities undertaken by the
agencies in accordance with said decision and to monitor the execution
phase.
In the absence of specific completion periods, the Committee
recommended that time frames be set for the agencies to perform their
assigned tasks.
ISSUE: Whether or not the recommendation by the Committee is an
encroachment over the powers and functions of the Executive
Branch headed by the President of the Philippines.

HELD: The petition lacks merit.

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW: Adjudicative function
The issuance of subsequent resolutions by the Court is simply an exercise
of judicial power under Art. VIII of the Constitution, because the execution
of the Decision is but an integral part of the adjudicative function of the
Court.

While additional activities are required of the agencies like submission of

plans of action, data or status reports, these directives are but part and
parcel of the execution stage of a final decision under Rule 39 of the Rules
of Court.
Petition is DENIED.