792

SUPREMECOURTREPORTSA
Oposavs.Factoran,Jr.
G.R.No.101083.July30,1993.
JUANANTONIO,ANNAROSARIOandJOSEALFONSO,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
theirparentsENRICOandNIDAFLORES,GIANINADITAR.
FORTUN, minor, represented by her parents SIGFRID and
DOLORESFORTUN,GEORGEIIandMA.CONCEPCION,all
surnamed MISA, minors and represented by their parents
GEORGEandMYRAMISA,BENJAMINALANV.PESIGAN,
minor, represented by his parents ANTONIO and ALICE
PESIGAN,JOVIEMARIEALFARO,minor,representedbyher
parents JOSE and MARIA VIOLETA ALFARO, MARIA
CONCEPCIONT.CASTRO,minor,representedbyherparents
FREDENILandJANECASTRO,JOHANNADESAMPARADO,
minor, represented by her parents JOSE and ANGELA
DESAMPARADO, CARLO JOAQUIN T. NARVASA, minor,
represented by his parents GREGORIO II and CRISTINE
CHARITYNARVASA,MA.MARGARITA,JESUSIGNACIO,
MA.ANGELAandMARIEGABRIELLE,allsurnamedSAENZ,
minors, represented by their parents ROBERTO and AURORA
SAENZ,KRISTINE,MARYELLEN,MAY,GOLDAMARTHE
and DAVID IAN, all surnamed KING, minors, represented by
their parents MARIO and HAYDEE KING, DAVID,
FRANCISCO and THERESE VICTORIA, all surnamed
ENDRIGA,minors,representedbytheirparentsBALTAZARand
TERESITA ENDRIGA, JOSE MA. and REGINA MA., all
surnamed ABAYA, minors, represented by their parents
ANTONIOandMARICAABAYA,MABILIN,MARIO,JR.and
*

MARIETTE, all surnamed CARDAMA, minors, represented by

theirparentsMARIOandLINACARDAMA,CLARISSA,ANN
MARIE,NAGELandIMEELYN,allsurnamedOPOSA,minors
and represented by their parents RICARDO and MARISSA
OPOSA, PHILIP JOSEPH, STEPHEN JOHN and ISAIAH
JAMES,allsurnamedQUIPIT,
_______________
*ENBANC.
793

VOL.224,JULY30,1993
Oposavs.Factoran,Jr.
minors, represented by their parents JOSE MAX and VILMI
QUIPIT,BUGHAWCIELO,CRISANTO,ANNA,DANIELand
FRANCISCO,allsurnamedBIBAL,minors,representedbytheir
parents FRANCISCO, JR. and MILAGROS BIBAL, and THE
PHILIPPINE ECOLOGICAL NETWORK,INC.,petitioners, vs.
THE HONORABLE FULGENCIO S. FACTORAN, JR., in his
capacityastheSecretaryoftheDepartmentofEnvironmentand
Natural Resources, and THE HONORABLE ERIBERTO U.
ROSARIO, Presiding Judge of the RTC, Makati, Branch 66,
respondents.
RemedialLaw;Actions;ClassSuit;Thesubjectmatterofthecomplaintisof
commonandgeneralinterestnotjusttoseveral,buttoallcitizensofthe
Philippines; All the requisites for the filing of a valid class suit under
Section12Rule3oftheRevisedRulesofCourtarepresent.Petitioners
institutedCivilCaseNo.90777asaclasssuit.Theoriginaldefendantand
thepresentrespondentsdidnottakeissuewiththismatter.Nevertheless,We
herebyrulethatthesaidcivilcaseisindeedaclasssuit.Thesubjectmatter
ofthecomplaintisofcommonandgeneralinterestnotjusttoseveral,butto
all citizens of the Philippines. Consequently, since the parties are so
numerous,itbecomesimpracticable,ifnottotallyimpossible,tobringallof
thembeforethecourt.Welikewisedeclarethattheplaintiffsthereinare
numerous and representative enough to ensure the full protection of all
concernedinterests.Hence,alltherequisitesforthefilingofavalidclass
suitunderSection12,Rule3oftheRevisedRulesofCourtarepresentboth

in the said civil case and in the instant petition, the latter being but an
incidenttotheformer.
Same;Same;Same;Same;Petitionerspersonalitytosueinbehalfofthe
succeeding generations can only be based on the concept of
intergenerational responsibility insofar as the right to a balanced and
healthful ecology is concerned.This case, however, has a special and
novelelement.Petitionersminorsassertthattheyrepresenttheirgeneration
aswellasgenerationsyetunborn.Wefindnodifficultyinrulingthatthey
can,forthemselves,forothersoftheirgenerationandforthesucceeding
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,
considerstherhythmandharmonyofnature.
794

794

SUPREMECOURTREPORTSAN
Oposavs.Factoran,Jr.
Same;Same;Same;Same;Same;Theminorsassertionoftheirrighttoa
soundenvironmentconstitutesatthesametimetheperformanceoftheir
obligationtoensuretheprotectionofthatrightforthegenerationtocome.
Needless to say, every generation has a responsibility to the next to
preservethatrhythmandharmonyforthefullenjoymentofabalancedand
healthfulecology.Putalittledifferently,theminorsassertionoftheirright
toasoundenvironmentconstitutes,atthesametime,theperformanceof
theirobligationtoensuretheprotectionofthatrightforthegenerationsto
come.
Constitutional Law; The complaint focuses on one specific fundamental
legalright;Therighttoabalancedandhealthfulecology.Thecomplaint
focusesononespecificfundamentallegalrighttherighttoabalancedand
healthful ecology which, for the first time in our nations constitutional
history,issolemnlyincorporatedinthefundamentallaw.
Same;Same;Therighttoabalancedandhealthfulecologycarrieswithit
thecorrelativedutytorefrainfromimpairingtheenvironment.Theright
toabalancedandhealthfulecologycarrieswithitthecorrelativedutyto
refrainfromimpairingtheenvironment.
Same; Same; The right of the petitioners to a balanced and healthful
ecologyisasclearastheDENRsdutytoprotectandadvancethesaid

right.Thus,therightofthepetitioners(andallthosetheyrepresent)toa
balancedandhealthfulecologyisasclearastheDENRsdutyunderits
mandateandbyvirtueofitspowersandfunctionsunderE.O.No.192and
theAdministrativeCodeof1987toprotectandadvancethesaidright.
Same;PoliticalQuestion;Thepoliticalquestiondoctrineisnolongerthe
insurmountable obstacle to the exercise of judicial power or the
impenetrable shield that protects executive and legislative actions from
judicialinquiryorreview.Theforegoingconsidered,CivilCaseNo.90
777 cannot be said to raise a political question. Policy formulation or
determinationbytheexecutiveorlegislativebranchesofGovernmentisnot
squarelyputinissue.Whatisprincipallyinvolvedistheenforcementofa
right visavis policiesalreadyformulatedandexpressedinlegislation.It
must,nonetheless,beemphasizedthatthepoliticalquestiondoctrineisno
longertheinsurmountableobstacletotheexerciseofjudicialpowerorthe
impenetrable shield that protects executive and legislative actions from
judicialinquiryorreview.
795

VOL.224,JULY30,1993
Oposavs.Factoran,Jr.
Same; Contracts; Nonimpairment Clause; A timber license is not a
contract,propertyorapropertyrightprotectedbythedueprocessclauseof
the Constitution.Needless to say, all licenses may thus be revoked or
rescindedbyexecutiveaction.Itisnotacontract,propertyoraproperty
rightprotectedbythedueprocessclauseoftheConstitution.
Same; Same; Same; Same; The granting of license does not create
irrevocablerights,neitherisitpropertyorpropertyrights.Alicenseis
merelyapermitorprivilegetodowhatotherwisewouldbeunlawful,andis
notacontractbetweentheauthority,federal,state,ormunicipal,grantingit
andthepersontowhomitisgranted;neitherisitpropertyoraproperty
right,nordoesitcreateavestedright;norisittaxation(37C.J.168).Thus,
thisCourtheldthatthegrantingoflicensedoesnotcreateirrevocablerights,
neitherisitpropertyorpropertyrights.
Same; Same; Same; Same; Timber licenses are not contracts, the non
impairment clause cannot be invoked.Since timber licenses are not
contracts,thenonimpairmentclause,cannotbeinvoked.
Same;Same;Same;Same;Same;Thenonimpairmentclausemustyieldto
thepolicepowerofthestate.Inshort,thenonimpairmentclausemust

yieldtothepolicepowerofthestate.

FELICIANO,J.,ConcurringOpinion:
ConstitutionalLaw;Theprotectionoftheenvironmentincludingtheforest
coverofourterritoryisofextremeimportanceforthecountry.Ivoteto
grantthePetitionforCertioraribecausetheprotectionoftheenvironment,
includingtheforestcoverofourterritory,isofextremeimportanceforthe
country.

SPECIALCIVILACTIONforcertiorariofthedismissalorderof
theRTCofMakati,Br.66.
ThefactsarestatedintheopinionoftheCourt.
OposaLawOfficeforpetitioners.
TheSolicitorGeneralforrespondents.
DAVIDE,JR.,J.:
Inabroadersense,thispetitionbearsupontherightofFilipinosto
abalancedandhealthfulecologywhichthepetition
796

796

SUPREMECOURTREPORTSA
Oposavs.Factoran,Jr.
ers dramatically associate with the twin concepts of inter
generational responsibility and intergenerational justice.
Specifically,ittouchesontheissueofwhetherthesaidpetitioners
have a cause of action to prevent the misappropriation or
impairment of Philippine rainforests and arrest the unabated
hemorrhage of the countrys vital lifesupport systems and
continuedrapeofMotherEarth.
ThecontroversyhasitsgenesisinCivilCaseNo.90777which
was filed before Branch 66 (Makati, Metro Manila) of the
RegionalTrialCourt(RTC),NationalCapitalJudicialRegion.The
principalplaintiffs therein,now theprincipal petitioners,are all
minors duly represented and joined by their respective parents.
ImpleadedasanadditionalplaintiffisthePhilippineEcological
Network, Inc. (PENI), a domestic, nonstock and nonprofit
corporationorganizedforthepurposeof, interalia, engagingin

concertedactiongearedfortheprotectionofourenvironmentand
natural resources. The original defendant was the Honorable
Fulgencio S. Factoran, Jr., then Secretary of the Department of
EnvironmentandNaturalResources(DENR).Hissubstitutionin
thispetitionbythenewSecretary,theHonorableAngelC.Alcala,
wassubsequentlyordereduponpropermotionbythepetitioners.
Thecomplaint wasinstitutedasataxpayersclasssuit andalleges
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 countrys
virgintropicalrainforests.Thesamewasfiledforthemselvesand
otherswhoareequallyconcernedaboutthepreservationofsaid
resourcebutaresonumerousthatitisimpracticabletobringthem
all before the Court. The minors further asseverate that they
represent their generation as well as generation yet unborn.
Consequently,itisprayedforthatjudgmentberendered:

x x x ordering defendant, his agents, representatives and other persons

actinginhisbehalfto
_______________
1Rollo,164;186.
2Id.,6265,exclusiveofannexes.
3UnderSection12,Rule3,RevisedRulesofCourt.
4Rollo,67.
797

1
2

VOL.224,JULY30,1993
Oposavs.Factoran,Jr.
(1)Cancelallexistingtimberlicenseagreementsinthecountry;
(2)Cease and desist from receiving, accepting, processing,
renewingorapprovingnewtimberlicenseagreements.
and granting the plaintiffs x x x such other reliefs just and
equitableunderthepremises.
The complaint starts off with the general averments that the
Philippinearchipelagoof7,100islandshasalandareaofthirty
million(30,000.00)hectaresandisendowedwithrich,lushand
5

verdant rainforests in which varied, rare and unique species of

floraandfaunamaybefound;theserainforestscontainagenetic,
biologicalandchemicalpoolwhichisirreplaceable;theyarealso
thehabitatofindigenousPhilippinecultureswhichhaveexisted,
enduredandflourishedsincetimeimmemorial;scientificevidence
revealsthatinordertomaintainabalancedandhealthfulecology,
thecountryslandareashouldbeutilizedonthebasisofaratioof
fiftyfourpercent(54%)forforestcoverandfortysixpercent
(46%)foragricultural,residential,industrial,commercialandother
uses; the distortion and disturbance of this balance as a
consequence of deforestation have resulted in a host of
environmentaltragedies,suchas(a)watershortagesresultingfrom
thedryingupofthewatertable,otherwiseknownastheaquifer,
as wellasof rivers, brooksandstreams,(b) salinizationof the
water table as a result of the intrusion therein of salt water,
incontrovertibleexamplesofwhichmaybefoundintheislandof
CebuandtheMunicipalityofBacoor,Cavite,(c)massiveerosion
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 annumapproximately
thesizeoftheentireislandofCatanduanes,(d)theendangering
andextinctionofthecountrysunique,rareandvariedfloraand
fauna,(e)thedisturbanceanddislocationofculturalcommunities,
includingthedisappearanceoftheFilipinosindigenouscultures,
(f)thesiltationofriversandseabedsandconsequentialdestruction
ofcoralsandotheraquaticlifeleadingtoacriticalreductionin
marineresourceproductivity,(g)recurrentspellsofdroughtasis
presentlyexperiencedbytheentire
_______________
5Id.,74.
798

798

SUPREMECOURTREPORTSA
Oposavs.Factoran,Jr.

country, (h) increasing velocity of typhoon winds which result

fromtheabsenceofwindbreakers,(i)thefloodingoflowlandsand
agricultural plains arising from the absence of the absorbent
mechanism of forests, (j) the siltation and shortening of the
lifespanofmultibillionpesodamsconstructedandoperatedfor
thepurposeofsupplyingwaterfordomesticuses,irrigationand
the generation of electric power, and (k) the reduction of the
earthscapacitytoprocesscarbondioxidegaseswhichhadledto
perplexing and catastrophic climatic changes such as the
phenomenon of global warming, otherwise known as the
greenhouseeffect.
Plaintiffs further assert that the adverse and detrimental
consequences of continued and deforestation are so capable of
unquestionabledemonstrationthatthesamemaybesubmittedasa
matter of judicial notice. This notwithstanding, they expressed
theirintentiontopresentexpertwitnessesaswellasdocumentary,
photographicandfilmevidenceinthecourseofthetrial.
Astheircauseofaction,theyspecificallyallegethat:
1
2
3
4

CAUSEOFACTION
7.Plaintiffsrepleadbyreferencetheforegoingallegations.
8.Twentyfive(25)yearsago,thePhilippineshadsomesixteen(16)million
hectaresofrainforestsconstitutingroughly53%ofthecountryslandmass.
9.Satelliteimagestakenin1987revealthatthereremainednomorethan1.2
millionhectaresofsaidrainforestsorfourpercent(4.0%)ofthecountrys
landarea.
10.Morerecentsurveysrevealthatamere850,000hectaresofvirginold
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
uneconomicalsecondarygrowthforests.
11.Publicrecordsrevealthatdefendantspredecessorshavegrantedtimber
licenseagreements(TLAs)tovariouscorporationstocuttheaggregate
areaof3.89millionhectaresforcommercialloggingpurposes.
AcopyoftheTLAholdersandthecorrespondingareascoveredishereto
attachedasAnnexA.
12.At the present rate of deforestation, i.e. about 200,000 hectares per

annumor25hectaresperhournighttime,Saturdays,Sundaysandholidays
includedthePhilippineswillbebereftofforestresourcesaftertheendof
thisensuingdecade,ifnotearlier.
799

VOL.224,JULY30,1993
Oposavs.Factoran,Jr.
1

1
2

1
2

13.The adverse effects, disastrous consequences, serious injury and

irreparabledamageofthiscontinuedtrendofdeforestrationtotheplaintiff
minors generation and to generations yet unborn are evident and
incontrovertible.Asamatteroffact,theenvironmentaldamagesenumerated
inparagraph6hereofarealreadybeingfelt,experiencedandsufferedbythe
generationofplaintiffadults.
14.The continued allowance by defendant of TLA holders to cut and
deforesttheremainingforeststandswillworkgreatdamageandirreparable
injurytoplaintiffsespeciallyplaintiffminorsandtheirsuccessorswho
may never see, use, benefit from andenjoy this rare andunique natural
resourcetreasure.
Thisactofdefendantconstitutesamisappropriationand/orimpairmentof
thenaturalresourcepropertyheholdsintrustforthebenefitofplaintiff
minorsandsucceedinggenerations.
15.Plaintiffshaveaclearandconstitutionalrighttoabalancedandhealthful
ecology andare entitled toprotectionbytheStateinits capacityas the
parenspatriae.
16.Plaintiffshaveexhaustedalladministrativeremedieswiththedefendants
office.OnMarch2,1990,plaintiffsservedupondefendantafinaldemandto
cancelallloggingpermitsinthecountry.
AcopyoftheplaintiffsletterdatedMarch1,1990isheretoattachedas
AnnexB.
17.Defendant,however,failsandrefusestocanceltheexistingTLAs,tothe
continuingseriousdamageandextremeprejudiceofplaintiffs.
18.ThecontinuedfailureandrefusalbydefendanttocanceltheTLAsisan
actviolativetotherightsofplaintiffs,especiallyplaintiffminorswhomay
beleftwithacountrythatisdesertified(sic),bare,barrenanddevoidofthe
wonderfulflora,faunaandindigenouscultureswhichthePhilippineshas
beenabundantlyblessedwith.
19.Defendantsrefusal tocancel theaforementioned TLAs ismanifestly
contrary to the public policy enunciated in the Philippine Environmental

1
2
3

Policywhich,inpertinentpart,statesthatitisthepolicyoftheState
(a)tocreate,develop,maintainandimproveconditionsunderwhichman
andnaturecanthriveinproductiveandenjoyableharmonywitheachother;
(b)to fulfill the social, economic and other requirements of present and
futuregenerationsofFilipinosand;
(c)toensuretheattainmentofanenvironmentalqualitythatisconduciveto
alifeofdignityandwellbeing.(P.D.1151,6June1977)
20.Furthermore,defendantscontinuedrefusaltocanceltheaforementioned
TLAsiscontradictorytotheConstitutionalpolicyof
800

800

1
2
3
4
1
2

SUPREMECOURTREPORTSAN
Oposavs.Factoran,Jr.

theStateto
a.effectamoreequitabledistributionofopportunities,incomeandwealth
and make full and efficient use of natural resources (sic). (Section 1,
ArticleXIIoftheConstitution);
b.protectthenationsmarinewealth.(Section2,ibid);
c.conserveandpromotethenationsculturalheritageandresources(sic).
(Section14,ArticleXIV,id.);
d.protectandadvancetherightofthepeopletoabalancedandhealthful
ecologyinaccordwiththerhythmandharmonyofnature.(Section16,
ArticleII.id.)
21.Finally,defendantsactiscontrarytothehighestlawofhumankindthe
natural lawand violative of plaintiffs right to selfpreservation and
perpetuation.
22.Thereisnootherplain,speedyandadequateremedyinlawotherthanthe
instantactiontoarresttheunabatedhemorrhageofthecountrysvitallife
supportsystemsandcontinuedrapeofMotherEarth.
6

On22June1990,theoriginaldefendant,SecretaryFactoran,Jr.,
filedaMotiontoDismissthecomplaintbasedontwo(2)grounds,
namely:(1)theplaintiffshavenocauseofactionagainsthimand
(2)theissueraisedbytheplaintiffsisapoliticalquestionwhich
properly pertains to the legislative or executive branches of
Government.Intheir12July1990OppositiontotheMotion,the
petitioners maintain that (1) the complaint shows a clear and
unmistakablecauseofaction,(2)themotionisdilatoryand(3)the

actionpresentsajusticiablequestionasitinvolvesthedefendants
abuseofdiscretion.
On18July1991,respondentJudgeissuedanordergrantingthe
aforementionedmotiontodismiss. Inthesaidorder,notonlywas
thedefendantsclaimthatthecomplaintstatesnocauseofaction
againsthimandthatitraisesapoliticalquestionsustained,the
respondent Judge further ruled that the granting of the reliefs
prayedforwouldresultintheimpairmentofcontractswhichis
prohibitedbythefundamentallawoftheland.
Plaintiffsthusfiledtheinstantspecialcivilactionfor certiorari
underRule65oftheRevisedRulesofCourtandaskthis
7

_______________
6Rollo,7073.
7AnnexBofPetition;Id.,4344.
801

VOL.224,JULY30,1993
Oposavs.Factoran,Jr.
Courttorescindandsetasidethedismissalorderontheground
that the respondent Judge gravely abused his discretion in
dismissingtheaction.Again,theparentsoftheplaintiffsminors
notonlyrepresenttheirchildren,buthavealsojoinedthelatterin
thiscase.
On14May1992,Weresolvedtogiveduecoursetothepetition
andrequiredthepartiestosubmittheirrespectiveMemorandaafter
the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) filed a Comment in
behalfoftherespondentsandthepetitionersfiledareplythereto.
Petitioners contend that the complaint clearly and unmistakably
states a cause of action as it contains sufficient allegations
concerningtheirrighttoasoundenvironmentbasedonArticles
19,20and21oftheCivilCode(HumanRelations),Section4of
ExecutiveOrder(E.O.)No.192creatingtheDENR,Section3of
Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 1151 (Philippine Environmental
Policy),Section16,ArticleIIofthe1987Constitutionrecognizing
8

therightofthepeopletoabalancedandhealthfulecology,the
conceptofgenerationalgenocideinCriminalLawandtheconcept
of mans inalienable right to selfpreservation and self
perpetuationembodiedinnaturallaw.Petitionerslikewiserelyon
therespondentscorrelativeobligation,perSection4ofE.O.No.
192,tosafeguardthepeoplesrighttoahealthfulenvironment.
ItisfurtherclaimedthattheissueoftherespondentSecretarys
alleged grave abuse of discretion in granting Timber License
Agreements(TLAs)tocovermoreareasforloggingthanwhatis
availableinvolvesajudicialquestion.
AnenttheinvocationbytherespondentJudgeoftheConstitutions
nonimpairmentclause,petitionersmaintainthatthesamedoesnot
applyinthiscasebecauseTLAsarenotcontracts.Theylikewise
submitthatevenifTLAsmaybeconsideredprotectedbythesaid
clause,itiswellsettledthattheymaystillberevokedbytheState
whenpublicinterestsorequires.
Ontheotherhand,therespondentsaverthatthepetitionersfailed
toallegeintheircomplaintaspecificlegalrightviolatedbythe
respondentSecretaryforwhichanyreliefisprovidedbylaw.They
seenothinginthecomplaintbutvagueandnebulous
_______________
8Paragraph7,Petition,6;Rollo,20.
802

802

SUPREMECOURTREPORTSA
Oposavs.Factoran,Jr.
allegationsconcerninganenvironmentalrightwhichsupposedly
entitlesthepetitionerstotheprotectionbythestateinitscapacity
as parenspatriae. Suchallegations,accordingtothem,donot
revealavalidcauseofaction.Theythenreiteratethetheorythat
thequestionofwhetherloggingshouldbepermittedinthecountry
isapoliticalquestionwhichshouldbeproperlyaddressedtothe
executiveorlegislativebranchesofGovernment.Theytherefore
assertthatthepetitionersrecourseisnottofileanactiontocourt,

buttolobbybeforeCongressforthepassageofabillthatwould
banloggingtotally.
As to the matter of the cancellation of the TLAs, respondents
submit that the same cannot be done by the State without due
processoflaw.Onceissued,aTLAremainseffectiveforacertain
period of timeusually for twentyfive (25) years. During its
effectivity,thesamecanneitherberevisednorcancelledunlessthe
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
indiscriminatelycancelledwithouttherequisitehearingwouldbe
violativeoftherequirementsofdueprocess.
Beforegoinganyfurther,Wemustfirstfocusonsomeprocedural
matters.PetitionersinstitutedCivilCaseNo.90777asaclasssuit.
Theoriginaldefendantandthepresentrespondentsdidnottake
issuewiththismatter.Nevertheless,Weherebyrulethatthesaid
civilcaseisindeedaclasssuit.Thesubjectmatterofthecomplaint
isofcommonandgeneralinterestnotjusttoseveral,buttoall
citizensofthePhilippines.Consequently,sincethepartiesareso
numerous,itbecomesimpracticable,ifnottotallyimpossible,to
bringallofthembeforethecourt.Welikewisedeclarethatthe
plaintiffsthereinarenumerousandrepresentativeenoughtoensure
the full protection of all concerned interests. Hence, all the
requisitesforthefilingofavalidclasssuitunderSection12,Rule
3oftheRevisedRulesofCourtarepresentbothinthesaidcivil
caseandintheinstantpetition,thelatterbeingbutanincidentto
theformer.
Thiscase,however,hasaspecialandnovelelement.Petitioners
minors assert that they represent their generation as well as
generationsyetunborn.Wefindnodifficultyinrulingthatthey
can, for themselves, for others of their generation and for the
succeedinggenerations,fileaclasssuit.Theirpersonalitytosue
803

VOL.224,JULY30,1993
Oposavs.Factoran,Jr.
inbehalfofthesucceedinggenerationscanonlybebasedonthe
conceptofintergenerationalresponsibilityinsofarastherighttoa
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 countrys forest, mineral, land, waters,
fisheries,wildlife,offshoreareasandothernaturalresourcesto
the end that their exploration, development and utilization be
equitablyaccessibletothepresentaswellasfuturegenerations.
Needlesstosay,everygenerationhasaresponsibilitytothenextto
preserve that rhythm and harmony for the full enjoyment of a
balancedandhealthfulecology.Putalittledifferently,theminors
assertionoftheirrighttoasoundenvironmentconstitutes,atthe
same time, the performance of their obligation to ensure the
protectionofthatrightforthegenerationstocome.
Thelocusstandiofthepetitionershavingthusbeenaddressed,We
shallnowproceedtothemeritsofthepetition.
After a careful perusal of the complaint in question and a
meticulousconsiderationandevaluationoftheissuesraisedand
argumentsadducedbytheparties,Wedonothesitatetofindfor
thepetitionersandruleagainsttherespondentJudgeschallenged
order for having been issued with grave abuse of discretion
amountingtolackofjurisdiction.Thepertinentportionsofthesaid
orderreadasfollows:
9

10

xxx
After a careful and circumspect evaluation of the Complaint, the Court
cannot help but agree with the defendant. For although we believe that
plaintiffshavebutthenoblestofallintentions,it(sic)feelshortofalleging,
withsufficientdefiniteness,aspecificlegalrighttheyareseekingtoenforce

andprotect,oraspecificlegalwrongtheyareseekingtopreventandredress
(Sec.1,Rule2,RRC).Furthermore,theCourtnotesthattheComplaintis
repletewithvagueassumptionsand

_______________
9WebstersThirdNewInternationalDictionary,unabridged,1986,1508.
10TitleXIV(EnvironmentandNaturalResources),BookIVoftheAdministrativeCode
of1987,E.O.No.292.

804

804

SUPREMECOURTREPORTSAN
Oposavs.Factoran,Jr.
vagueconclusionsbasedonunverifieddata.Infine,plaintiffsfailtostatea
causeofactioninitsComplaintagainstthehereindefendant.
Furthermore, the Court firmly believes that the matter before it, being
impressedwithpoliticalcolorandinvolvingamatterofpublicpolicy,may
not be taken cognizance of by this Court without doing violence to the
sacredprincipleofSeparationofPowersofthethree(3)coequalbranches
oftheGovernment.
TheCourtislikewiseoftheimpressionthatitcannot,nomatterhowwe
stretchourjurisdiction,grantthereliefsprayedforbytheplaintiffs,i.e.,to
cancelallexistingtimberlicenseagreementsinthecountryandtoceaseand
desist from receiving, accepting, processing renewing or approving new
timber license agreements. For to do otherwise would amount to
impairmentofcontractsabhored(sic)bythefundamentallaw.
11

Wedonotagreewiththetrialcourtsconclusionthattheplaintiffs
failedtoallegewithsufficientdefinitenessaspecificlegalright
involved or a specific legal wrong committed, and that the
complaintisrepletewithvagueassumptionsandconclusionsbased
onunverifieddata.Areadingofthecomplaintitselfbeliesthese
conclusions.
Thecomplaintfocusesononespecificfundamentallegalright
therighttoabalancedandhealthfulecologywhich,forthefirst
timeinournationsconstitutionalhistory,issolemnlyincorporated
in the fundamental law. Section 16, Article II of the 1987
Constitutionexplicitlyprovides:
SEC.16.TheStateshallprotectandadvancetherightofthepeopletoa
balancedandhealthfulecologyinaccordwiththerhythmandharmonyof

nature.

Thisrightuniteswiththerighttohealthwhichisprovidedforin
theprecedingsectionofthesamearticle:
SEC.15.TheStateshallprotectandpromotetherighttohealthofthe
peopleandinstillhealthconsciousnessamongthem.

Whiletherighttoabalancedandhealthfulecologyistobefound
undertheDeclarationofPrinciplesandStatePoliciesand
_______________
11AnnexBofPetition;Rollo,4344.
805

VOL.224,JULY30,1993
Oposavs.Factoran,Jr.
not under the Bill of Rights, it does not follow that it is less
importantthananyofthecivilandpoliticalrightsenumeratedin
thelatter.Sucharightbelongstoadifferentcategoryofrights
altogetherforitconcernsnothinglessthanselfpreservationand
selfperpetuationaptlyandfittinglystressedbythepetitioners
the advancement of which may even be said to predate all
governments and constitutions. As a matter of fact, these basic
rightsneednotevenbewrittenintheConstitutionfortheyare
assumedtoexistfromtheinceptionofhumankind.Iftheyarenow
explicitlymentionedinthefundamentalcharter,itisbecauseofthe
wellfoundedfearofitsframersthatunlesstherightstoabalanced
andhealthfulecologyandtohealtharemandatedasstatepolicies
by the Constitution itself, thereby highlighting their continuing
importance and imposing upon the state a solemn obligation to
preserve the first and protect and advance the second, the day
wouldnotbetoofarwhenallelsewouldbelostnotonlyforthe
presentgeneration,butalsoforthosetocomegenerationswhich
standtoinheritnothingbutparchedearthincapableofsustaining
life.
Therighttoabalancedandhealthfulecologycarrieswithitthe
correlativedutytorefrainfromimpairingtheenvironment.During

thedebatesonthisrightinoneoftheplenarysessionsofthe1986
Constitutional Commission, the following exchange transpired
between Commissioner Wilfrido Villacorta and Commissioner
AdolfoAzcunawhosponsoredthesectioninquestion:
MR.VILLACORTA:

DoesthissectionmandatetheStatetoprovidesanctionsagainstallformsofp
MR.AZCUNA:

Yes,MadamPresident.Therighttohealthful(sic)environmentnecessarilyca
sameand,therefore,sanctionsmaybeprovidedforimpairmentofenvironme
The said right implies, among many other things, the judicious
managementandconservationofthecountrysforests.
_______________
12RecordoftheConstitutionalCommission,vol.4,913.
806

806

SUPREMECOURTREPORTSA
Oposavs.Factoran,Jr.
Without such forests, the ecological or environmental balance
wouldbeirreversiblydisrupted.
Conformablywiththeenunciatedrighttoabalancedandhealthful
ecology and the right to health, as well as the other related
provisions of the Constitution concerning the conservation,
development and utilization of the countrys natural resources,
thenPresidentCorazonC.Aquinopromulgatedon10June1987
E.O. No. 192, Section 4 of which expressly mandates that the
DepartmentofEnvironmentandNaturalResourcesshallbethe
primary government agency responsible for the conservation,
management, development and proper use of the countrys
environmentandnaturalresources,specificallyforestandgrazing
lands, mineral resources, including those in reservation and
watershedareas,andlandsofthepublicdomain,aswellasthe
licensing and regulation of all natural resources as may be
providedforbylawinordertoensureequitablesharingofthe
13

14

benefitsderivedtherefromforthewelfareofthepresentandfuture
generationsofFilipinos.Section3thereofmakesthefollowing
statementofpolicy:
SEC.3.DeclarationofPolicy.ItisherebydeclaredthepolicyoftheState
to ensure the sustainable use, development, management, renewal, and
conservationofthecountrysforest,mineral,land,offshoreareasandother
naturalresources,includingtheprotectionandenhancementofthequalityof
the environment, and equitable access of the different segments of the
populationtothedevelopmentanduseofthecountrysnaturalresources,
notonlyforthepresentgenerationbutforfuturegenerationsaswell.Itis
also the policy of the state to recognize and apply a true value system
including social and environmental cost implications relative to their
utilization,developmentandconservationofournaturalresources.

ThispolicydeclarationissubstantiallyrestatedinTitleXIV,Book
IVoftheAdministrativeCodeof1987, specificallyinSection1
thereofwhichreads:
15

_______________
13 For instance, the Preamble and Article XII on the National Economy and
Patrimony.
14 The Reorganization Act of the Department of Environment and Natural
Resources.
15E.O.No.292.
807

VOL.224,JULY30,1993
Oposavs.Factoran,Jr.
SEC.1.DeclarationofPolicy.(1)TheStateshallensure,forthebenefit
oftheFilipinopeople,thefullexplorationanddevelopmentaswellasthe
judiciousdisposition,utilization,management,renewalandconservationof
thecountrysforest,mineral,land,waters,fisheries,wildlife,offshoreareas
andothernaturalresources,consistentwiththenecessityofmaintaininga
soundecologicalbalanceandprotectingandenhancingthequalityofthe
environmentandtheobjectiveofmakingtheexploration,developmentand
utilization of such natural resources equitably accessible to the different
segmentsofthepresentaswellasfuturegenerations.
(2)TheStateshalllikewiserecognizeandapplyatruevaluesystemthat
takesintoaccountsocialandenvironmentalcostimplicationsrelativetothe
utilization,developmentandconservationofournaturalresources.

Theaboveprovisionstressesthenecessityofmaintainingasound
ecologicalbalanceandprotectingandenhancingthequalityofthe
environment. Section 2 of the same Title, on the other hand,
specifically speaks of the mandate of the DENR; however, it
makesparticularreferencetothefactoftheagencysbeingsubject
tolawandhigherauthority.Saidsectionprovides:
SEC. 2. Mandate.(1) The Department of Environment and Natural
Resources shall be primarily responsible for the implementation of the
foregoingpolicy.
(2)Itshall,subjecttolawandhigherauthority,beinchargeofcarryingout
theStatesconstitutionalmandatetocontrolandsupervisetheexploration,
development, utilization, and conservation of the countrys natural
resources.

BothE.O.No.192andtheAdministrativeCodeof1987haveset
theobjectiveswhichwillserveasthebasesforpolicyformulation,
andhavedefinedthepowersandfunctionsoftheDENR.
Itmay,however,berecalledthatevenbeforetheratificationofthe
1987Constitution,specificstatutesalreadypaidspecialattention
totheenvironmentalrightofthepresentandfuturegenerations.
On6June1977,P.D.No.1151(PhilippineEnvironmentalPolicy)
andP.D.No.1152(PhilippineEnvironmentCode)wereissued.
TheformerdeclaredacontinuingpolicyoftheState(a)tocreate,
develop,maintainandimproveconditionsunderwhichmanand
naturecanthriveinproductiveandenjoyableharmonywitheach
other,(b)tofulfillthesocial,
808

808

SUPREMECOURTREPORTSA
Oposavs.Factoran,Jr.
economicandotherrequirementsofpresentandfuturegenerations
ofFilipinos,and(c)toinsuretheattainmentofanenvironmental
qualitythatisconducivetoalifeofdignityandwellbeing. As
its goal, it speaks of the responsibilities of each generation as
trustee and guardian of the environment for succeeding
generations. Thelatterstatute,ontheotherhand,gavefleshto
16

17

thesaidpolicy.
Thus,therightofthepetitioners(andallthosetheyrepresent)toa
balancedandhealthfulecologyisasclearastheDENRsduty
underitsmandateandbyvirtueofitspowersandfunctionsunder
E.O.No.192andtheAdministrativeCodeof1987toprotectand
advancethesaidright.
A denial or violation of that right by the other who has the
correlativedutyorobligationtorespectorprotectthesamegives
risetoacauseofaction.Petitionersmaintainthatthegrantingof
the TLAs, which they claim was done with grave abuse of
discretion,violatedtheirrighttoabalancedandhealthfulecology;
hence, the full protection thereof requires that no further TLAs
shouldberenewedorgranted.
Acauseofactionisdefinedas:
xxxanactoromissionofonepartyinviolationofthelegalrightorrights
of the other; and its essential elements are legal right of the plaintiff,
correlativeobligationofthedefendant,andactoromissionofthedefendant
inviolationofsaidlegalright.
18

Itissettledinthisjurisdictionthatinamotiontodismissbasedon
thegroundthatthecomplaintfailstostateacauseofaction, the
question submitted to the court for resolution involves the
sufficiencyofthefactsallegedinthecomplaintitself.Noother
mattershouldbeconsidered;furthermore,thetruthof
19

_______________
16Section1.
17Section2.
18 Maao Sugar Central Co. vs. Barrios, 79 Phil. 666 [1947]; Community
InvestmentandFinanceCorp.vs.Garcia,88Phil.215[1951];Remiterevs.Vda.
deYulo,16SCRA251[1966];Caseasvs.Rosales,19SCRA462[1967];Virata
vs. Sandiganbayan, 202 SCRA 680 [1991]; Madrona vs. Rosal, 204 SCRA 1
[1991].
19Section1(q),Rule16,RevisedRulesofCourt.
809

VOL.224,JULY30,1993
Oposavs.Factoran,Jr.

falsity of the said allegations is beside the point for the truth
thereofisdeemedhypotheticallyadmitted.Theonlyissuetobe
resolvedinsuchacaseis:admittingsuchallegedfactstobetrue,
may the court render a valid judgment in accordance with the
prayerinthecomplaint? InMilitantevs.Edrosolano, thisCourt
laiddowntherulethatthejudiciaryshouldexercisetheutmost
careandcircumspectioninpassinguponamotiontodismisson
the ground of the absence thereof [cause of action] lest, by its
failuretomanifestacorrectappreciationofthefactsallegedand
deemedhypotheticallyadmitted,whatthelawgrantsorrecognizes
iseffectivelynullified.Ifthathappens,thereisablotonthelegal
order.Thelawitselfstandsindisrepute.
Afteracarefulexaminationofthepetitionerscomplaint,Wefind
the statements under the introductory affirmative allegations, as
wellasthespecificavermentsunderthesubheadingCAUSEOF
ACTION,tobeadequateenoughtoshow,primafacie,theclaimed
violationoftheirrights.Onthebasisthereof,theymaythusbe
granted,whollyorpartly,thereliefsprayedfor.Itbearsstressing,
however,thatinsofarasthecancellationoftheTLAsisconcerned,
there is the need to implead, as party defendants, the grantees
thereoffortheyareindispensableparties.
Theforegoingconsidered,CivilCaseNo.90777cannotbesaidto
raiseapoliticalquestion.Policyformulationordeterminationby
theexecutiveorlegislativebranchesofGovernmentisnotsquarely
putinissue.Whatisprincipallyinvolvedistheenforcementofa
right visavis policies already formulated and expressed in
legislation.Itmust,nonetheless,beemphasizedthatthepolitical
questiondoctrineisnolongertheinsurmountableobstacletothe
exerciseofjudicialpowerortheimpenetrableshieldthatprotects
executiveandlegislativeactionsfromjudicialinquiryorreview.
Thesecondparagraphofsection1,ArticleVIIIoftheConstitution
statesthat:
20

21

Judicialpowerincludesthedutyofthecourtsofjusticetosettleactual

controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and

enforceable,andtodeterminewhetherornottherehasbeenagrave
_______________
20 Adamos vs. J.M. Tuason and Co., Inc. 25 SCRA 529 [1968]; Virata vs.
Sandiganbayan,supra;Madronavs.Rosal,supra.
2139SCRA473,479[1971].

810

810

SUPREMECOURTREPORTSAN
Oposavs.Factoran,Jr.
abuseofdiscretionamountingtolackorexcessofjurisdictiononthepartof
anybranchorinstrumentalityoftheGovernment.

Commenting onthis provision in his book, Philippine Political

Law, Mr.JusticeIsaganiA.Cruz,adistinguishedmemberofthis
Court,says:
22

Thefirstpartoftheauthorityrepresentsthetraditionalconceptofjudicial
power,involvingthesettlementofconflictingrightsasconferredaslaw.The
secondpartoftheauthorityrepresentsabroadeningofjudicialpowerto
enablethecourtsofjusticetoreviewwhatwasbeforeforbiddenterritory,to
wit,thediscretionofthepoliticaldepartmentsofthegovernment.
Asworded,thenewprovisionvestsinthejudiciary,andparticularlythe
SupremeCourt,thepowertoruleuponeventhewisdomofthedecisionsof
theexecutiveandthelegislatureandtodeclaretheiractsinvalidforlackor
excessofjurisdictionbecausetaintedwithgraveabuseofdiscretion.The
catch,ofcourse,isthemeaningofgraveabuseofdiscretion,whichisa
veryelasticphrasethatcanexpandorcontractaccordingtothedisposition
ofthejudiciary.

In Daza vs. Singson, Mr. Justice Cruz, now speaking for this
Court,noted:
23

Inthecasenowbeforeus,thejurisdictionalobjectionbecomesevenless
tenableanddecisive.Thereasonisthat,evenifweweretoassumethatthe
issue presented before us was political in nature, we would still not be
precludedfromresolvingitundertheexpandedjurisdictionconferredupon
usthatnowcovers,inpropercases,eventhepoliticalquestion.ArticleVII,
Section1,oftheConstitutionclearlyprovides:xxx.

The last ground invoked by the trial court in dismissing the

complaintisthenonimpairmentofcontractsclausefoundinthe
Constitution.Thecourtaquodeclaredthat:

_______________
221991ed.,226227.
23180SCRA,496,501502[1989].Seealso,Cosetengvs.Mitra,187SCRA377
[1990];Gonzalesvs.Macaraig,191SCRA452[1990];Llamasvs.Orbos,202
SCRA844[1991];Bengzonvs.SenateBlueRibbonCommittee,203SCRA767
[1991].
811

VOL.224,JULY30,1993
Oposavs.Factoran,Jr.
TheCourtislikewiseoftheimpressionthatitcannot,nomatterhowwe
stretchourjurisdiction,grantthereliefsprayedforbytheplaintiffs,i.e.,to
cancelallexistingtimberlicenseagreementsinthecountryandtoceaseand
desist from receiving, accepting, processing, renewing or approving new
timber license agreements. For to do otherwise would amount to
impairmentofcontractsabhored(sic)bythefundamentallaw.
24

Wearenotpersuadedatall;onthecontrary,Weareamazed,ifnot
shocked,bysuchasweepingpronouncement.Inthefirstplace,the
respondentSecretarydidnot,forobviousreasons,eveninvokein
hismotiontodismissthenonimpairmentclause.Ifhehaddone
so,hewouldhaveactedwithutmostinfidelitytotheGovernment
byprovidingundueandunwarrantedbenefitsandadvantagesto
thetimberlicenseholdersbecausehewouldhaveforeverbound
theGovernmenttostrictlyrespectthesaidlicensesaccordingto
theirtermsandconditionsregardlessofchangesinpolicyandthe
demands of public interest and welfare. He was aware that as
correctlypointedoutbythepetitioners,intoeverytimberlicense
mustbereadSection20oftheForestryReformCode(P.D.No.
705)whichprovides:
xxx Provided, Thatwhenthenationalinterestsorequires,thePresident
mayamend, modify,replaceor rescindanycontract,concession, permit,
licensesoranyotherformofprivilegegrantedhereinxxx.

Needlesstosay,alllicensesmaythusberevokedorrescindedby
executiveaction.Itisnotacontract,propertyorapropertyright
protectedbythedueprocessclauseoftheConstitution.InTanvs.
DirectorofForestry, thisCourtheld:
25

xxxAtimberlicenseisaninstrumentbywhichtheStateregulatesthe
utilizationanddispositionofforestresourcestotheendthatpublicwelfare
ispromoted.Atimberlicenseisnotacontractwithinthepurviewofthedue
process clause; it is only a license or privilege, which can be validly
withdrawnwheneverdictatedbypublicinterestorpublicwelfareasinthis
case.
_______________
24Rollo,44.
25125SCRA302,325[1983].
812

812

SUPREMECOURTREPORTSA
Oposavs.Factoran,Jr.

Alicenseismerelyapermitorprivilegetodowhatotherwisewouldbe
unlawful, and is not a contract between the authority, federal, state, or
municipal,grantingitandthepersontowhomitisgranted;neitherisit
property or a property right, nor does it create a vested right; nor is it
taxation(37C.J.168).Thus,thisCourtheldthatthegrantingoflicense
doesnotcreateirrevocablerights,neitherisitpropertyorpropertyrights
(Peoplevs.OngTin,54O.G.7576).xxx

WereiteratedthispronouncementinFelipeYsmael,Jr.&Co.,Inc.
vs.DeputyExecutiveSecretary:
26

xxxTimberlicenses,permitsandlicenseagreementsaretheprincipal
instrumentsbywhichtheStateregulatestheutilizationanddispositionof
forestresourcestotheendthatpublicwelfareispromoted.Anditcanhardly
begainsaidthattheymerelyevidenceaprivilegegrantedbytheStateto
qualifiedentities,anddonotvestinthelatterapermanentorirrevocable
righttotheparticularconcessionareaandtheforestproductstherein.They
may be validly amended, modified, replaced or rescinded by the Chief
Executive when national interests so require. Thus, they are not deemed
contractswithinthepurviewofthedueprocessoflawclause[SeeSections
3(ee)and20ofPres.DecreeNo.705,asamended.Also,Tanv.Directorof
Forestry,G.R.No.L24548,October27,1983,125SCRA302].

Sincetimberlicensesarenotcontracts,thenonimpairmentclause,
whichreads:
SEC.10.Nolawimpairing,theobligationofcontractsshallbepassed.

cannotbeinvoked.

27

Inthesecondplace,evenifitistobeassumedthatthesameare
contracts, the instant case does not involve a law or even an
executive issuance declaring the cancellation or modification of
existingtimberlicenses.Hence,thenonimpairmentclausecannot
asyetbeinvoked.Nevertheless,grantingfurtherthatalawhas
actuallybeenpassedmandatingcancellationsormodifications,the
samecannotstillbestigmatizedasaviolationofthe
_______________
26190SCRA673,684[1990].
27ArticleIII,1987Constitution.
813

VOL.224,JULY30,1993
Oposavs.Factoran,Jr.
nonimpairment clause. This is because by its very nature and
purpose,suchalawcouldhaveonlybeenpassedintheexerciseof
thepolicepowerofthestateforthepurposeofadvancingtheright
ofthepeopletoabalancedandhealthfulecology,promotingtheir
health and enhancing the general welfare. In Abe vs. Foster
WheelerCorp., thisCourtstated:
28

Thefreedomofcontract,underoursystemofgovernment,isnotmeantto
beabsolute.Thesameisunderstoodtobesubjecttoreasonablelegislative
regulation aimed at the promotion of public health, moral, safety and
welfare.Inotherwords,theconstitutionalguarantyofnonimpairmentof
obligationsofcontractislimitedbytheexerciseofthepolicepowerofthe
State,intheinterestofpublichealth,safety,moralandgeneralwelfare.

The reason for this is emphatically set forth in Nebia vs. New
York, quoted in Philippine American Life Insurance Co. vs.
AuditorGeneral, towit:
29

30

Underourformofgovernmenttheuseofpropertyandthemakingof
contractsarenormallymattersofprivateandnotofpublicconcern.The
general rule is that both shall be free of governmental interference. But
neither property rights nor contract rights are absolute; for government
cannotexistifthecitizenmayatwillusehispropertytothedetrimentofhis
fellows,orexercisehisfreedomofcontracttoworkthemharm.Equally
fundamentalwiththeprivaterightisthatofthepublictoregulateitinthe

commoninterest.

Inshort,thenonimpairmentclausemustyieldtothepolicepower
ofthestate.
Finally,itisdifficulttoimagine,asthetrialcourtdid,howthe
nonimpairmentclausecouldapplywithrespecttotheprayerto
31

_______________
28110Phil.198,203[1960];footnotesomitted.
29291U.S.502,523,78L.ed.940,947949.
3022SCRA135,146147[1968].
31 Ongsiako vs. Gamboa, 86 Phil. 50 [1950]; Abe vs. Foster Wheeler Corp.,
supra.;Phil.AmericanLifeInsuranceCo.vs.AuditorGeneral,supra.;Alalayan
vs.NPC,24SCRA172[1968];Victorianovs.ElizaldeRopeWorkersUnion,59
SCRA 54 1[974]; Kabiling vs. National Housing Authority, 156 SCRA 623
[1987].
814

814

SUPREMECOURTREPORTSA
Oposavs.Factoran,Jr.
enjoin the respondent Secretary from receiving, accepting,
processing,renewingorapprovingnewtimberlicensesfor,savein
casesof renewal, nocontractwouldhaveasofyetexistedinthe
otherinstances.Moreover,withrespecttorenewal,theholderis
notentitledtoitasamatterofright.
WHEREFORE,beingimpressedwithmerit,theinstantPetition
is hereby GRANTED, and the challenged Order of respondent
Judgeof18July1991dismissingCivilCaseNo.90777ishereby
setaside.Thepetitionersmaythereforeamendtheircomplaintto
impleadasdefendantstheholdersorgranteesofthequestioned
timberlicenseagreements.
Nopronouncementastocosts.
SOORDERED.
Cruz, Padilla, Bidin, GrioAquino, Regalado, Romero,
Nocon,Bellosillo,MeloandQuiason,JJ.,concur.
Narvasa(C.J.),Nopart;relatedtooneoftheparties.
Feliciano,J., Pleaseseeseparateopinionconcurringinthe
result.

Puno,J.,Nopartinthedeliberations.
Vitug,J.,Nopart;IwasnotyetwiththeCourtwhenthecase
wasdeliberatedupon.
FELICIANO,J.:Concurringintheresult
Ijoinintheresultreachedbymydistinguishedbrotherinthe
Court,Davide,Jr.,J.,inthiscasewhich,tomymind,isoneofthe
mostimportantcasesdecidedbythisCourtinthelastfewyears.
The seminal principles laid down in this decision are likely to
influenceprofoundlythedirectionandcourseoftheprotectionand
management of the environment, which of course embraces the
utilizationofallthenaturalresourcesintheterritorialbaseofour
polity.Ihavethereforesoughttoclarify,basicallytomyself,what
theCourtappearstobesaying.
TheCourtexplicitlystatesthatpetitionershavethelocusstandi
necessary to sustain the bringing and maintenance of this suit
(Decision,pp.1112).Locusstandiisnotafunctionofpetitioners
claim that their suit is properly regarded as a class suit. I
understandlocusstanditorefertothelegalinterestwhich
815

VOL.224,JULY30,1993
Oposavs.Factoran,Jr.
aplaintiffmusthaveinthesubjectmatterofthesuit.Becauseof
the very broadness of the concept of class here involved
membershipinthisclassappearstoembraceeveryonelivingin
thecountrywhethernoworinthefutureitappearstomethat
everyonewhomaybeexpectedtobenefitfromthecourseofaction
petitioners seek to require public respondents to take, is vested
withthenecessarylocusstandi.TheCourtmaybeseentherefore
toberecognizinga beneficiariesrightofaction inthefieldof
environmentalprotection,asagainstboththepublicadministrative
agency directly concerned and the private persons or entities
operatinginthefieldorsectorofactivityinvolved.Whethersucha
beneficiaries right of action may be found under any and all

circumstances,orwhethersomefailuretoact,inthefirstinstance,
onthepartofthegovernmentalagencyconcernedmustbeshown
(priorexhaustionofadministrativeremedies),isnotdiscussedin
thedecisionandpresumablyisleftforfuturedeterminationinan
appropriatecase.
TheCourthasalsodeclaredthatthecomplainthasallegedand
focusedupononespecificfundamentallegalrighttherighttoa
balanced and healthful ecology (Decision, p. 14). There is no
question that therightto abalancedandhealthfulecology is
fundamental and that, accordingly, it has been
constitutionalized.Butalthoughitisfundamentalincharacter,I
suggest,withverygreatrespect,thatitcannotbecharacterizedas
specific,withoutdoingexcessiveviolencetolanguage.Itisin
fact very difficult to fashion language more comprehensive in
scopeandgeneralizedincharacterthanarighttoabalancedand
healthful ecology. The list of particular claims which can be
subsumed under this rubric appears to be entirely openended:
preventionandcontrolofemissionoftoxicfumesandsmokefrom
factories and motor vehicles; of discharge of oil, chemical
effluents,garbageandrawsewageintorivers,inlandandcoastal
waters by vessels, oil rigs, factories, mines and whole
communities;ofdumpingoforganicandinorganicwastesonopen
land, streets and thoroughfares; failure to rehabilitate land after
stripminingoropenpitmining;kainginorslashandburnfarming;
destructionoffisheries,coralreefsandotherlivingsearesources
through the use of dynamite or cyanide and other chemicals;
contaminationofgroundwaterresources;lossofcertainspeciesof
faunaandflora;andsoon.Theotherstatementspointedout
816

816

SUPREMECOURTREPORTSA
Oposavs.Factoran,Jr.
bytheCourt:Section3,ExecutiveOrderNo.192dated10June
1987;Section1,TitleXIV,BookIVofthe1987Administrative

1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7

Code;andP.D.No.1151,dated6June1977allappeartobe
formulationsofpolicy,asgeneralandabstractastheconstitutional
statementsofbasicpolicyinArticleII,Sections16(therightto
abalancedandhealthfulecology)and15(therighttohealth).
P.D.No.1152,alsodated6June1977,entitledThePhilippine
Environment Code, is, upon the other hand, a compendious
collection of more specific environment management policies
and environment quality standards (fourth Whereas clause,
Preamble)relatingtoanextremelywiderangeoftopics:
(a)airqualitymanagement;
(b)waterqualitymanagement:
(c)landusemanagement;
(d)naturalresourcesmanagementandconservationembracing:
(i)fisheriesandaquaticresources;
(ii)wildlife;
(iii)forestryandsoilconservation;
(iv)floodcontrolandnaturalcalamities;
(v)energydevelopment;
(vi)conservationandutilizationofsurfaceandgroundwater
(vii)mineralresources
Two(2)pointsareworthmakinginthisconnection.Firstly,neither
petitionersnortheCourthasidentifiedtheparticularprovisionor
provisions(ifany)ofthePhilippineEnvironmentCodewhichgive
rise to a specific legal right which petitioners are seeking to
enforce. Secondly, the Philippine Environment Code identifies
withnotablecaretheparticulargovernmentagencychargedwith
the formulation and implementation of guidelines andprograms
dealing with each of the headings and subheadings mentioned
above.ThePhilippineEnvironmentCodedoesnot,inotherwords,
appeartocontemplateactiononthepartof privatepersons who
arebeneficiariesofimplementationofthatCode.
As a matter of logic, by finding petitioners cause of action as
anchoredonalegalrightcomprisedintheconstitutionalstate

817

VOL.224,JULY30,1993
Oposavs.Factoran,Jr.
mentsabovenoted,theCourtisineffectsayingthatSection15
(andSection16)ofArticleIIoftheConstitutionareselfexecuting
and judicially enforceable even in their present form. The
implications of this doctrine will have to be explored in future
cases;thoseimplicationsaretoolargeandfarreachinginnature
eventobehintedathere.
My suggestion is simply that petitioners must, before the trial
court,showamorespecificlegalrightarightcastinlanguageof
asignificantlylowerorderofgeneralitythanArticleII(15)ofthe
Constitutionthatisormaybeviolatedbytheactions,orfailures
toact,imputedtothepublicrespondentbypetitionerssothatthe
trialcourtcanvalidlyrenderjudgmentgrantingallorpartofthe
reliefprayedfor.Tomymind,theCourtshouldbeunderstoodas
simplysayingthatsuchamorespecificlegalrightorrights may
well exist in our corpus of law, considering the general policy
principles found in the Constitution and the existence of the
PhilippineEnvironmentCode,andthatthetrialcourtshouldhave
given petitioners an effective opportunity so to demonstrate,
insteadofabortingtheproceedingsonamotiontodismiss.
Itseemstomeimportantthatthelegalrightwhichisanessential
componentofacauseofactionbeaspecific,operablelegalright,
ratherthanaconstitutionalorstatutorypolicy,foratleasttwo(2)
reasons.Oneisthatunlessthelegalrightclaimedtohavebeen
violatedordisregardedisgivenspecificationinoperationalterms,
defendantsmaywellbeunabletodefendthemselvesintelligently
andeffectively;inotherwords,therearedueprocessdimensions
tothismatter.
The second is a broadergauge considerationwhere a specific
violationoflaworapplicableregulationisnotallegedorproved,
petitioners can be expected to fall back on the expanded

conceptionofjudicialpowerinthesecondparagraphofSection1
ofArticleVIIIoftheConstitutionwhichreads:
Section1.xxx
Judicial power includes the duty of the courts of justice to settle actual
controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and
enforceable,andtodeterminewhetherornottherehasbeenagraveabuse
ofdiscretionamountingtolackorexcessofjurisdictiononthepartofany
branchorinstrumentalityoftheGovernment.(Emphasessupplied)
818

818

SUPREMECOURTREPORTSA
Oposavs.Factoran,Jr.
Whensubstantivestandardsasgeneralastherighttoabalanced
andhealthyecologyandtherighttohealtharecombinedwith
remedialstandardsasbroadrangingasagraveabuseofdiscretion
amountingtolackorexcessofjurisdiction,theresultwillbe,itis
respectfullysubmitted,topropelcourtsintotheunchartedoceanof
socialandeconomicpolicymaking.Atleastinrespectofthevast
areaofenvironmentalprotectionandmanagement,ourcourtshave
no claim to special technical competence and experience and
professionalqualification.Wherenospecific,operablenormsand
standardsareshowntoexist,thenthepolicymakingdepartments
thelegislativeandexecutivedepartmentsmustbegivenareal
andeffectiveopportunitytofashionandpromulgatethosenorms
and standards, and to implement them before the courts should
intervene.
MylearnedbrotherDavide,Jr., J., rightlyinsiststhatthetimber
companies, whose concession agreements or TLAs petitioners
demandpublicrespondentsshouldcancel,mustbeimpleadedin
the proceedings below. It might be asked that, if petitioners
entitlementtothereliefdemandedisnotdependentuponproofof
breachbythetimbercompaniesofoneormoreofthespecific
terms and conditions of their concession agreements (and this,
petitionersimplicitlyassume),whatwillthosecompanieslitigate

about?TheanswerIsuggestisthattheymayseektodisputethe
existenceofthespecificlegalrightpetitionersshouldallege,as
wellastherealityoftheclaimedfactualnexusbetweenpetitioners
specificlegalrightsandtheclaimedwrongfulactsorfailurestoact
of public respondent administrative agency. They may also
controvert the appropriateness of the remedy or remedies
demandedbypetitioners,underallthecircumstanceswhichexist.
IvotetograntthePetitionforCertioraribecausetheprotectionof
theenvironment,includingtheforestcoverofourterritory,isof
extremeimportanceforthecountry.Thedoctrinessetoutinthe
Courts decision issued today should, however, be subjected to
closerexamination.
Petitiongranted.Challengedordersetaside.
o0o
819
Copyright 2015 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.