Higit Pa Susunod na Blog Bumuo ng Blog Mag-sign in

Notes on Philippine Laws

Sunday, July 6, 2014 Search This Blog

Oposa vs. Factoran Case Digest (G.R. No. 101083, July 30, Search

1993)
FACTS:
Popular Posts
The plaintiffs in this case are all minors duly represented and joined by their parents. The first Oposa vs. Factoran Case Digest (G.R.
complaint was filed as a taxpayer's class suit at the Branch 66 (Makati, Metro Manila), of the Regional No. 101083, July 30, 1993)
Trial Court, National capital Judicial Region against defendant (respondent) Secretary of the FACTS: The plaintiffs in this case are
Department of Environment and Natural Reasources (DENR). Plaintiffs alleged that they are entitled all minors duly represented and joined
to the full benefit, use and enjoyment of the natural resource treasure that is the country's virgin by their parents. The first complaint
tropical forests. They further asseverate that they represent their generation as well as generations was filed as a taxpay...
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.
Indeterminate Sentence Law (ISLAW):
How to determine maximum and
minimum penalties
Plaintiffs prayed that judgement be rendered ordering the respondent, his agents, representatives and
(Act no 4103 as amended) The
other persons acting in his behalf to cancel all existing Timber License Agreement (TLA) in the Indeterminate Sentence Law is
country and to cease and desist from receiving, accepting, processing, renewing or approving new mandatory in all cases, EXCEPT if the
TLAs. accused will fall in any of the
following...
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. FERDINAND E. MARCOS vs. HON.
RAUL MANGLAPUS (177 SCRA 668)
Case Digest
The RTC Judge sustained the motion to dismiss, further ruling that granting of the relief prayed for
Facts: After Ferdinand Marcos was
would result in the impairment of contracts which is prohibited by the Constitution.
deposed from the presidency, he and
his family fled to Hawaii. Now in his
Plaintiffs (petitioners) thus filed the instant special civil action for certiorari and asked the court to deathbed, petitioners are a...
rescind and set aside the dismissal order on the ground that the respondent RTC Judge gravely
abused his discretion in dismissing the action. USA vs. GUINTO, 182 SCRA 644 Case
Digest
ISSUES: These are cases that have been
consolidated because they all involve
the doctrine of state immunity. The
(1) Whether or not the plaintiffs have a cause of action.
United States of America was not i...
(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. Mercado v. Manzano Case Digest
[G.R. No. 135083. May 26, 1999]
RULING: FACTS: Petitioner Ernesto Mercado
and Eduardo Manzano were both
First Issue: Cause of Action. candidates for Vice-Mayor of Makati in
the May 11, 1998 elections. Based...
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
Blog Archive
to refrain from impairing the environment and implies, among many other things, the judicious March (7)
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 February (2)
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 December (3)
of 1987. Both E.O. 192 and Administrative Code of 1987 have set the objectives which will serve as
November (4)
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 July (7)
DENR's duty to protect and advance the said right.
May (1)
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 April (1)
the TLA, which they claim was done with grave abuse of discretion, violated their right to a balance
October (8)
and healthful ecology. Hence, the full protection thereof requires that no further TLAs should be
renewed or granted. September (3)

After careful examination of the petitioners' complaint, the Court finds it to be adequate enough to August (2)
show, prima facie, the claimed violation of their rights.
July (8)
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.

Posted by gemendio at 4:11 PM

Labels: constitutional law, doctrine of intergenerational responsibility, G.R. No. 101083, Law on
Natural Resources, oposa vs. factoran

2 comments:

Exy Exx January 21, 2016 at 6:19 PM

To the owner, would you mind if I ask?

Reply

Replies

Laurence John Sortigosa September 7, 2017 at 10:50 PM

Burger.

Reply

Enter your comment...

Comment as: Unknown (Google) Sign out

Publish Preview Notify me

Newer Post Home Older Post

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)

Awesome Inc. theme. Theme images by sndr. Powered by Blogger.