BALBERIA, BENNET C.| BAUTISTA, JOSEPH RAYMUND| BONITE, KIMNATURAL LAW 1C | ATTY. DAVID BERMUDO

OPOSA V. FACTORAN (G.R. No. 101083) July 30, 1993

I. FACTS:

This case deals with the prevention of the misappropriation or impairment of Philippinerainforests and arrest the unabated hemorrhage of the country’s vital life support systems andcontinued rape of Mother Earth.

In 1991 a case was filed by minors (represented by their parents) and the PhilippineEcological Network (PENI) against the then Secretary of the Department of Environment andNatural Resources (DENR), Fulgencio Factoran, Jr. who was substituted by the new secretary,Angel Alcala. The complaint was instituted to be a taxpayer’s class suit as it alleges that allcitizens of the Philippines are entitled to benefit, use and enjoyment of the country’s virgintropical rainforests. The suit also alleges that this suit represents people who are sharing thesame sentiment towards the preservation of our natural resources (since not all of them could gobefore the court). Furthermore, this was also asserted to be representative of the currentgeneration and generation that are yet to be born.

The suit calls for two primary actions that order the Department of Environment andNatural Resources (DENR), its agents, representatives, and those acting on its behalf to:

(a) Cancel all existing timber license agreements in the country and;(b) Cease and desist from receiving, accepting, processing, and renewing or approving

new timber license agreements.

The suit starts off with statement of facts regarding the country, the country’s islands, itsnatural resources, and scientific evidences pointing to the requirement for the country tomaintain a balanced and healthful ecology (54% should be use for forest cover and 46% foragricultural, residential, industrial, commercial, and other uses). They asserted thatdeforestation resulted in, a. water shortages b. salinization c. massive erosion and loss of soilfertility d. extinction of some of the countries flora and fauna e. disturbance and dislocation ofindigenous cultures f. siltation of rivers and seabed g. drought h. increasing velocity of typhoonwinds i. flooding of lowlands j. siltation and shortening of the life span of dams k. reduction ofearth’s capacity to process carbon dioxide.

Initially the petition was dismissed on the grounds of lack of cause of action, of beingpolitical question, and of causing the impairment of contracts. The petitioners filed for certiorarihence this case. They contend that there is a cause of action using articles 19, 20, and 21 of theCivil Code (the right to a sound environment), Section 4 of Executive Order No. 192 that calls forthe creation of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) to safeguard thepeople’s right to a healthful environment, Section 3 of Presidential Decree No. 1151 ( PhilippineEnvironmental Policy), and Section 16, Article II of the 1987 Constitution that recognizes theright of the people to a balanced and healthful ecology. As well as the concept of generationalgenocide in Criminal Law and the concept of man’s inalienable right to self-preservation andself-perpetuation in natural law.

II. ISSUES:

1. Whether or not the plaintiffs, minors, can file a class action suit in behalf of all Filipinos?

2. Whether or not the complaint raises a justiciable issue?

3. Whether or not the original prayer of the plaintiffs result in the impairment of contracts?

III. RULING

BALBERIA, BENNET C.| BAUTISTA, JOSEPH RAYMUND| BONITE, KIMNATURAL LAW 1C | ATTY. DAVID BERMUDO

1. Yes they can, following the concept of intergenerational responsibility. Every generation has aresponsibility to the next to preserve the rhythm and harmony for the full enjoyment of abalanced and healthful environment.

2. Yes. The respondent judge committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack ofjurisdiction because it failed to recognize the legal right of the petitioners which is the right to abalanced and healthful ecology that is incorporated in the 1987 Constitution under Section 16Article II.

Moreover, these rights need not be written in the Constitution for this deals with rightsthat are assumed from the very inception oh humankind. The reason why it was written wasbecause the framers feared that without a mandate as stated in the state policies futuregenerations would inherit nothing to sustain life. It is clear then that there is a legal right for abalanced healthful ecology and the right to health. Given that it could also be said that this rightis further supported by Executive Order No. 192 and the Administrative Code of 1987 makingthe cause of action existent.

4. No, it does not violate the non-impairment clause because licenses are not contracts,properties or a property right that is protected by the due process clause of the Constitution. Asthe court held in Tan v. Director of Forestry, a license is merely a permit or privilege to do whatotherwise would be unlawful and is not a contract. It is not irrevocable. The Chief Executive mayvalidly amend, modify, replace, or rescind licenses when national interests so require.

Given that it is not a contract, the non-impairment clause cannot be invoked.

Even if the licenses are contracts, the action stated in the case still does not affect it giventhat no law or action by the Chief Executive to amend, modify, replace, or rescind licenses so it iscould not as of the moment be invoked. And furthermore, if there would be a law passed itwould not be considered as a violation of the non-impairment clause as the very nature of thelaw deals with the exercising of the police power of the state to advance the right of the people toa balanced and healthful ecology. The non-impairment clause yields to the police power of thestate.

IV. APPLICATION OF NATURAL LAW

1. Interpretative Use of Natural Law

“While the right to a balanced and healthful ecology is to be found under the Declaration ofPrinciples and State Policies and not under the Bill of Rights, it does not follow that it is lessimportant than any of the civil and political rights enumerated in the latter. Such a rightbelongs to a different category of rights altogether for it concerns nothing lessthan self-preservation and self-perpetuation — aptly and fittingly stressed by thepetitioners — the advancement of which may even be said to predate allgovernments and constitutions. As a matter of fact, these basic rights need noteven be written in the Constitution for they are assumed to exist from theinception of humankind. If they are now explicitly mentioned in the fundamental charter,it is because of the well-founded fear of its framers that unless the rights to a balanced andhealthful ecology and to health are mandated as state policies by the Constitution itself,thereby highlighting their continuing importance and imposing upon the state a solemnobligation to preserve the first and protect and advance the second, the day would not be toofar when all else would be lost not only for the present generation, but also for those to come —generations which stand to inherit nothing but parched earth incapable of sustaining life.”

2. Justificatory Use of Natural Law

BALBERIA, BENNET C.| BAUTISTA, JOSEPH RAYMUND| BONITE, KIMNATURAL LAW 1C | ATTY. DAVID BERMUDO

When Supreme Court allowed minors to be petitioners of a class action suit

“The subject matter of the complaint is of common and general interest not just toseveral, but to all citizens of the Philippines. Consequently, since the parties are sonumerous, it, becomes impracticable, if not totally impossible, to bring all of them before thecourt. We likewise declare that the plaintiffs therein are numerous and representative enoughto ensure the full protection of all concerned interests.

Petitioners minors assert that they represent their generation as well as generationsyet unborn. We find no difficulty in ruling that they can, for themselves, for others of theirgeneration and for the succeeding generations, file a class suit. Their personality to sue inbehalf of the succeeding generations can only be based on the concept of intergenerationalresponsibility insofar as the right to a balanced and healthful ecology is concerned.”

3. Regulatory Use of Natural Law

“We reiterated this pronouncement in Felipe Ysmael, Jr. & Co., Inc. vs. Deputy ExecutiveSecretary: 26

. . . Timber licenses, permits and license agreements are the principalinstruments by which the State regulates the utilization and dispositionof forest resources to the end that public welfare is promoted. And itcan hardly be gainsaid that they merely evidence a privilege granted bythe State to qualified entities, and do not vest in the latter a permanentor irrevocable right to the particular concession area and the forestproducts therein. They may be validly amended, modified, replaced orrescinded by the Chief Executive when national interests so require. Thus,they are not deemed contracts within the purview of the due process of lawclause [See Sections 3(ee) and 20 of Pres. Decree No. 705, as amended. Also,Tan v. Director of Forestry, G.R. No. L-24548, October 27, 1983, 125 SCRA 302].”