004 Oposa v Factoran

7/25/2019 004 Oposa v Factoran

1/28

004 Oposa v Factoran

G.R. No. 101083 July 30, 1993

JUAN ANTONIO, ANNA ROARIO an! JO" A#FONO, all surna$%! O&OA,

$'nors, an! r%pr%s%nt%! (y t)%'r par%nts ANTONIO an! RI*A#INA O&OA,

RO+"RTA NIO#" A-IUA, $'nor, r%pr%s%nt%! (y )%r par%nts A#IN an!RO+"RTA A-IUA, AR#O, A/AN-A A#U- an! &ATRIA, all surna$%!

F#OR", $'nors an! r%pr%s%nt%! (y t)%'r par%nts "NRIO an! NI-A F#OR",

GIANINA -ITA R. FORTUN, $'nor, r%pr%s%nt%! (y )%r par%nts IGRI- an!

-O#OR" FORTUN, G"ORG" II an! /A. ON"&ION, all surna$%! /IA,

$'nors an! r%pr%s%nt%! (y t)%'r par%nts G"ORG" an! /RA /IA, +"NJA/IN

A#AN . &"IGAN, $'nor, r%pr%s%nt%! (y )'s par%nts ANTONIO an! A#I"

&"IGAN, JOI" /ARI" A#FARO, $'nor, r%pr%s%nt%! (y )%r par%nts JO" an!

/ARIA IO#"TA A#FARO, /ARIA ON"&ION T. ATRO, $'nor, r%pr%s%nt%!

(y )%r par%nts FR"-"NI# an! JAN" ATRO, JOANNA -"A/&ARA-O,

$'nor, r%pr%s%nt%! (y )%r par%nts JO" an! ANG"#A -"A/&RA-O, AR#O

JOA2UIN T. NARAA, $'nor, r%pr%s%nt%! (y )'s par%nts GR"GORIO II an!

RITIN" ARIT NARAA, /A. /ARGARITA, J"U IGNAIO, /A. ANG"#A

an! /ARI" GA+RI"##", all surna$%! A"N*, $'nors, r%pr%s%nt%! (y t)%'r

par%nts RO+"RTO an! AURORA A"N*, RITIN", /AR "##"N, /A, GO#-A

/ART" an! -AI- IAN, all surna$%! ING, $'nors, r%pr%s%nt%! (y t)%'r

par%nts /ARIO an! A-"" ING, -AI-, FRANIO an! T"R""

ITORIA, all surna$%! "N-RIGA, $'nors, r%pr%s%nt%! (y t)%'r par%nts+A#TA*AR an! T"R"ITA "N-RIGA, JO" /A. an! R"GINA /A., all surna$%!

A+AA, $'nors, r%pr%s%nt%! (y t)%'r par%nts ANTONIO an! /ARIA A+AA,

/ARI#IN, /ARIO, JR. an! /ARI"TT", all surna$%! AR-A/A, $'nors,

r%pr%s%nt%! (y t)%'r par%nts /ARIO an! #INA AR-A/A, #ARIA, ANN

/ARI", NAG"#, an! I/"" #N, all surna$%! O&OA, $'nors an! r%pr%s%nt%! (y

t)%'r par%nts RIAR-O an! /ARIA O&OA, &I#I& JO"&, T"&"N JON

an! IAIA JA/", all surna$%! 2UI&IT, $'nors, r%pr%s%nt%! (y t)%'r par%nts

JO" /A an! I#/I 2UI&IT, +UGA5 I"#O, RIANTO, ANNA, -ANI"# an!FRANIO, all surna$%! +I+A#, $'nors, r%pr%s%nt%! (y t)%'r par%nts

FRANIO, JR. an! /I#AGRO +I+A#, an! T" &I#I&&IN" "O#OGIA#

N"T5OR, IN., petitioners,

vs.

T" ONORA+#" FU#G"NIO . FATORAN, JR., 'n )'s capac'ty as t)%

%cr%tary o6 t)% -%part$%nt o6 "nv'ron$%nt an! Natural R%sourc%s, an! T"


2/28

ONORA+#" "RI+"RTO U. ROARIO, &r%s'!'n7 Ju!7% o6 t)% RT, /aat'

+ranc) , respondents.

Oposa Law Office for petitioners.

The Solicitor General for respondents.

-AI-", JR., J.:

In a broader sense, this petition bears upon the right of Filipinos to a balanced and

healthful ecology which the petitioners dramatically associate with the twin concepts of

"inter-generational responsibility" and "inter-generational justice." Specifically, it

touches on the issue of whether the said petitioners have a cause of action to "prevent

the misappropriation or impairment" of Philippine rainforests and "arrest the unabatedhemorrhage of the countrys vital life support systems and continued rape of !other

arth."

#he controversy has its genesis in $ivil $ase %o. &'-(( which was filed before )ranch

** +!aati, !etro !anila of the egional #rial $ourt +#$, %ational $apital /udicial

egion. #he principal plaintiffs therein, now the principal petitioners, are all minors duly

represented and joined by their respective parents. Impleaded as an additional plaintiff

is the Philippine cological %etwor, Inc. +P%I, a domestic, non-stoc and non-profit

corporation organi0ed for the purpose of, inter alia, engaging in concerted actiongeared for the protection of our environment and natural resources. #he origina

defendant was the 1onorable Fulgencio S. Factoran, /r., then Secretary of the

2epartment of nvironment and %atural esources +2%. 1is substitution in this

petition by the new Secretary, the 1onorable 3ngel $. 3lcala, was subse4uently

ordered upon proper motion by the petitioners. 1#he complaint:was instituted as a

ta5payers class suit3and alleges that the plaintiffs "are all citi0ens of the epublic of

the Philippines, ta5payers, and entitled to the full benefit, use and enjoyment of the

natural resource treasure that is the countrys virgin tropical forests." #he same wasfiled for themselves and others who are e4ually concerned about the preservation of

said resource but are "so numerous that it is impracticable to bring them all before the

$ourt." #he minors further asseverate that they "represent their generation as well as

generations yet unborn."4$onse4uently, it is prayed for that judgment be rendered6

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

acting in his behalf to 7


3/28

+8 $ancel all e5isting timber license agreements in the country9

+: $ease and desist from receiving, accepting, processing, renewing or

approving new timber license agreements.

and granting the plaintiffs ". . . such other reliefs just and e4uitable under the

premises."

;

#he complaint starts off with the general averments that the Philippine archipelago of

(,8'' islands has a land area of thirty million +;',''',''' hectares and is endowed

with rich, lush and verdant rainforests in which varied, rare and uni4ue species of flora

and fauna may be found9 these rainforests contain a genetic, biological and chemical

pool which is irreplaceable9 they are also the habitat of indigenous Philippine cultures

which have e5isted, endured and flourished since time immemorial9 scientific evidence

reveals that in order to maintain a balanced and healthful ecology, the countrys land

area should be utili0ed on the basis of a ratio of fifty-four per cent + for forestcover and forty-si5 per cent +=*> for agricultural, residential, industrial, commercial

and other uses9 the distortion and disturbance of this balance as a conse4uence of

deforestation have resulted in a host of environmental tragedies, such as +a water

shortages resulting from drying up of the water table, otherwise nown as the "a4uifer,"

as well as of rivers, broos and streams, +b salini0ation of the water table as a result of

the intrusion therein of salt water, incontrovertible e5amples of which may be found in

the island of $ebu and the !unicipality of )acoor, $avite, +c massive erosion and the

conse4uential loss of soil fertility and agricultural productivity, with the volume of soileroded estimated at one billion +8,''',''',''' cubic meters per annum 7

appro5imately the si0e of the entire island of $atanduanes, +d the endangering and

e5tinction of the countrys uni4ue, rare and varied flora and fauna, +e the disturbance

and dislocation of cultural communities, including the disappearance of the Filipinos

indigenous cultures, +f the siltation of rivers and seabeds and conse4uentia

destruction of corals and other a4uatic life leading to a critical reduction in marine

resource productivity, +g recurrent spells of drought as is presently e5perienced by the

entire country, +h increasing velocity of typhoon winds which result from the absenceof windbreaers, +i the floodings of lowlands and agricultural plains arising from the

absence of the absorbent mechanism of forests, +j the siltation and shortening of the

lifespan of multi-billion peso dams constructed and operated for the purpose of

supplying water for domestic uses, irrigation and the generation of electric power, and

+ the reduction of the earths capacity to process carbon dio5ide gases which has led

to perple5ing and catastrophic climatic changes such as the phenomenon of global

warming, otherwise nown as the "greenhouse effect."


4/28

Plaintiffs further assert that the adverse and detrimental conse4uences of continued

and deforestation are so capable of un4uestionable demonstration that the same may

be submitted as a matter of judicial notice. #his notwithstanding, they e5pressed their

intention to present e5pert witnesses as well as documentary, photographic and film

evidence in the course of the trial.

3s their cause of action, they specifically allege that6

CAUSE OF ACTION

(. Plaintiffs replead by reference the foregoing allegations.

?. #wenty-five +:


5/28

enumerated in paragraph * hereof are already being felt, e5perienced and

suffered by the generation of plaintiff adults.

8=. #he continued allowance by defendant of #@3 holders to cut and

deforest the remaining forest stands will wor great damage and

irreparable injury to plaintiffs 7 especially plaintiff minors and their

successors 7 who may never see, use, benefit from and enjoy this rareand uni4ue natural resource treasure.

#his act of defendant constitutes a misappropriation andAor impairment of

the natural resource property he holds in trust for the benefit of plaintiff

minors and succeeding generations.

8


6/28

+b to fulfill the social, economic and other re4uirements of present and

future generations of Filipinos and9

+c to ensure the attainment of an environmental 4uality that is conductive

to a life of dignity and well-being. +P.2. 88


7/28

Bn 8? /uly 8&&8, respondent /udge issued an order granting the aforementioned

motion to dismiss.


8/28

Bn the other hand, the 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. #hey see nothing in the complaint but vague and nebulous

allegations concerning an "environmental right" which supposedly entitles the

petitioners to the "protection by the state in its capacity as parens patriae." Such

allegations, according to them, do not reveal a valid cause of action. #hey then

reiterate the theory that the 4uestion of whether logging should be permitted in thecountry is a political 4uestion which should be properly addressed to the e5ecutive or

legislative branches of Eovernment. #hey therefore assert that the petitioners

resources is not to file an action to court, but to lobby before $ongress for the passage

of a bill that would ban logging totally.

3s to the matter of the cancellation of the #@3s, respondents submit that the same

cannot be done by the State without due process of law. Bnce issued, a #@3 remains

effective for a certain period of time 7 usually for twenty-five +:


9/28

Such a right, as hereinafter e5pounded, considers

the "rhythm and harmony of nature." %ature means the created world in its

entirety.9Such rhythm and harmony indispensably include, inter alia, the judicious

disposition, utili0ation, management, renewal and conservation of the countrys forest,

mineral, land, waters, fisheries, wildlife, off-shore areas and other natural resources to

the end that their e5ploration, development and utili0ation be e4uitably accessible to

the present as well as future generations. 10%eedless to say, every generation has aresponsibility to the ne5t to preserve that rhythm and harmony for the full enjoyment of

a balanced and healthful ecology. Put a little differently, the minors assertion of their

right to a sound environment constitutes, at the same time, the performance of their

obligation to ensure the protection of that right for the generations to come.

#he locus standiof the petitioners having thus been addressed, e shall now proceed

to the merits of the petition.

3fter a careful perusal of the complaint in 4uestion and a meticulous consideration and

evaluation of the issues raised and arguments adduced by the parties, e do not

hesitate to find for the petitioners and rule against the respondent /udges challenged

order for having been issued with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lac of

jurisdiction. #he pertinent portions of the said order reads as follows6

555 555 555

3fter a careful and circumspect evaluation of the $omplaint, the $ourtcannot help but agree with the defendant. For although we believe that

plaintiffs have but the noblest of all intentions, it +sic fell short of alleging

with sufficient definiteness, a specific legal right they are seeing to enforce

and protect, or a specific legal wrong they are seeing to prevent and

redress +Sec. 8, ule :, $. Furthermore, the $ourt notes that the

$omplaint is replete with vague assumptions and vague conclusions based

on unverified data. In fine, plaintiffs fail to state a cause of action in its

$omplaint against the herein defendant.

Furthermore, the $ourt firmly believes that the matter before it, being

impressed with political color and involving a matter of public policy, may

not be taen cogni0ance of by this $ourt without doing violence to the

sacred principle of "Separation of Powers" of the three +; co-e4ua

branches of the Eovernment.


10/28

#he $ourt is liewise of the impression that it cannot, no matter how we

stretch our jurisdiction, grant the reliefs prayed for by the plaintiffs, i.e., to

cancel all e5isting timber license agreements in the country and to cease

and desist from receiving, accepting, processing, renewing or approving

new timber license agreements. For to do otherwise would amount to

"impairment of contracts" abhored +sic by the fundamental law. 11

e do not agree with the trial courts conclusions that the plaintiffs failed to allege with

sufficient definiteness a specific legal right involved or a specific legal wrong

committed, and that the complaint is replete with vague assumptions and conclusions

based on unverified data. 3 reading of the complaint itself belies these conclusions.

#he complaint focuses on one specific fundamental legal right 7 the right to a

balanced and healthful ecology which, for the first time in our nations constitutional

history, is solemnly incorporated in the fundamental law. Section 8*, 3rticle II of the

8&?( $onstitution e5plicitly provides6

Sec. 8*. #he State shall protect and advance the right of the people to a

balanced and healthful ecology in accord with the rhythm and harmony of

nature.

#his right unites with the right to health which is provided for in the

preceding section of the same article6

Sec. 8


11/28

when all else would be lost not only for the present generation, but also for those to

come 7 generations which stand to inherit nothing but parched earth incapable of

sustaining life.

#he right to a balanced and healthful ecology carries with it the correlative duty to

refrain from impairing the environment. 2uring the debates on this right in one of the

plenary sessions of the 8&?* $onstitutional $ommission, the following e5changetranspired between $ommissioner ilfrido Dillacorta and $ommissioner 3dolfo 30cuna

who sponsored the section in 4uestion6

!. DI@@3$B#36

2oes this section mandate the State to provide sanctions

against all forms of pollution 7 air, water and noise pollutionG

!. 3H$%36

Jes, !adam President. #he 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. 1:

#he said right implies, among many other things, the judicious management and

conservation of the countrys forests.

ithout such forests, the ecological or environmental balance would be

irreversiby disrupted.

$onformably with the enunciated right to a balanced and healthful ecology and the

right to health, as well as the other related provisions of the $onstitution concerning the

conservation, development and utili0ation of the countrys natural resources, 13then

President $ora0on $. 34uino promulgated on 8' /une 8&?( .B. %o. 8&:, 14Section =

of which e5pressly mandates that the 2epartment of nvironment and %atura

esources "shall be the primary government agency responsible for the conservation,

management, development and proper use of the countrys environment and natural

resources, specifically forest and gra0ing lands, mineral, resources, including those in

reservation and watershed areas, and lands of the public domain, as well as the

licensing and regulation of all natural resources as may be provided for by law in order

to ensure e4uitable sharing of the benefits derived therefrom for the welfare of the


12/28

present and future generations of Filipinos." Section ; thereof maes the following

statement of policy6

Sec. ;. eclaration of !olic". 7 It is hereby declared the policy of the State

to ensure the sustainable use, development, management, renewal, and

conservation of the countrys forest, mineral, land, off-shore areas and

other natural resources, including the protection and enhancement of the4uality of the environment, and e4uitable access of the different segments

of the population to the development and the use of the countrys natural

resources, not only for the present generation but for future generations as

well. It is also the policy of the state to recogni0e and apply a true value

system including social and environmental cost implications relative to their

utili0ation, development and conservation of our natural resources.

#his policy declaration is substantially re-stated it #itle CID, )oo ID of the

3dministrative $ode of 8&?(,1;specifically in Section 8 thereof which reads6

Sec. 8. eclaration of !olic". 7 +8 #he State shall ensure, for the benefit

of the Filipino people, the full e5ploration and development as well as the

judicious disposition, utili0ation, management, renewal and conservation of

the countrys forest, mineral, land, waters, fisheries, wildlife, off-shore areas

and other natural resources, consistent with the necessity of maintaining a

sound ecological balance and protecting and enhancing the 4uality of the

environment and the objective of maing the e5ploration, development andutili0ation of such natural resources e4uitably accessible to the different

segments of the present as well as future generations.

+: #he State shall liewise recogni0e and apply a true value system that

taes into account social and environmental cost implications relative to the

utili0ation, development and conservation of our natural resources.

#he above provision stresses "the necessity of maintaining a sound ecological balance

and protecting and enhancing the 4uality of the environment." Section : of the same#itle, on the other hand, specifically speas of the mandate of the 2%9 however, it

maes particular reference to the fact of the agencys being subject to law and higher

authority. Said section provides6

Sec. :. #andate. 7 +8 #he 2epartment of nvironment and %atura

esources shall be primarily responsible for the implementation of the

foregoing policy.


13/28

+: It shall, subject to law and higher authority, be in charge of carrying out

the States constitutional mandate to control and supervise the e5ploration,

development, utili0ation, and conservation of the countrys natura

resources.

)oth .B. %B. 8&: and the 3dministrative $ode of 8&?( have set the objectives which

will serve as the bases for policy formulation, and have defined the powers andfunctions of the 2%.

It may, however, be recalled that even before the ratification of the 8&?( $onstitution,

specific statutes already paid special attention to the "environmental right" of the

present and future generations. Bn * /une 8&((, P.2. %o. 88


14/28

It is settled in this jurisdiction that in a motion to dismiss based on the ground that the

complaint fails to state a cause of action, 19the 4uestion submitted to the court for

resolution involves the sufficiency of the facts alleged in the complaint itself. %o other

matter should be considered9 furthermore, the truth of falsity of the said allegations is

beside the point for the truth thereof is deemed hypothetically admitted. #he only issue

to be resolved in such a case is6 admitting such alleged facts to be true, may the court

render a valid judgment in accordance with the prayer in the complaintG :0In#ilitante$s. Edrosolano, :1this $ourt laid down the rule that the judiciary should "e5ercise the

utmost care and circumspection in passing upon a motion to dismiss on the ground of

the absence thereof Kcause of actionL lest, by its failure to manifest a correct

appreciation of the facts alleged and deemed hypothetically admitted, what the law

grants or recogni0es is effectively nullified. If that happens, there is a blot on the legal

order. #he law itself stands in disrepute."

3fter careful e5amination of the petitioners complaint, e find the statements underthe introductory affirmative allegations, as well as the specific averments under the

sub-heading $3S BF 3$#IB%, to be ade4uate enough to show, pri%a facie, the

claimed violation of their rights. Bn the basis thereof, they may thus be granted, wholly

or partly, the reliefs prayed for. It bears stressing, however, that insofar as the

cancellation of the #@3s is concerned, there is the need to implead, as party

defendants, the grantees thereof for they are indispensable parties.

#he foregoing considered, $ivil $ase %o. &'-((( be said to raise a political 4uestion.

Policy formulation or determination by the e5ecutive or legislative branches ofEovernment is not s4uarely put in issue. hat is principally involved is the

enforcement of a right $is&a&$ispolicies already formulated and e5pressed in

legislation. It must, nonetheless, be emphasi0ed that the political 4uestion doctrine is

no longer, the insurmountable obstacle to the e5ercise of judicial power or the

impenetrable shield that protects e5ecutive and legislative actions from judicial in4uiry

or review. #he second paragraph of section 8, 3rticle DIII of the $onstitution states that6

/udicial power includes the duty of the courts of justice to settle actualcontroversies involving rights which are legally demandable and

enforceable, and to determine whether or not there has been a grave

abuse of discretion amounting to lac or e5cess of jurisdiction on the part of

any branch or instrumentality of the Eovernment.

$ommenting on this provision in his boo, !hilippine !olitical Law, ::!r. /ustice

Isagani 3. $ru0, a distinguished member of this $ourt, says6


15/28

#he first part of the authority represents the traditional concept of judicial

power, involving the settlement of conflicting rights as conferred as law. #he

second part of the authority represents a broadening of judicial power to

enable the courts of justice to review what was before forbidden territory, to

wit, the discretion of the political departments of the government.

3s worded, the new provision vests in the judiciary, and particularly theSupreme $ourt, the power to rule upon even the wisdom of the decisions of

the e5ecutive and the legislature and to declare their acts invalid for lac or

e5cess of jurisdiction because tainted with grave abuse of discretion. #he

catch, of course, is the meaning of "grave abuse of discretion," which is a

very elastic phrase that can e5pand or contract according to the disposition

of the judiciary.

In a'a $s. Sin(son, :3!r. /ustice $ru0, now speaing for this $ourt, noted6

In the case now before us, the jurisdictional objection becomes even less

tenable and decisive. #he reason is that, even if we were to assume that

the issue presented before us was political in nature, we would still not be

precluded from revolving it under the e5panded jurisdiction conferred upon

us that now covers, in proper cases, even the political 4uestion. 3rticle DII,

Section 8, of the $onstitution clearly provides6 . . .

#he last ground invoed by the trial court in dismissing the complaint is the non-impairment of contracts clause found in the $onstitution. #he court a )uo declared that6

#he $ourt is liewise of the impression that it cannot, no matter how we

stretch our jurisdiction, grant the reliefs prayed for by the plaintiffs, i.e., to

cancel all e5isting timber license agreements in the country and to cease

and desist from receiving, accepting, processing, renewing or approving

new timber license agreements. For to do otherwise would amount to

"impairment of contracts" abhored +sic by the fundamental law. :4

e are not persuaded at all9 on the contrary, e are ama0ed, if not shoced, by such

a sweeping pronouncement. In the first place, the respondent Secretary did not, for

obvious reasons, even invoe in his motion to dismiss the non-impairment clause. If he

had done so, he would have acted with utmost infidelity to the Eovernment by

providing undue and unwarranted benefits and advantages to the timber license

holders because he would have forever bound the Eovernment to strictly respect the

said licenses according to their terms and conditions regardless of changes in policy


16/28

and the demands of public interest and welfare. 1e was aware that as correctly pointed

out by the petitioners, into every timber license must be read Section :' of the Forestry

eform $ode +P.2. %o. ('


17/28

KSee Sections ;+ee and :' of Pres. 2ecree %o. ('


18/28

In short, the non-impairment clause must yield to the police power of the state. 31

Finally, it is difficult to imagine, as the trial court did, how the non-impairment clause

could apply with respect to the prayer to enjoin the respondent Secretary from

receiving, accepting, processing, renewing or approving new timber licenses for, save

in cases of renewal, no contract would have as of yet e5isted in the other instances.

!oreover, with respect to renewal, the holder is not entitled to it as a matter of right.

1FB, being impressed with merit, the instant Petition is hereby E3%#2,

and the challenged Brder of respondent /udge of 8? /uly 8&&8 dismissing $ivil $ase

%o. &'-((( is hereby set aside. #he petitioners may therefore amend their complaint to

implead as defendants the holders or grantees of the 4uestioned timber license

agreements.

%o pronouncement as to costs.

SB B22.

Cru'+ !adilla+ 1idin+ Gri2o&A)uino+ 3e(alado+ 3o%ero+ Nocon+ 1ellosillo+ #elo and

4uiason+ ,,.+ concur.

Nar$asa+ C.,.+ !uno and 5itu(+ ,,.+ too0 no part.

%parat% Op'n'ons

F"#IIANO, J., concurring

I join in the result reached by my distinguished brother in the $ourt, 2avide, /r., ,., in

this case which, to my mind, is one of the most important cases decided by this $ourt

in the last few years. #he seminal principles laid down in this decision are liely to

influence profoundly the direction and course of the protection and management of the

environment, which of course embraces the utili0ation of allthe natural resources in

the territorial base of our polity. I have therefore sought to clarify, basically to myself,

what the $ourt appears to be saying.


19/28

#he $ourt e5plicitly states that petitioners have the locus standinecessary to sustain

the bringing and, maintenance of this suit +2ecision, pp. 88-8:. Locus standiis not a

function of petitioners claim that their suit is properly regarded as a class suit.

understand locus standito refer to the legal interest which a plaintiff must have in the

subject matter of the suit. )ecause of the very broadness of the concept of "class" here

involved 7 membership in this "class" appears to embrace e$er"oneliving in the

country whether now or in thefuture 7 it appears to me that everyone who may be e5pected to benefit from the

course of action petitioners see to re4uire public respondents to tae, is vested with

the necessary locus standi. #he $ourt may be seen therefore to be recogni0ing

a beneficiaries6 ri(ht of actionin the field of environmental protection, as against both

the public administrative agency directly concerned and the private persons or entities

operating in the field or sector of activity involved. hether such beneficiaries right of

action may be found under any and all circumstances, or whether some failure to act,

in the first instance, on the part of the governmental agency concerned must be shown+"prior e5haustion of administrative remedies", is not discussed in the decision and

presumably is left for future determination in an appropriate case.

#he $ourt has also declared that the complaint has alleged and focused upon "one

specific fundamental legal right 7 the right to a balanced and healthful ecology"

+2ecision, p. 8=. #here is no 4uestion that "the right to a balanced and healthful

ecology" is "fundamental" and that, accordingly, it has been "constitutionali0ed." )ut

although it is fundamental in character, I suggest, with very great respect, that it cannot

be characteri0ed as "specific," without doing e5cessive violence to language. It is in

fact very difficult to fashion language more comprehensive in scope and generali0ed in

character than a right to "a balanced and healthful ecology." #he list of particular claims

which can be subsumed under this rubic appears to be entirely open-ended6 prevention

and control of emission of to5ic fumes and smoe from factories and motor vehicles9 of

discharge of oil, chemical effluents, garbage and raw sewage into rivers, inland and

coastal waters by vessels, oil rigs, factories, mines and whole communities9 of dumping

of organic and inorganic wastes on open land, streets and thoroughfares9 failure to

rehabilitate land after strip-mining or open-pit mining9 0ain(inor slash-and-burnfarming9 destruction of fisheries, coral reefs and other living sea resources through the

use of dynamite or cyanide and other chemicals9 contamination of ground water

resources9 loss of certain species of fauna and flora9 and so on. #he other statements

pointed out by the $ourt6 Section ;, 5ecutive Brder %o. 8&: dated 8' /une 8&?(9

Section 8, #itle CID, )oo ID of the 8&?( 3dministrative $ode9 and P.2. %o. 88


20/28

constitutional statements of basic policy in 3rticle II, Section 8* +"the right 7 to a

balanced and healthful ecology" and 8< +"the right to health".

P.2. %o. 88


21/28

that Section 8< +and Section 8* of 3rticle II of the $onstitution are self-e5ecuting and

judicially enforceable even in their present form. #he implications of this doctrine wil

have to be e5plored in future cases9 those implications are too large and far-reaching in

nature even to be hinted at here.

!y suggestion is simply that petitioners must, before the trial court, show a more

specific legal right 7 a right cast in language of a significantly lower order of generalitythan 3rticle II +8


22/28

uncharted ocean of social and economic policy maing. 3t least in respect of the

vast area of environmental protection and management, our courts have no claim

to special technical competence and e5perience and professional 4ualification.

here no specific, operable norms and standards are shown to e5ist, then the

policy maing departments 7 the legislative and e5ecutive departments 7 must

be given a real and effective opportunity to fashion and promulgate those norms

and standards, and to implement them before the courts should intervene.

!y learned brother 2avide, /r., ,., rightly insists that the timber companies, whose

concession agreements or #@3s petitioners demand public respondents should

cancel, must be impleaded in the proceedings below. It might be ased that, if

petitioners entitlement to the relief demanded is not dependent upon proof of breach

by the timber companies of one or more of the specific terms and conditions of their

concession agreements +and this, petitioners implicitly assume, what will those

companies litigate aboutG #he answer I suggest is that they may see to dispute thee5istence of the specific legal right petitioners should allege, as well as the reality of

the claimed factual ne5us between petitioners specific legal rights and the claimed

wrongful acts or failures to act of public respondent administrative agency. #hey may

also controvert the appropriateness of the remedy or remedies demanded by

petitioners, under all the circumstances which e5ist.

I vote to grant the Petition for Certioraribecause the protection of the environment,

including the forest cover of our territory, is of e5treme importance for the country. #he

doctrines set out in the $ourts decision issued today should, however, be subjected tocloser e5amination.

= %parat% Op'n'ons

F"#IIANO, J., concurring

I join in the result reached by my distinguished brother in the $ourt, 2avide, /r., ,., in

this case which, to my mind, is one of the most important cases decided by this $ourt

in the last few years. #he seminal principles laid down in this decision are liely to

influence profoundly the direction and course of the protection and management of the

environment, which of course embraces the utili0ation of allthe natural resources in


23/28

the territorial base of our polity. I have therefore sought to clarify, basically to myself,

what the $ourt appears to be saying.

#he $ourt e5plicitly states that petitioners have the locus standinecessary to sustain

the bringing and, maintenance of this suit +2ecision, pp. 88-8:. Locus standiis not a

function of petitioners claim that their suit is properly regarded as a class suit.

understand locus standito refer to the legal interest which a plaintiff must have in thesubject matter of the suit. )ecause of the very broadness of the concept of "class" here

involved 7 membership in this "class" appears to embrace e$er"oneliving in the

country whether now or in the

future 7 it appears to me that everyone who may be e5pected to benefit from the

course of action petitioners see to re4uire public respondents to tae, is vested with

the necessary locus standi. #he $ourt may be seen therefore to be recogni0ing

a beneficiaries6 ri(ht of actionin the field of environmental protection, as against both

the public administrative agency directly concerned and the private persons or entitiesoperating in the field or sector of activity involved. hether such beneficiaries right of

action may be found under any and all circumstances, or whether some failure to act,

in the first instance, on the part of the governmental agency concerned must be shown

+"prior e5haustion of administrative remedies", is not discussed in the decision and

presumably is left for future determination in an appropriate case.

#he $ourt has also declared that the complaint has alleged and focused upon "one

specific fundamental legal right 7 the right to a balanced and healthful ecology"

+2ecision, p. 8=. #here is no 4uestion that "the right to a balanced and healthfulecology" is "fundamental" and that, accordingly, it has been "constitutionali0ed." )ut

although it is fundamental in character, I suggest, with very great respect, that it cannot

be characteri0ed as "specific," without doing e5cessive violence to language. It is in

fact very difficult to fashion language more comprehensive in scope and generali0ed in

character than a right to "a balanced and healthful ecology." #he list of particular claims

which can be subsumed under this rubic appears to be entirely open-ended6 prevention

and control of emission of to5ic fumes and smoe from factories and motor vehicles9 of

discharge of oil, chemical effluents, garbage and raw sewage into rivers, inland andcoastal waters by vessels, oil rigs, factories, mines and whole communities9 of dumping

of organic and inorganic wastes on open land, streets and thoroughfares9 failure to

rehabilitate land after strip-mining or open-pit mining9 0ain(inor slash-and-burn

farming9 destruction of fisheries, coral reefs and other living sea resources through the

use of dynamite or cyanide and other chemicals9 contamination of ground water

resources9 loss of certain species of fauna and flora9 and so on. #he other statements

pointed out by the $ourt6 Section ;, 5ecutive Brder %o. 8&: dated 8' /une 8&?(9


24/28

Section 8, #itle CID, )oo ID of the 8&?( 3dministrative $ode9 and P.2. %o. 88


25/28

3s a matter of logic, by finding petitioners cause of action as anchored on a legal right

comprised in the constitutional statements above noted, the $ourt is in effect saying

that Section 8< +and Section 8* of 3rticle II of the $onstitution are self-e5ecuting and

judicially enforceable even in their present form. #he implications of this doctrine wil

have to be e5plored in future cases9 those implications are too large and far-reaching in

nature even to be hinted at here.

!y suggestion is simply that petitioners must, before the trial court, show a more

specific legal right 7 a right cast in language of a significantly lower order of generality

than 3rticle II +8


26/28

ranging as "a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lac or e5cess of

jurisdiction," the result will be, it is respectfully submitted, to propel courts into the

uncharted ocean of social and economic policy maing. 3t least in respect of the

vast area of environmental protection and management, our courts have no claim

to special technical competence and e5perience and professional 4ualification.

here no specific, operable norms and standards are shown to e5ist, then the

policy maing departments 7 the legislative and e5ecutive departments 7 mustbe given a real and effective opportunity to fashion and promulgate those norms

and standards, and to implement them before the courts should intervene.

!y learned brother 2avide, /r., ,., rightly insists that the timber companies, whose

concession agreements or #@3s petitioners demand public respondents should

cancel, must be impleaded in the proceedings below. It might be ased that, if

petitioners entitlement to the relief demanded is not dependent upon proof of breach

by the timber companies of one or more of the specific terms and conditions of theirconcession agreements +and this, petitioners implicitly assume, what will those

companies litigate aboutG #he answer I suggest is that they may see to dispute the

e5istence of the specific legal right petitioners should allege, as well as the reality of

the claimed factual ne5us between petitioners specific legal rights and the claimed

wrongful acts or failures to act of public respondent administrative agency. #hey may

also controvert the appropriateness of the remedy or remedies demanded by

petitioners, under all the circumstances which e5ist.

I vote to grant the Petition for Certioraribecause the protection of the environment,including the forest cover of our territory, is of e5treme importance for the country. #he

doctrines set out in the $ourts decision issued today should, however, be subjected to

closer e5amination.

= Footnot%s

8 3ollo, 8*=9 8?*.

: Id., *:-*


27/28

( 3nne5 ")" of Petitions9 Id., =;-==.

? Paragraph (, Petition, *9 3ollo, :'.

& ebsters #hird %ew International 2ictionary, unabridged, 8&?*, 8


28/28

vs. Brbos, :': S$3 ?== K8&&8L9 )eng0on vs. Senate )lue ibbon

$ommittee, :'; S$3 (*( K8&&8L.

:= 3ollo, ==.

:< 8:< S$3 ;':, ;:< K8&?;L.

:* 8&' S$3 *(;, *?= K8&&'L.

:( 3rticle III, 8&?( $onstitution.

:? 88' Phil. 8&?, :'; K8&*'L9 footnotes omitted.

:& :&8 .S.

004 Oposa v Factoran

Documents

Transcript of 004 Oposa v Factoran