1) OPOSA v. FACTORAN (July 30, 1993)FACTS The present controversy has its genesis in a Civil Case filed by the plaintiffs,who are all minors, duly represented and joined by their parents. The complaintwasinstitutedasataxpayers classsuit andallegesthat theplaintiffsareciti!ensofthe"epublicof the#hilippines, taxpayers, andentitledtothefullbenefit, use and enjoyment of the natural resource treasure that is the countrysvirgin tropical forests. They further asseverate that they $represent theirgenerationas well as generations yet unborn.% Theysought tocancel allexisting Timber &icense Agreements 'T&As( in the country and to orderdefendant, then Secretary of the )epartment of *nvironment and +atural"esources, andits agents toceaseanddesist fromreceiving, accepting,processing, renewing or approving new T&As. The complaint included scientific evidence indicating how we could maintain abalancedandhealthfulecology. Anydistortionordisturbanceofthis balancehave resulted in environmental tragedies. The adverse effects of this continuedtrend of deforestation to the plaintiffs generation and to generations yet unbornare evident and incontrovertible. The continued allowance by the defendant ofT&A holderstocut anddeforest theremainingforest standswill wor,greatdamage and irreparable injury to plaintiffs who may never see, use, benefit fromand enjoy this rare and uni-ue natural resource treasure. )efendant filed a .otion to )ismiss the complaint on the grounds that plaintiffshave no cause of action and that the issue raised is a political -uestion. "espondent /udgeissuedanorder grantingtheaforementionedmotiontodismiss. 0n the said order, not only was the defendants claim was sustained,the defendant /udge further ruled that the granting of relief prayed for wouldresult in impairment of contracts which is prohibited by the fundamental law ofthe land. 1ence, plaintiffs filed the instant specialcivilaction forcertiorariand as, thisCourt to rescind and set aside the dismissal order on the ground thatrespondent /udge gravely abused his discretion in dismissing the action.ISSUE Whether the l!"#t"$$% h!ve l&'u% %t!#(" ) *ES."2&0+3 As to the matter of the cancellation of T&As, respondents submit that the samecannot be done by the State without violating due process of law. 4nce issued,a T&A remainseffectiveandthesamecanneitherberevisednorcancelledunless the holder has been found to have violated the terms of the agreementor other forestry laws and regulations. #etitioners5proposition to have alltheT&As indiscriminately cancelled without the re-uisite hearing would be violativeof the re-uirements of due process. All licenses may be revo,ed or rescinded. A timber license is an instrument bywhich the State regulates the utili!ation and disposition of forest resources tothe end that public welfare is promoted. A timber license is not a contract withinthe purview of the due process clause6 it is only a license or privilege, whichcan be validly withdrawn whenever dictated by public interest or public welfareas in this case. The subject matter of the complaint is of common and general interest not justto several, but to all citi!ens of the #hilippines. #laintiffs personality to sue inbehalf of succeeding generations is based on the concept of intergenerationalresponsibility insofar as the right to a balanced and healthful ecology isconcerned. Suchright considerstherhythmandharmonyof nature. *verygeneration has a responsibility to the next to preserve that rhythm and harmonyfor the full enjoyment of a balanced and healthful ecology. This specificfundamental legal right, the right to a balanced and healthful ecology, issolemnly incorporated in the fundamental law 'Section 78, Article 00 of the 79:;Constitution(. shore areas and othernatural resources, including the protection and enhancement of the -ualityof the environment, and e-uitable access of the different segments of thepopulation to the development and the use of the country5s naturalresources, not only for the present generation but for future generations aswell. 0t is also the policy of the state to recogni!e and apply a true valuesystem including social and environmental cost implications relative to theirutili!ation, development and conservation of our natural resources. Thispolicydeclarationissubstantiallyre>statedit TitleE0F,=oo,0Fof theAdministrative Code of 79:;, 1+ specifically in Section 7 thereof which readsDSec. 7. Declaration of Policy. ? '7( The State shall ensure, for the benefit oftheFilipinopeople, thefull explorationanddevelopment aswell asthejudicious disposition, utili!ation, management, renewal and conservation ofthe country5s forest, mineral, land, waters, fisheries, wildlife, off>shore areasand other natural resources, consistent with the necessity of maintaining asound ecologicalbalance and protecting and enhancing the -uality of theenvironment and the objective of ma,ing the exploration, development andutili!ationof suchnatural resourcese-uitablyaccessibletothedifferentsegments of the present as well as future generations.'@( The State shallli,ewise recogni!e and apply a true value system thatta,es into account social and environmental cost implications relative to theutili!ation, development and conservation of our natural resources. The above provision stresses Bthe necessity of maintaining a sound ecologicalbalance and protecting and enhancing the -uality of the environment.B Section@ of the same Title, on the other hand, specifically spea,s of the mandate of the)*+"6 however, it ma,es particular reference to the fact of the agency5s beingsubject to law and higher authority. Said section providesDSec. @.Mandate. ?'7( The )epartment of *nvironment and +atural"esources shall beprimarilyresponsiblefor theimplementationof theforegoing policy.'@( 0t shall, subject to law and higher authority, be in charge of carrying outthe State5s constitutional mandate to control and supervise the exploration,development, utili!ation, and conservation of the country5s naturalresources. =oth *.4. +4. 79@ and the Administrative Code of 79:; have set the objectiveswhichwill serveasthebasesfor policyformulation, andhavedefinedthepowers and functions of the )*+". 0t may, however, be recalled that even before the ratification of 79:;Constitution, specific statutes already paid special attention to theBenvironmental rightB of present and future generations. 4n 8 /une 79;;, #.).+o. 77G7 '#hilippine *nvironmental #olicy( and #.). +o. 77G@ '#hilippine*nvironment Code( were issued. The former Bdeclared a continuing policy ofthe State 'a( to create, develop, maintain and improve conditions under whichmanandnaturecanthriveinproductiveandenjoyableharmonywitheachother, 'b( to fulfill the social, economic and other re-uirements of present andfuture generations of Filipinos, and 'c( to insure the attainment of anenvironmental -uality that is conducive to a life of dignity and well>being.B As itsgoal, it spea,s of the Bresponsibilities of each generation as trustee andguardian of the environment for succeeding generations.B The latter statute, onthe other hand, gave flesh to the said policy. Thus, the right of the plaintiffs 'and all those they represent( to a balanced andhealthful ecology is as clear as )*+"5s duty ? under its mandate and by virtueof its powers and functions under *.4. +o. 79@ and the Administrative Code of79:; ? to protect and advance the said right. A denial or violation of that rightby the other who has the corelative duty or obligation to respect or protect thesame gives rise to a cause of action. #etitioners maintain that the granting ofthe T&As, which they claim was done with grave abuse of discretion, violatedtheir right to a balanced and healthful ecology6 hence, the full protection thereofre-uires that no further T&As should be renewed or granted.,)-A .U/A-0.1-AAN TRI.A- ASSOCIATION, INC. 2S. 2ICTOR O. RA3OS, ET A-. (3!r'h ,9, ,011)FACTS /ul. @G, 79:;D #res. A-uino issued *4 @;9 authori!ing the )*+" Secretary toaccept,consider and evaluateproposals from foreign>owned corporationsforcontracts involving either technical or financial assistance for large>scaleexploration, development and utili!ation of minerals. The #resident mayexecute with the foreign proponent, upon recommendation of the Secretary. .ar. C, 799GD #res. "amos approved "A ;9A@ '#hilippine .ining Act 799G( togovernthe exploration,development, utili!ation,andprocessing of all miningresources. 0t too, effect on Apr. 9, 799G. .ar. CH, 799GD #res. "amos entered into a Financial and Technical AssistanceAgreement 'FTAA( with intensive activities( exploration, development and utili!ation are nowallowed.o Third, +AT2"A& "*S42"C*S subject of the activitiesD restricted to.0+*"A&S, #*T"4&*2.and4T1*".0+*"A&40&S. Thisistolimitservice contracts to areas where Filipino capital is insufficient.o Fourth, theagreementsmust be0+ACC4")A+C*SCA&*exploration, development andutili!ationof minerals,petroleum and mineraloils, the #resident may enter into agreements withforeign>owned corporations involving financial or technical assistance. For theAthmodeli,einthecaseat bar, alegally>organi!edforeign>ownedcorporation'lessthanGHJof thecapital isownedbyFilipinociti!ens( isdeemed a -ualified person. &argescalein"A;9A@isdeterminedbythesi!eof thecontract areaasopposed to the amount invested 'OGH .( under *4 @;9. Also, the collection of government share in an FTAA shall commence AFT*"the FTAA Contractor has fully recovered its pre>operating expenses, explorationand development expenditures.0SS2*SK"2&0+3D1. Whether E.O. N&. ,49, the l!5 "# $&r'e 5he# the W3C FTAA 5!% e6e'ute(,'!7e"#t&e$$e't)*ES.*.4. +o. @;9becameeffectiveimmediatelyuponitspublication in the 4fficial 3a!ette on Aug. C, 79:;. AHJ( re-uirement. 0t was intended to be a safeguardto prevent abuses. Service contracts are not allowed. TheC4+C4.too, intoconsiderationthe$)raft of the79:82#&awConstitutional #roject% when it adopted the concept of $agreementsPinvolving either technical or financial assistance%.o The 2# &aw draft proponents viewed service contracts under the 79;CConstitutionasgrantsof beneficial ownershipof thecountrysnaturalresources to foreign owned corporations. $agreementsPinvolvingeithertechnical orfinancial assistance% > doesnot absolutelyindicatetheintent toexcludeother modes of assistance. The phrase signifies the possibility of theinclusion of other activities, provided they bear some reasonablerelationship to and compatibility with financial or technical assistance. 1adthey intended for an absolute prohibition, they would have adoptedlanguage unmista,ably restrictive and stringent. 0sof theviewthat the79:;Constitutionstill allowsforservicecontractssubject to several restrictions and modifications. 0nvalidating "A ;9A@ and the FTAA could unnecessarily burden the recoveryof the industry and the employment of opportunities it would li,ely generate.#rudent lending practices necessitate a certain degree of involvement in theborrowers management process. Also, technical arrangements oftennecessarily include interface with the management process itself. 0s of the view that he C4+C4. intended the Constitution to be flexible andadaptable. Taada v. Angara:There is a need to interpret the Constitution to cover$refreshing winds of change necessitated by unfolding events%.3) I%!9!#" Cru= v. >ENR (>e'e7:er ?, ,000)FACTS #etitioners0sagani Cru!andCesar *uropabrought suit for prohibitionandmandamus as citi!ens and taxpayers, assailing the constitutionality of certainprovisionsof the0ndigenous#eoples"ightsAct of 799;'"epublicAct +o.:C;7( and its 0mplementing "ules and "egulations. o Certainprovisionsof the0#"A andits0mplementing"ulesamount tounlawful deprivationof theStatesownershipoverlandsof thepublicdomain as wellas minerals and other natural resources, in violation ofthe "egalian )octrine embodied in Sec. @, Art. E00 of the Constitution.o =yprovidingforanall>encompassingdefinitionof $ancestral domains%and$ancestral lands% whichmight evenincludeprivatelandsfoundwithinsaidareas, SectionsC'a( andC'b( violatetherightsof privatelandowners.o #rovisions of the 0#"A defining the powers and jurisdiction of the +C0#andma,ingcustomarylawapplicabletothesettlement of disputesinvolving ancestral domains and ancestral lands violate the due processclause of the Constitution.o "uleF00, #art 00, Sec. 7of +C0# A.4. +o. 7whichprovidesthat $theadministrative relationship of the +C0# to the 4ffice of the #resident ischaracteri!ed as a lateralbut autonomous relationship for purposes ofpolicy and program coordination% infringes upon the #residents power ofcontrolover executive departments under Section 7;, Article F00 of theConstitution. "espondents were re-uired by the Court to comment.o Chairperson and Commissioners of the +ational Commission on0ndigenous #eoples '+C0#(, the government agency created by said Actto implement provisions, defended the constitutionality of 0#"A.Secretary of )*+" and Secretary of )epartment of =udget and.anagement ')=.( also filed their comment through the Solicitor3eneral, which viewed 0#"A as partly unconstitutional on the ground thatit grants ownership over natural resources to indigenous peoples. Sevaral parties filed for their .otions to 0ntervene.o Senator /uan Flavier 'one of the authors of 0#"A(, #onciano =ennagen'member of the 79:8 Constitutional Commission(, and leaders andmembers of 77@ groups of indigenous peoples joined +C0# in defendingthe constitutionality of 0#"A.o Commission on 1uman "ights 'C1"( asserted that 0#"A is anexpression of the principle of parens patriae and that the State has theresponsibility to protect and guarantee the rights of those who are at aserious disadvantage li,e indigenous peoples.o 0,alahan 0ndigenous #eople and the 1aribon Foundation forConservationof +atural "esources, 0nc. '1aribon, et al.( agreedwith+C0#, Flavier, et al. that 0#"A is consistent with the Constitution.ISSUE) Whether the @ue%t"e( r&v"%"% &$ IPRA !re u#'%t"tut"!l )NO.After duedeliberation, sevenmembersof theCourt votedtodismissthepetition, while seven other members of the Court voted to grant the petition. As thevotes were e-ually divided ';>;( and the necessary majority was not obtained, thecase was redeliberated upon.1owever, after redeliberation, the voting remainedthesame.Accordingly, pursuant to"uleG8, Section;of the"ules of Civil#rocedure, the petition is )0S.0SS*).Se!r!teAC'urr"#9A>"%%e#t"#9 O"#"