Climate change activists have taken their fight for flooding mitigation measures to the Philippines'

supreme court, in a case that would also test the effectiveness of the world's first ever "writ of kalikasan"
(nature).
Global egal !ction on Climate Change (G!CC), a civil societ" organi#ation headed b" environmental
law"er !ntonio $posa, has asked the %igh &ribunal to compel the government to implement two old laws
that could ease flooding, a common problem in the Philippines and one e'pected to worsen as climate
change brings more severe storms and sea level rise.
"(e, ordinar" citi#ens, dare to come forward and bring up this matter of e'treme urgenc" before a more
stable branch of government) a court of *ustice," G!CC said in its petition. "(e, ordinar" citi#ens + from
whence emanate all governmental power + humbl" seek to use the law to compel our so+called political
leaders to take notice, and then take positive action."
G!CC is seeking a remed" under the writ of kalikasan, described b" newl"+retired chief *ustice ,e"nato
Puno as the first legal weapon in the world that empowers the man+on+the+street to seek concrete actions
for ecological protection from their government officials. &he high court promulgated the writ last !pril.
-./0G !( &$ 1$,C2 G$32,0420& !C&/$0
-nder this writ, the court can issue a writ of mandamus commanding the government to e'ecute laws
alread" on the books. /n this case, those include ,epublic !cts 5675 and 6758, which mandate the
construction of rainwater collectors, mainl" manmade ponds.
"&he simple solution (to flooding) is to find a receptacle for the e'cess waters," G!CC e'plained in its
petition. "/n areas that have alread" been paved over with concrete, like our cities, the need to put up
water catchment and rainwater collectors is even more pronounced and even more urgent."
,! 5675, the rainwater collector and springs development law, enacted on 4arch 76, 79:9, re;uires each
baranga", or village, to have a rainwater collector.
.ection76 of ,! 6758, or the local government code, directs local government officials such as ma"ors to
provide "small water impounding pro*ects and other similar pro*ects< fish ports< artesian wells, spring
development, rainwater collectors and water suppl" s"stems< seawalls, dikes, drainage and sewerage, and
flood control."
/f the high court grants G!CC's petition for a writ of kalikasan, it will force a range of government
agencies, from the $ffice of the President to the =epartment of Public (orks and %ighwa"s (=P(%), the
eague of 4unicipalities, Cities and Provinces and the countr"'s Climate Change Commission to fund
and oversee the establishment of 788,888 rainwater collectors all over the Philippines.
!ll of the above agencies b" law are responsible for the creation and maintenance of rainwater collectors.
&he Climate Change Commission is a newl"+formed bod" that coordinates programs and policies on
climate change mitigation and adaptation.
!C&/$0 $0 1$$=/0G $0G $32,=-2
,! 5675 mandates the establishment of 788,888 catchment ponds nationwide, but according to the
national public works department onl" four have been constructed since the law was enacted in 79:9.
"4ore than >7 "ears have passed and this law lies atrophied in the sickbed of non+compliance," G!CC
said in its petition.
G!CC particularl" named as respondents the cit" of 4andalu"ong, the municipalit" of ?inalonan in the
province of Pangasinan, ?aranga" :@ in Caloocan cit" and the province of 4isamis $ccidental. &hese
places are home to over A8,888 villages with no rainwater collectors.
%eherson !lvare#, chair of the Climate Change Commission, said he welcomed the petition.
"&hese kind of cases should be encouraged," he said.
%e noted, however, that the commission, formed in late >889, would rather provide a s"stemic solution to
the problem of flooding than *ust create rainwater collectors.
&he commission focuses in part on disaster risk reduction and is looking at river basin management as a
whole.
"(e want to do it s"stemicall"," he said.
4andalu"ong cit" 4a"or ?enhur !balos, however, was surprised that his cit" was named as a respondent
and accused G!CC of cherr"+picking.
"&he" are *ust looking at one aspect," he said. 4andalu"ong has taken a lead role in responding to the
challenges of climate change, he said, though the" have prioriti#ed the reduction of carbon emissions.
4andalu"ong is the first cit" in the Philippines to pass an ordinance mandating the conversion of two+
stroke engines in three+wheel motorbikes to four+stroke engines. 1our+stroke engines use less fuel and are
more environment+friendl".
!(B2, %!. P,23/$-. (/0.
&he potentiall" landmark case would not be the first for $posa, who has pushed through a number of
ambitious legal orders so far.
/n >88:, $posa succeeded in getting the court to compel the government to clean up 4anila ?a", a 79
kilometer+long harbor damaged b" pollution.
!s a result, the =epartment of ?udget and 4anagement allocated 7.5@ billion pesos (about C>7 million)
for the cleanup the following "ear.
&he 4anila 4etropolitan =evelopment !uthorit" and the =epartment of 2nvironment and 0atural
,esources (=20,) said the" would use the mone" to improve water ;ualit" management and rehabilitate
drainage s"stems.
&urning the mone" into action has still proved difficult, however. &he court has subse;uentl" had to
threaten to hold government officials in contempt if the" do not act on the court order.
$posa in 799D also won $posa v. 1actoran, a case in which "oung petitioners, all minors, asked the
=epartment of 2nvironment and 0atural ,esources to cancel all timber license agreements.
! trial court initiall" refused the case in order to uphold a constitutional provision on the non+impairment
of contracts. ?ut the %igh &ribunal said such agreements are merel" licenses, not contracts, and as such
could be revoked an"time.
&he .upreme Court also gave weight to the fact that children have legal standing to ask the =20,
secretar" to protect forests for future generations. &he %igh &ribunal ruled that the case should be
resolved b" the lower court.
!gain, however, no timber license was cancelled after the celebrated court decision, as the case was not
brought again to the trial court.
=espite the challenges of producing real change on the ground, $posa hopes that he will be victorious
again in his latest legal challenge.
"/ would not have filed it if / did not e'pect it to be acted upon positivel" b" the courts," he said.
C!.2 C$-= &,/GG2, $&%2, .-/&.
/f the petition is granted, environmental groups sa" it will spark a number of cases which could propel
government actions against climate change and environmental degradation.
&he People's 0etwork for 2nvironment (P02), for one, plans to ask the court to order the government to
desist from approving mining pro*ects.
P02 national coordinator Clemente ?autista said that mining has led to massive deforestation, destro"ing
carbon sinks all over the countr".
"(e challenge the supreme court and the legislative bodies of the government to further strengthen the
laws and rules that protect our environment and conserve our natural resources. (&he court) must take
another positive step b" reviewing, reversing or *unking laws that have been proven to be detrimental not
onl" to our environment but to our people as well, such as the 4ining !ct of 799A," he said.
!ntonio a 3ina, a member of the Philippine climate change negotiating team, predicted that the writ of
kalikasan "can be used against an" ma*or carbon dio'ide producer."
E E E
$posa et al. v. 1ulgencio .. 1actoran, Fr. et al
Nature of the Case:
Class action seeking the cancellation and non+issuance of timber licence agreements which allegedl"
infringed the constitutional right to a balanced and healthful ecolog" (.ection 75)< non+impairment of
contracts< 2nvironmental law< *udicial review and the political ;uestion doctrine< inter+generational
responsibilit"< ,emedial law) cause of action and standing< =irective principles< 0egative obligation on
.tate
Summary:
!n action was filed b" several minors represented b" their parents against the =epartment of
2nvironment and 0atural ,esources to cancel e'isting timber license agreements in the countr" and to
stop issuance of new ones. /t was claimed that the resultant deforestation and damage to the environment
violated their constitutional rights to a balanced and healthful ecolog" and to health (.ections 75 and 7A,
!rticle // of the Constitution). &he petitioners asserted that the" represented others of their generation as
well as generations "et unborn.
1inding for the petitioners, the Court stated that even though the right to a balanced and healthful ecolog"
is under the =eclaration of Principles and .tate Policies of the Constitution and not under the ?ill of
,ights, it does not follow that it is less important than an" of the rights enumerated in the latter) [it]
concerns nothing less than self-preservation and self-perpetuation, the advancement of which may even
be said to predate all governments and constitutions. &he right is linked to the constitutional right to
health, is GfundamentalH, GconstitutionalisedH, Gself+e'ecutingH and G*udiciall" enforceableH. /t imposes
the correlative dut" to refrain from impairing the environment.
&he court stated that the petitioners were able to file a class suit both for others of their generation and for
succeeding generations as 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.
Significance of the Case:
&his case has been widel"+cited in *urisprudence worldwide, particularl" in cases relating to forestItimber
licensing. %owever, the approach of the Philippino .upreme Court to economic, social and cultural rights
has proved somewhat inconsistent, with some *udgments resulting in the enforcement of such rights (e.g.,
=el ,osario v ?ang#on, 7:8 .C,! A>7 (79:9)< Manila rince !otel v "overnment #ervice $nsurance
#ystem, G. ,. 0o. 7>>7A5 (D 1ebruar", 7996) but at least one instance in which the Court made a
statement that economic, social and cultural rights are not real rights (see, %rigido #imon v &ommission
on !uman 'ights, G. ,. 0o. 7887A8, A Fanuar" 799@).
olitical (aw ) !armony in *ature
! ta'pa"erJs class suit was initiated b" the Philippine 2cological 0etwork /ncorporated (P20/) together
with the minors $posa and their parents. !ll were dul" represented. &he" claimed that as ta'pa"ers the"
have the right to the full benefit, use and en*o"ment of the natural resources of the countr"Js rainforests.
&he" pra"ed that a *udgment be rendered ordering %onorable 1actoran Fr, his agents, representatives and
other persons acting in his behalf to cancel all e'isting timber license agreements in the countr" and cease
and desist from receiving, accepting, processing, renewing or approving new timber license agreements.
ISSUE: (hether or not petitioners have a cause of actionK
HELD: Bes, petitioners have a cause of action. &he case at bar is of common interest to all 1ilipinos. &he
right to a balanced and health" ecolog" carries with it the correlative dut" to refrain from impairing the
environment. &he said right implies the *udicious management of the countr"Js forests. &his right is also
the mandate of the government through =20,. ! denial or violation of that right b" the other who has the
correlative dut" or obligation to respect or protect the same gives rise to a cause of action. !ll licenses
ma" thus be revoked or rescinded b" e'ecutive action.
FACTS:
&he petitioners, all minors dul" represented and *oined b" their respective parents, filed a petition to
cancel all e'isting timber license agreements (&!s) in the countr" and to cease and desist from
receiving, accepting, processing, renewing or approving new timber license agreements. &his case is
filed not onl" on the appellantsJ right as ta'pa"ers, but the" are also suing in behalf of succeeding
generations based on the concept of Gintergenerational responsibilit"H in so far as the right to a balanced
and healthful ecolog" is concerned.
&ogether with the Philippine 2cological 0etwork, /nc. (P20/), the petitioners presented scientific
evidence that deforestation have resulted in a host of environmental tragedies. $ne of these is the
reduction of the earthJs capacit" to process carbon dio'ide, otherwise known as the Ggreenhouse effectH.
Continued issuance b" the defendant of &!s to cut and deforest the remaining forest stands will work
great damage and irreparable in*ur" to the plaintiffs. !ppellants have e'hausted all administrative
remedies with the defendantJs office regarding the plea to cancel the said &!s. &he defendant, however,
fails and refuses to cancel e'isting &!s.
ISSUES:
1. (hether or not the petitioners have legal standing on the said case
2. !dmitting that all facts presented are true, whether or not the court can render a valid *udgement
in accordance to the pra"er of the complaints
3. (hether or not the &!s ma" be revoked despite the respondents standing that these
cancellation of these &!s are against the non+impairment clause of the Constitution
HELD:
1. &he petitioners have locus standi (legal standing) on the case as a ta'pa"ersJ (class) suit. &he
sub*ect matter of complaint is of common and general interest to all the citi#ens of the
Philippines. &he court found difficult" in ruling that the appellants can, for themselves, and for
others file a class suit.
2. &he right of the petitioners to a balanced and healthful ecolog" has been clearl" stated. ! denial
or violation of that right b" the other who has the correlative dut" or obligation to respect or
protect the same gives rise to a cause of action. &he granting of the &!s, as the petitioners
claim to be done with grave abuse of discretion, violated their right to a balanced and healthful
ecolog" hence, the full protection thereof re;uires that no &!s should be renewed or
granted. &he appellants have also submitted a document with the sub+header C!-.2 $1
!C&/$0 which is ade;uate enough to show, prima facie, the violation of their rights. $n this
basis, these actions must therefore be granted, wholl" or partiall".
3. =espite the ConstitutionJs non+impairment clause, &!s are not contracts, rather licenses< thus,
the said clause cannot be invoked. 2ven if these are protected b" the said clause, these can be
revoked if the public interest so re;uired as stated in .ection >8 of the 1orestr" ,eform Code
(P.=. 0o. 68A). 1urthermore, .ection 75 of !rticle // of the 79:6 Constitution e'plicitl" provides
that) G&he .tate shall protect the right of the people to a balanced and healthful ecolog" in accord
with the rh"thm and harmon" of nature.H &he right to a balanced and healthful ecolog" carries
with it the correlative dut" to refrain from impairing the government. &he said right is also clear
as the =20,Js dut" L under its mandate and b" virtue of its powers and functions under
2'ecutive $rder 0o. 79> and the !dministrative Code of 79:6 to protect and advance the said
right.
0eedless to sa", all licenses ma" thus be revoked or rescinded. /t is not a contract, propert" or propert"
right protected b" the due process clause of the Constitution.
$posa et al. v. 1ulgencio .. 1actoran, Fr. et al
Fuan !ntonio $posa et al., v. &he %onorable 1ulgencio .. 1actoran, Fr., in his capacit" as the .ecretar" of
the =epartment of 2nvironment and 0atural ,esources, and the %onorable 2riberto -. ,osario, Presiding
Fudge of the ,&C, 4akati, ?ranch 55, respondents. MG.,. 0o. 7878:D. Ful" D8, 799DN
20 ?!0C
$posa aw $ffice for petitioners.
&he .olicitor General for respondents.
.B!?-.
7. /0.&/&-&/$0! !(< =2C!,!&/$0 $1 P,/0C/P2. !0= .&!&2 P$/C/2.< ,/G%& &$ !
?!!0C2= !0= %2!&%1- 2C$$GB, C$0.&,-2=.
&he complaint focuses on one specific fundamental legal right the right to a balanced and healthful
ecolog" which, for the first time in our nationOs constitutional histor", is solemnl" incorporated in the
fundamental law. .ection 75, !rticle // of the 79:6 Constitution e'plicitl" provides) ".2C. 75. &he .tate
shall protect and advance the right of the people to a balanced and healthful ecolog" in accord with the
rh"thm and harmon" of nature." &his right unites with the right to health which is provided for in the
preceding section of the same article) ".2C. 7A. &he .tate shall protect and promote the right to health of
the people and instill health consciousness among them." (hile the right to a balanced and healthful
ecolog" is to be found under the =eclaration of Principles and .tate Policies and not under the ?ill of
,ights, it does not follow that it is less important than an" of the civil and political rights enumerated in
the latter. .uch a right belongs to a different categor" of rights altogether for it concerns nothing less than
selfpreservation and selfperpetuation aptl" and fittingl" stressed b" the petitioners the
advancement of which ma" even be said to predate all governments and constitutions. !s a matter of fact,
these basic rights need not even be written in the Constitution for the" are assumed to e'ist from the
inception of humankind. /f the" are now e'plicitl" mentioned in the fundamental charter, it is because of
the wellfounded fear of its framers that unless the rights to a balanced and healthful ecolog" and to
health are mandated as state policies b" the Constitution itself, thereb" highlighting their continuing
importance and imposing upon the state a solemn obligation to preserve the first and protect and advance
the second, the da" would not be too far when all else would be lost not onl" for the present generation,
but also for those to come generations which stand to inherit nothing but parched earth incapable of
sustaining life. &he right to a balanced and healthful ecolog" carries with it the correlative dut" to refrain
from impairing the environment.
>. /=.< /=.< &/4?2, /C20.2.< 0!&-,2 &%2,2$1< 0$0/4P!/,420& C!-.2 4!B 0$&
?2 /03$P2=< C!.2 !& ?!,. all licenses ma" thus be revoked or rescinded b" e'ecutive action. /t
is not a contract, propert" or a propert" right protected b" the due process clause of the Constitution. /n
&an vs. =irector of 1orestr", (7>A .C,! D8>, D>A M79:DN) &his Court held) ". . . ! timber license is an
instrument b" which the .tate regulates the utili#ation and disposition of forest resources to the end that
public welfare is promoted. ! timber license is not a contract within the purview of the due process
clause< it is onl" a license or privilege, which can be validl" withdrawn whenever dictated b" public
interest or public welfare as in this case. O! license is merel" a permit or privilege to do what otherwise
would be unlawful, and is not a contract between the authorit", federal, state, or municipal, granting it and
the person to whom it is granted< neither is it propert" or a propert" right, nor does it create a vested right<
nor is it ta'ationO (D6 C.F. 75:). &hus, this Court held that the granting of license does not create
irrevocable rights, neither is it propert" or propert" rights (People vs. $ng &in, A@ $.G. 6A65) . . ." (e
reiterated this pronouncement in 1elipe Bsmael, Fr. Q Co., /nc. vs. =eput" 2'ecutive .ecretar") (798
.C,! 56D 5:@ M7998N) ". . . &imber licenses, permits and license agreements are the principal instruments
b" which the .tate regulates the utili#ation and disposition of forest resources to the end that public
welfare is promoted. !nd it can hardl" be gainsaid that the" merel" evidence a privilege granted b" the
.tate to ;ualified entities, and do not vest in the latter a permanent or irrevocable right to the particular
concession area and the forest products therein. &he" ma" be validl" amended, modified, replaced or
rescinded b" the Chief 2'ecutive when national interests so re;uire. &hus, the" are not deemed contracts
within the purview of the due process of law clause M.ee .ections D(ee) and >8 of Pres. =ecree 0o. 68A,
as amended. !lso, &an v. =irector of 1orestr", G.,. 0o. >@A@:, $ctober >6, 79:D, 7>A .C,! D8>N."
.ince timber licenses are not contracts, the nonimpairment clause, which reads) ".2C. 78. 0o law
impairing the obligation of contracts shall be passed." /n the second place, even if it is to be assumed that
the same are contracts, the instant case does not involve a law or even an e'ecutive issuance declaring the
cancellation or modification of e'isting timber licenses. %ence, the nonimpairment clause cannot as "et
be invoked. 0evertheless, granting further that a law has actuall" been passed mandating cancellations or
modifications, the same cannot still be stigmati#ed as a violation of the nonimpairment clause. &his is
because b" its ver" nature and purpose, such a law could have onl" been passed in the e'ercise of the
police power of the state for the purpose of advancing the right of the people to a balanced and healthful
ecolog", promoting their health and enhancing the general welfare. /n !be vs. 1oster (heeler Corp., (778
Phil. 79:, >8D M7958N) this Court stated) "&he freedom of contract, under our s"stem of government, is not
meant to be absolute. &he same is understood to be sub*ect to reasonable legislative regulation aimed at
the promotion of public health, moral, safet" and welfare. /n other words, the constitutional guarant" of
nonimpairment of obligations of contract is limited b" the e'ercise of the police power of the .tate, in
the interest of public health, safet", moral and general welfare." &he reason for this is emphaticall" set
forth in 0ebia vs. 0ew Bork, (>97 -... A8>, A>D, 6: . ed. 9@8 9@69@9) ;uoted in Philippine !merican
ife /nsurance Co. vs. !uditor General, (>> .C,! 7DA, 7@57@6 M795:N) to wit) "O-nder our form of
government the use of propert" and the making of contracts are normall" matters of private and not of
public concern. &he general rule is that both shall be free of governmental interference. ?ut neither
propert" rights nor contract rights are absolute< for government cannot e'ist if the citi#en ma" at will use
his propert" to the detriment of his fellows, or e'ercise his freedom of contract to work them harm.
2;uall" fundamental with the private right is that of the public to regulate it in the common interest.O" /n
court, the nonimpairment clause must "ield to the police power of the state. ($ngsiako vs. Gamboa, :5
Phil. A8 M79A8N< !be vs. 1oster (heeler Corp., supra< Phil. !merican ife /nsurance Co. vs. !uditor
General, supra< !lal"an vs. 0,C, >@scra 76> M795:N< 3ictoriano vs. 2li#alde ,ope (orkers -nion, A9
.C,! A@ M796@N< Pabiling vs. 0ational %ousing !uthorit", 7A5 .C,! 5>D M79:6N).
D. /=.< F-=/C/! ,23/2(< 0$ $0G2, /4P!/,2= ?B &%2 P$/&/C! R-2.&/$0
=$C&,/02< ,!&/$0!2. /t must, nonetheless, be emphasi#ed that the political ;uestion doctrine is
no longer the insurmountable obstacle to the e'ercise of *udicial power or the impenetrable shield that
protects e'ecutive and legislative actions from *udicial in;uir" or review. &he second paragraph of section
7, !rticle 3/// of the Constitution states that) "Fudicial power includes the dut" of the courts of *ustice to
settle actual controversies involving rights which are legall" demandable and enforceable, and to
determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or e'cess of
*urisdiction on the part of an" branch or instrumentalit" of the Government." Commenting on this
provision in his book, Philippine Political aw, 4r. Fustice /sagani !. Cru#, a distinguished member of
this Court, sa"s) "&he first part of the authorit" represents the traditional concept of *udicial power,
involving the settlement of conflicting rights as conferred b" law. &he second part of the authorit"
represents a broadening of *udicial power to enable the courts of *ustice to review what was before
forbidden territor", to wit, the discretion of the political departments of the government. !s worded, the
new provision vests in the *udiciar", and particularl" the .upreme Court, the power to rule upon even the
wisdom of the decisions of the e'ecutive and the legislature and to declare their acts invalid for lack or
e'cess of *urisdiction because tainted with grave abuse of discretion. &he catch, of course, is the meaning
of Ograve abuse of discretion,O which is a ver" elastic phrase that can e'pand or contract according to the
disposition of the *udiciar"." /n =a#a vs. .ingson, (7:8 .C,! @95, A87A8> M79:9N. .ee also Coseteng
vs. 4itra, 7:6 .C,! D66 M7998N< Gon#ales vs. 4acaraig, 797 .C,! :@@ M7997N< ?eng#on vs. .enate
?lue ,ibbon Committee, >8D .C,! 656 M7997N) 4r. Fustice Cru#, now speaking for this Court, noted)
"/n the case now before us, the *urisdictional ob*ection 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 resolving it under the e'panded *urisdiction conferred upon us that now
covers, in proper cases, even the political ;uestion. !rticle 3//, .ection 7, of the Constitution clearl"
provides) . . ."
@. ,242=/! !(< P2!=/0G.< C!-.2 $1 !C&/$0, =21/02=< C!.2 !& ?!,. the right of
the petitioners (and all those the" represent) to a balanced and healthful ecolog" is as clear as the =20,Os
dut" under its mandate and b" virtue of its powers and functions under 2.$. 0o. 79> and the
!dministrative Code of 79:6 to protect and advance the said right. ! denial or violation of that right
b" the other who has the correlative dut" or obligation to respect or protect the same gives rise to a cause
of action. Petitioners maintain that the granting of the &!s, which the" claim was done with grave abuse
of discretion, violated their right to a balanced and healthful ecolog"< hence, the full protection thereof
re;uires that no further &!s should be renewed or granted. ! cause of action is defined as) ". . . an act or
omission of one part" in violation of the legal right or rights of the other< and its essential elements are
legal right of the plaintiff, correlative obligation of the defendant, and act or omission of the defendant in
violation of said legal right." (4arao .ugar Central Co. vs. ?arrios, 69 Phil. 555 M79@6N< Communit"
/nvestment and 1inance Corp. vs. Garcia, :: Phil. >7A M79A7N< ,emitere vs. vda. de Bulo, 75 .C,! >A7
M7955N< CaseSas vs. ,osales, 79 .C,! @5> M7956N< 3irata vs. .andiganba"an, >8> .C,! 5:8 M7997N<
4adrona vs. ,osal, >8@ .C,! 7 M7997N.
A. /=.< /=.< 4$&/$0 &$ =/.4/..< !CP $1 C!-.2 $1 !C&/$0, !. ! G,$-0=< ,-2< C!.2
!& ?!,. /t is settled in this *urisdiction that in a motion to dismiss based on the ground that the
complaint fails to state a cause of action, the ;uestion submitted to the court for resolution involves the
sufficienc" of the facts alleged in the complaint itself. 0o other matter should be considered< furthermore,
the truth or falsit" of the said allegations is beside the point for the truth thereof is deemed h"potheticall"
admitted. &he onl" issue to be resolved in such a case is) admitting such alleged facts to be true, ma" the
court render a valid *udgment in accordance with the pra"er in the complaintK /n 4ilitante vs.
2drosolano, this Court laid down the rule that the *udiciar" should "e'ercise the utmost care and
circumspection in passing upon a motion to dismiss on the ground of the absence thereof Mcause of actionN
lest, b" its failure to manifest a correct appreciation of the facts alleged and deemed h"potheticall"
admitted, what the law grants or recogni#es is effectivel" nullified. /f that happens, there is a blot on the
legal order. &he law itself stands in disrepute." !fter a careful e'amination of the petitionersO complaint,
(e find the statements under the introductor" affirmative allegations, as well as the specific averments
under the subheading C!-.2 $1 !C&/$0, to be ade;uate enough to show, prima facie, the claimed
violation of their rights. $n the basis thereof, the" ma" thus be granted, wholl" or partl", the reliefs
pra"ed for.
12/C/!0$, F., concurring)
7. ,242=/! !(< !C&/$0.< $C-. .&!0=/, C$0.&,-2=< C!.2 !& ?!,. &he Court
e'plicitl" states that petitioners have the locus standi necessar" to sustain the bringing and maintenance of
this suit (=ecision, pp. 777>). ocus standi is not a function of petitionersO claim that their suit is
properl" regarded as a class suit. / understand locus standi to refer to the legal interest which a plaintiff
must have in the sub*ect matter of the suit. ?ecause of the ver" broadness of the concept of "class" here
involved membership in this "class" appears to embrace ever"one living in the countr" whether now or
in the future it appears to me that ever"one who ma" be e'pected to benefit from the course of action
petitioners seek to re;uire public respondents to take, is vested with the necessar" locus standi. &he Court
ma" be seen therefore to be recogni#ing a beneficiariesO right of action in the field of environmental
protection, as against both the public administrative agenc" directl" concerned and the private persons or
entities operating in the field or sector of activit" involved. (hether such a beneficiariesO right of action
ma" be found under an" and all circumstances, or whether some failure to act, in the first instance, on the
part of the governmental agenc" concerned must be shown ("prior e'haustion of administrative
remedies"), is not discussed in the decision and presumabl" is left for future determination in an
appropriate case.
>. C$0.&/&-&/$0! !(< =2C!,!&/$0 $1 P,/0C/P2. !0= .&!&2 P$/C/2.< ,/G%& &$
"! ?!!0C2 !0= %2!&%1- 2C$$GB"< /0&2,P,2&!&/$0. &he Court has also declared
that the complaint has alleged and focused upon "one specific fundamental legal right the right to a
balanced and healthful ecolog"" (=ecision, p. 7@). &here is no ;uestion that "the right to a balanced and
healthful ecolog"" is "fundamental" and that, accordingl", it has been "constitutionali#ed." ?ut although it
is fundamental in character, / suggest, with ver" great respect, that it cannot be characteri#ed as
"specific," without doing e'cessive violence to language. /t is in fact ver" difficult to fashion language
more comprehensive in scope and generali#ed in character than a right to "a balanced and healthful
ecolog"." &he list of particular claims which can be subsumed under this rubric appears to be entirel"
openended) prevention and control of emission of to'ic fumes and smoke from factories and motor
vehicles< of discharge of oil, chemical effluents, garbage and raw sewage into rivers, inland and coastal
waters b" vessels, oil rigs, factories, mines and whole communities< of dumping of organic and inorganic
wastes on open land, streets and thoroughfares< failure to rehabilitate land after stripmining or
openpit mining< kaingin or slashandburn farming< destruction of fisheries, coral reefs and other
living sea resources through the use of d"namite or c"anide and other chemicals< contamination of ground
water resources< loss of certain species of fauna and flora< and so on. &he other statements pointed out b"
the Court) .ection D, 2'ecutive $rder 0o. 79> dated 78 Fune 79:6< .ection 7, &itle T/3, ?ook /3 of the
79:6 !dministrative Code< and P.=. 0o. 77A7, dated 5 Fune 7966 all appear to be formulations of
polic", as general and abstract as the constitutional statements of basic polic" in !rticle //, .ections 75
("the right to a balanced and healthful ecolog"") and 7A ("the right to health"). !s a matter of logic, b"
finding petitionersO cause of action as anchored on a legal right comprised in the constitutional statements
above noted, the Court is in effect sa"ing that .ection 7A (and .ection 75) of !rticle // of the Constitution
are selfe'ecuting and *udiciall" enforceable even in their present form. &he implications of this
doctrine will have to be e'plored in future cases< those implications are too large and farreaching in
nature even to be hinted at here.
D. /=.< ,/G%& &$ %2!&%< .%$-= .P2C/1/C!B 2T/.& /0 $-, C$,P-. $1 !(. Fustice
1eliciano suggestion is simpl" that petitioners must, before the trial court, show a more specific legal
right a right cast in language of a significantl" lower order of generalit" than !rticle // (7A) of the
Constitution that is or ma" be violated b" the actions, or failures to act, imputed to the public
respondent b" petitioners so that the trial court can validl" render *udgment granting all or part of the
relief pra"ed for. &o m" mind, the Court should be understood as simpl" sa"ing that such a more specific
legal right or rights ma" well e'ist in our corpus of law, considering the general polic" principles found in
the Constitution and the e'istence of the Philippine 2nvironment Code, and that the trial court should
have given petitioners an effective opportunit" so to demonstrate, instead of aborting the proceedings on a
motion to dismiss.
@. ,242=/! !(< C/3/ P,$C2=-,2< C!-.2 $1 !C&/$0< 2G! ,/G%&., !. 2..20&/!
C$4P$020&.< .&!0=!,=.. the legal right which is an essential component of a cause of action
be a specific, operable legal right, rather than a constitutional or statutor" polic", for at least two (>)
reasons. $ne is that unless the legal right claimed to have been violated or disregarded is given
specification in operational terms, defendants ma" well be unable to defend themselves intelligentl" and
effectivel"< in other words, there are due process dimensions to this matter. &he second is a
broadergauge consideration where a specific violation of law or applicable regulation is not alleged
or proved, petitioners can be e'pected to fall back on the e'panded conception of *udicial power in the
second paragraph of .ection 7 of !rticle 3/// of the Constitution which reads) ".ection 7 . . . Fudicial
power includes the dut" of the courts of *ustice to settle actual controversies involving rights which are
legall" demandable and enforceable, and to determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack or e'cess of *urisdiction on the part of an" branch or instrumentalit" of the
Government." (hen substantive standards as general as "the right to a balanced and health" ecolog"" and
"the right to health" are combined with remedial standards as broad ranging as "a grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack or e'cess of *urisdiction," the result will be, it is respectfull" submitted, to
propel courts into the uncharted ocean of social and economic polic" making. !t least in respect of the
vast area of environmental protection and management, our courts have no claim to special technical
competence and e'perience and professional ;ualifications. (here no specific, operable norms and
standards are shown to e'ist, then the polic" making departments the legislative and e'ecutive
departments must be given a real and effective opportunit" to fashion and promulgate those norms and
standards, and to implement them before the courts should intervene.
= 2 C / . / $ 0
=!3/=2, F,., F)
/n a broader sense, this petition bears upon the right of 1ilipinos to a balanced and healthful ecolog"
which the petitioners dramaticall" associate with the twin concepts of "intergenerational responsibilit""
and "intergenerational *ustice." .pecificall", 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
unabated hemorrhage of the countr"Os vital lifesupport s"stems and continued rape of 4other 2arth."
&he controvers" has its genesis in Civil Case 0o. 98666 which was filed before ?ranch 55 (4akati,
4etro 4anila) of the ,egional &rial Court (,&C), 0ational Capital Fudicial ,egion. &he principal
plaintiffs therein, now the principal petitioners, are all minors dul" represented and *oined b" their
respective parents. /mpleaded as an additional plaintiff is the Philippine 2cological 0etwork, /nc. (P20/),
a domestic, nonstock and nonprofit corporation organi#ed for the purpose of, inter alia, engaging in
concerted action geared for the protection of our environment and natural resources. &he original
defendant was the %onorable 1ulgencio .. 1actoran, Fr., then .ecretar" of the =epartment of 2nvironment
and 0atural ,esources (=20,). %is substitution in this petition b" the new .ecretar", the %onorable
!ngel C. !lcala, was subse;uentl" ordered upon proper motion b" the petitioners. 7 &he complaint > was
instituted as a ta'pa"ersO class suit D and alleges that the plaintiffs "are all citi#ens of the ,epublic of the
Philippines, ta'pa"ers, and entitled to the full benefit, use and en*o"ment of the natural resource treasure
that is the countr"Os virgin tropical rainforests." &he same was filed for themselves and others who are
e;uall" concerned about the preservation of said resource but are "so numerous that it is impracticable to
bring them all before the Court." &he minors further asseverate that the" "represent their generation as
well as generations "et unborn." @ Conse;uentl", it is pra"ed for that *udgment be rendered)
". . . ordering defendant, his agents, representatives and other persons acting in his behalf to
(7) Cancel all e'isting timber license agreements in the countr"<
(>) Cease and desist from receiving, accepting, processing, renewing or approving new timber license
agreements."
and granting the plaintiffs ". . . such other reliefs *ust and e;uitable under the premises."
&he complaint starts off with the general averments that the Philippine archipelago of 6,788 islands has a
land area of thirt" million (D8,888,888) hectares and is endowed with rich, lush and verdant rainforests in
which varied, rare and uni;ue species of flora and fauna ma" be found< these rainforests contain a genetic,
biological and chemical pool which is irreplaceable< the" are also the habitat of indigenous Philippine
cultures which have e'isted, endured and flourished since time immemorial< scientific evidence reveals
that in order to maintain a balanced and healthful ecolog", the countr"Os land area should be utili#ed on
the basis of a ratio of fift"four per cent (A@U) for forest cover and fort"si' per cent (@5U) for
agricultural, residential, industrial, commercial and other uses< the distortion and disturbance of this
balance as a conse;uence of deforestation have resulted in a host of environmental tragedies, such as (a)
water shortages resulting from the dr"ing up of the water table, otherwise known as the "a;uifer," as well
as of rivers, brooks and streams, (b) salini#ation of the water table as a result of the intrusion therein of
salt water, incontrovertible e'amples of which ma" be found in the island of Cebu and the 4unicipalit" of
?acoor, Cavite, (c) massive erosion and the conse;uential loss of soil fertilit" and agricultural
productivit", with the volume of soil eroded estimated at one billion (7,888,888,888) cubic meters per
annum appro'imatel" the si#e of the entire island of Catanduanes, (d) the endangering and e'tinction
of the countr"Os uni;ue, rare and varied flora and fauna, (e) the disturbance and dislocation of cultural
communities, including the disappearance of the 1ilipinoOs indigenous cultures, (f) the siltation of rivers
and seabeds and conse;uential destruction of corals and other a;uatic life leading to a critical reduction in
marine resource productivit", (g) recurrent spells of drought as is presentl" e'perienced b" the entire
countr", (h) increasing velocit" of t"phoon winds which result from the absence of windbreakers, (i) the
flooding of lowlands and agricultural plains arising from the absence of the absorbent mechanism of
forests, (*) the siltation and shortening of the lifespan of multibillion peso dams constructed and
operated for the purpose of suppl"ing water for domestic uses, irrigation and the generation of electric
power, and (k) the reduction of the earthOs capacit" to process carbon dio'ide gases which has led to
perple'ing and catastrophic climatic changes such as the phenomenon of global warming, otherwise
known as the "greenhouse effect."
Plaintiffs further assert that the adverse and detrimental conse;uences of continued deforestation are so
capable of un;uestionable demonstration that the same ma" be submitted as a matter of *udicial notice.
&his notwithstanding, the" e'pressed their intention to present e'pert witnesses as well as documentar",
photographic and film evidence in the course of the trial. !s their cause of action, the" specificall" allege
that)
"C!-.2 $1 !C&/$0
6. Plaintiffs replead b" reference the foregoing allegations.
:. &went"five (>A) "ears ago, the Philippines had some si'teen (75) million hectares of rainforests
constituting roughl" ADU of the countr"Os land mass.
9. .atellite images taken in 79:6 reveal that there remained no more than 7.> million hectares of said
rainforests or four per cent (@.8U) of the countr"Os land area.
78. 4ore recent surve"s reveal that a mere :A8,888 hectares of virgin oldgrowth rainforests are left,
barel" >.:U of the entire land mass of the Philippine archipelago and about D.8 million hectares of
immature and uneconomical secondar" growth forests.
77. Public records reveal that defendantOs predecessors have granted timber license agreements (O&!OsO)
to various corporations to cut the aggregate area of D.:9 million hectares for commercial logging
purposes. ! cop" of the &! holders and the corresponding areas covered is hereto attached as !nne'
O!O.
7>. !t the present rate of deforestation, i.e. about >88,888 hectares per annum or >A hectares per hour
nighttime, .aturda"s, .unda"s and holida"s included the Philippines will be bereft of forest resources
after the end of this ensuing decade, if not earlier.
7D. &he adverse effects, disastrous conse;uences, serious in*ur" and irreparable damage of this continued
trend of deforestation to the plaintiff minorsO generation and to generations "et unborn are evident and
incontrovertible. !s a matter of fact, the environmental damages enumerated in paragraph 5 hereof are
alread" being felt, e'perienced and suffered b" the generation of plaintiff adults.
7@. &he continued allowance b" defendant of &! holders to cut and deforest the remaining forest stands
will work great damage and irreparable in*ur" to plaintiffs especiall" plaintiff minors and their
successors who ma" never see, use, benefit from and en*o" this rare and uni;ue natural resource
treasure.
&his act of defendant constitutes a misappropriation andIor impairment of the natural resource propert" he
holds in trust for the benefit of plaintiff minors and succeeding generations.
7A. Plaintiffs have a clear and constitutional right to a balanced and healthful ecolog" and are entitled to
protection b" the .tate in its capacit" as the parens patriae.
75. Plaintiffs have e'hausted all administrative remedies with the defendantOs office. $n 4arch >, 7998,
plaintiffs served upon defendant a final demand to cancel all logging permits in the countr".
! cop" of the plaintiffsO letter dated 4arch 7, 7998 is hereto attached as !nne' O?O.
76. =efendant, however, fails and refuses to cancel the e'isting &!Os, to the continuing serious damage
and e'treme pre*udice of plaintiffs.
7:. &he continued failure and refusal b" defendant to cancel the &!Os is an act violative of the rights of
plaintiffs, especiall" plaintiff minors who ma" be left with a countr" that is desertified (sic), bare, barren
and devoid of the wonderful flora, fauna and indigenous cultures which the Philippines has been
abundantl" blessed with.
79. =efendantOs refusal to cancel the aforementioned &!Os is manifestl" contrar" to the public polic"
enunciated in the Philippine 2nvironmental Polic" which, in pertinent part, states that it is the polic" of
the .tate
O(a) to create, develop, maintain and improve conditions under which man and nature can thrive in
productive and en*o"able harmon" with each other<
O(b) to fulfill the social, economic and other re;uirements of present and future generations of 1ilipinos
and<
O(c) to ensure the attainment of an environmental ;ualit" that is conducive to a life of dignit" and
wellbeingO. (P.=. 77A7, 5 Fune 7966).
>8. 1urthermore, defendantOs continued refusal to cancel the aforementioned &!Os is contradictor" to
the Constitutional polic" of the .tate to
a. effect Oa more e;uitable distribution of opportunities, income and wealthO and Omake full and efficient
use of natural resources (sic).O (.ection 7, !rticle T// of the Constitution)<
b. Oprotect the nationOs marine wealth.O (.ection >, ibid)<
c. Oconserve and promote the nationOs cultural heritage and resources (sic).O (.ection 7@, !rticle T/3, id.)<
d. Oprotect and advance the right of the people to a balanced and healthful ecolog" in accord with the
rh"thm and harmon" of nature.O (.ection 75, !rticle //, id.)
>7. 1inall", defendantOs act is contrar" to the highest law of humankind the natural law and
violative of plaintiffsO right to selfpreservation and perpetuation.
>>. &here is no other plain, speed" and ade;uate remed" in law other than the instant action to arrest the
unabated hemorrhage of the countr"Os vital lifesupport s"stems and continued rape of 4other 2arth." 5
$n >> Fune 7998, the original defendant, .ecretar" 1actoran, Fr., filed a 4otion to =ismiss the complaint
based on two (>) grounds, namel") (7) the plaintiffs have no cause of action against him and (>) the issue
raised b" the plaintiffs is a political ;uestion which properl" pertains to the legislative or e'ecutive
branches of Government. /n their 7> Ful" 7998 $pposition to the 4otion, the petitioners maintain that (7)
the complaint shows a clear and unmistakable cause of action, (>) the motion is dilator" and (D) the action
presents a *usticiable ;uestion as it involves the defendantOs abuse of discretion.
$n 7: Ful" 7997, respondent Fudge issued an order granting the aforementioned motion to dismiss. 6 /n
the said order, not onl" was the defendantOs claim that the complaint states no cause of action against
him and that it raises a political ;uestion sustained, the respondent Fudge further ruled that the granting
of the reliefs pra"ed for would result in the impairment of contracts which is prohibited b" the
fundamental law of the land.
Plaintiffs thus filed the instant special civil action for certiorari under ,ule 5A of the ,evised ,ules of
Court and ask this Court to rescind and set aside the dismissal order on the ground that the respondent
Fudge gravel" abused his discretion in dismissing the action. !gain, the parents of the plaintiffsminors
not onl" represent their children, but have also *oined the latter in this case.
$n 7@ 4a" 799>, (e resolved to give due course to the petition and re;uired the parties to submit their
respective 4emoranda after the $ffice of the .olicitor General ($.G) filed a Comment in behalf of the
respondents and the petitioners filed a repl" thereto.
Petitioners contend that the complaint clearl" and unmistakabl" states a cause of action as it contains
sufficient allegations concerning their right to a sound environment based on !rticles 79, >8 and >7 of the
Civil Code (%uman ,elations), .ection @ of 2'ecutive $rder (2.$.) 0o. 79> creating the =20,, .ection
D of Presidential =ecree (P.=.) 0o. 77A7 (Philippine 2nvironmental Polic"), .ection 75, !rticle // of the
79:6 Constitution recogni#ing the right of the people to a balanced and healthful ecolog", the concept of
generational genocide in Criminal aw and the concept of manOs inalienable right to selfpreservation
and selfperpetuation embodied in natural law. Petitioners likewise rel" on the respondentOs correlative
obligation, per .ection @ of 2.$. 0o. 79>, the safeguard the peopleOs right to a healthful environment.
/t is further claimed that the issue of the respondent .ecretar"Os alleged grave abuse of discretion in
granting &imber icense !greements (&!s) to cover more areas for logging than what is available
involves a *udicial ;uestion. !nent the invocation b" the respondent Fudge of the ConstitutionOs
nonimpairment clause, petitioners maintain that the same does not appl" in this case because &!s are
not contracts. &he" likewise submit that even if &!s ma" be considered protected b" the said clause, it
is well settled that the" ma" still be revoked b" the .tate when public interest so re;uires. $n the other
hand, the respondents aver that the petitioners failed to allege in their complaint a specific legal right
violated b" the respondent .ecretar" for which an" relief is provided b" law. &he" see nothing in the
complaint but vague and nebulous allegations concerning an "environmental right" which supposedl"
entitles the petitioners to the "protection b" the state in its capacit" as parens patriae." .uch allegations,
according to them, do not reveal a valid cause of action. &he" then reiterate the theor" that the ;uestion of
whether logging should be permitted in the countr" is a political ;uestion which should be properl"
addressed to the e'ecutive or legislative branches of Government. &he" therefore assert that the
petitionersO recourse is not to file an action in court, but to lobb" before Congress for the passage of a bill
that would ban logging totall".
!s to the matter of the cancellation of the &!s, respondents submit that the same cannot be done b" the
.tate without due process of law. $nce issued, a &! remains effective for a certain period of time
usuall" for twent"five (>A) "ears. =uring its effectivit", the same can neither be revised nor cancelled
unless the holder has been found, after due notice and hearing, to have violated the terms of the
agreement or other forestr" laws and regulations. PetitionersO proposition to have all the &!s
indiscriminatel" cancelled without the re;uisite hearing would be violative of the re;uirements of due
process.
?efore going an" further, (e must first focus on some procedural matters. Petitioners instituted Civil
Case 0o. 98666 as a class suit. &he original defendant and the present respondents did not take issue
with this matter. 0evertheless, (e hereb" rule that the said civil case is indeed a class suit. &he sub*ect
matter of the complaint is of common and general interest not *ust to several, but to all citi#ens of the
Philippines. Conse;uentl", since the parties are so numerous, it becomes impracticable, if not totall"
impossible, to bring all of them before the court. (e likewise declare that the plaintiffs therein are
numerous and representative enough to ensure the full protection of all concerned interests. %ence, all the
re;uisites for the filing of a valid class suit under .ection 7>, ,ule D of the ,evised ,ules of Court are
present both in the said civil case and in the instant petition, the latter being but an incident to the former.
&his case, however, has a special and novel element. Petitioners minors assert that the" represent their
generation as well as generations "et unborn. (e find no difficult" in ruling that the" can, for themselves,
for others of their generation and for the succeeding generations, file a class suit. &heir personalit" to sue
in behalf of the succeeding generations can onl" be based on the concept of intergenerational
responsibilit" insofar as the right to a balanced and healthful ecolog" is concerned. .uch a right, as
hereinafter e'pounded, considers the "rh"thm and harmon" of nature." 0ature means the created world in
its entiret". 9 .uch rh"thm and harmon" indispensabl" include, inter alia, the *udicious disposition,
utili#ation, management, renewal and conservation of the countr"Os forest, mineral, land, waters, fisheries,
wildlife, offshore areas and other natural resources to the end that their e'ploration, development and
utili#ation be e;uitabl" accessible to the present as well as future generations. 78
0eedless to sa", ever" generation has a responsibilit" to the ne't to preserve that rh"thm and harmon" for
the full en*o"ment of a balanced and healthful ecolog". Put a little differentl", the minorsO 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 standi of the petitioners having thus been addressed, (e shall now proceed to the merits of the
petition.
!fter a careful perusal of the complaint in ;uestion and a meticulous consideration and evaluation of the
issues raised and arguments adduced b" the parties, (e do not hesitate to find for the petitioners and rule
against the respondent FudgeOs challenged order for having been issued with grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack of *urisdiction. &he pertinent portions of the said order read as follows)
"!fter a careful and circumspect evaluation of the Complaint, the Court cannot help but agree with the
defendant. 1or 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 the" are seeking to enforce and protect, or a
specific legal wrong the" are seeking to prevent and redress (.ec. 7, ,ule >, ,,C). 1urthermore, the
Court notes that the Complaint is replete with vague assumptions and vague conclusions based on
unverified data. /n fine, plaintiffs fail to state a cause of action in its Complaint against the herein
defendant.
1urthermore, the Court firml" believes that the matter before it, being impressed with political color and
involving a matter of public polic", ma" not be taken cogni#ance of b" this Court without doing violence
to the sacred principle of O.eparation of PowersO of the three (D) coe;ual branches of the Government.
&he Court is likewise of the impression that it cannot, no matter how we stretch our *urisdiction, grant the
reliefs pra"ed for b" the plaintiffs, i.e., to cancel all e'isting timber license agreements in the countr" and
to cease and desist from receiving, accepting, processing renewing or approving new timber license
agreements. 1or to do otherwise would amount to Oimpairment of contractsO abhored (sic) b" the
fundamental law." 77
(e do not agree with the trial courtOs conclusion 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. ! reading of the complaint
itself belies these conclusions.
&he complaint focuses on one specific fundamental legal right the right to a balanced and healthful
ecolog" which, for the first time in our nationOs constitutional histor", is solemnl" incorporated in the
fundamental law. .ection 75, !rticle // of the 79:6 Constitution e'plicitl" provides)
".2C. 75. &he .tate shall protect and advance the right of the people to a balanced and healthful ecolog"
in accord with the rh"thm and harmon" of nature."
&his right unites with the right to health which is provided for in the preceding section of the same article)
".2C. 7A. &he .tate shall protect and promote the right to health of the people and instill health
consciousness among them."
(hile the right to a balanced and healthful ecolog" is to be found under the =eclaration of Principles and
.tate Policies and not under the ?ill of ,ights, it does not follow that it is less important than an" of the
civil and political rights enumerated in the latter. .uch a right belongs to a different categor" of rights
altogether for it concerns nothing less than selfpreservation and selfperpetuation aptl" and
fittingl" stressed b" the petitioners the advancement of which ma" even be said to predate all
governments and constitutions. !s a matter of fact, these basic rights need not even be written in the
Constitution for the" are assumed to e'ist from the inception of humankind. /f the" are now e'plicitl"
mentioned in the fundamental charter, it is because of the wellfounded fear of its framers that unless the
rights to a balanced and healthful ecolog" and to health are mandated as state policies b" the Constitution
itself, thereb" highlighting their continuing importance and imposing upon the state a solemn obligation
to preserve the first and protect and advance the second, the da" would not be too far when all else would
be lost not onl" for the present generation, but also for those to come generations which stand to
inherit nothing but parched earth incapable of sustaining life. &he right to a balanced and healthful
ecolog" carries with it the correlative dut" to refrain from impairing the environment. =uring the debates
on this right in one of the plenar" sessions of the 79:5 Constitutional Commission, the following
e'change transpired between Commissioner (ilfrido 3illacorta and Commissioner !dolfo !#cuna who
sponsored the section in ;uestion)
"4,. 3/!C$,&!)
=oes this section mandate the .tate to provide sanctions against all forms of pollution air, water and
noise pollutionK
4,. !VC-0!)
Bes, 4adam President. &he right to healthful (sic) environment necessaril" carries with it the correlative
dut" of not impairing the same and, therefore, sanctions ma" be provided for impairment of
environmental balance." 7> &he said right implies, among man" other things, the *udicious management
and conservation of the countr"Os forests. (ithout such forests, the ecological or environmental balance
would be irreversibl" disrupted.
Conformabl" with the enunciated right to a balanced and healthful ecolog" and the right to health, as well
as the other related provisions of the Constitution concerning the conservation, development and
utili#ation of the countr"Os natural resources, 7D then President Cora#on C. !;uino promulgated on 78
Fune 79:6 2.$. 0o. 79>, 7@ .ection @ of which e'pressl" mandates that the =epartment of 2nvironment
and 0atural ,esources "shall be the primar" government agenc" responsible for the conservation,
management, development and proper use of the countr"Os environment and natural resources,
specificall" forest and gra#ing 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
ma" be provided for b" law in order to ensure e;uitable sharing of the benefits derived therefrom for the
welfare of the present and future generations of 1ilipinos." .ection D thereof makes the following
statement of polic")
".2C. D. =eclaration of Polic". /t is hereb" declared the polic" of the .tate to ensure the sustainable
use, development, management, renewal, and conservation of the countr"Os forest, mineral, land,
offshore areas and other natural resources, including the protection and enhancement of the ;ualit" of
the environment, and e;uitable access of the different segments of the population to the development and
use of the countr"Os natural resources, not onl" for the present generation but for future generations as
well. /t is also the polic" of the state to recogni#e and appl" a true value s"stem including social and
environmental cost implications relative to their utili#ation< development and conservation of our natural
resources."
&his polic" declaration is substantiall" restated in &itle T/3, ?ook /3 of the !dministrative Code of
79:6, 7A specificall" in .ection 7 thereof which reads)
".2C. 7. =eclaration of Polic". (7) &he .tate shall ensure, for the benefit of the 1ilipino people, the
full e'ploration and development as well as the *udicious disposition, utili#ation, management, renewal
and conservation of the countr"Os forest, mineral, land, waters, fisheries, wildlife, offshore areas and
other natural resources, consistent with the necessit" of maintaining a sound ecological balance and
protecting and enhancing the ;ualit" of the environment and the ob*ective of making the e'ploration,
development and utili#ation of such natural resources e;uitabl" accessible to the different segments of the
present as well as future generations.
(>) &he .tate shall likewise recogni#e and appl" a true value s"stem that takes into account social and
environmental cost implications relative to the utili#ation, development and conservation of our natural
resources."
&he above provision stresses "the necessit" of maintaining a sound ecological balance and protecting and
enhancing the ;ualit" of the environment." .ection > of the same &itle, on the other hand, specificall"
speaks of the mandate of the =20,< however, it makes particular reference to the fact of the agenc"Os
being sub*ect to law and higher authorit". .aid section provides)
".2C. >. 4andate. (7) &he =epartment of 2nvironment and 0atural ,esources shall be primaril"
responsible for the implementation of the foregoing polic".
(>) /t shall, sub*ect to law and higher authorit", be in charge of carr"ing out the .tateOs constitutional
mandate to control and supervise the e'ploration, development, utili#ation, and conservation of the
countr"Os natural resources."
?oth 2.$. 0o. 79> and the !dministrative Code of 79:6 have set the ob*ectives which will serve as the
bases for polic" formulation, and have defined the powers and functions of the =20,.
/t ma", however, be recalled that even before the ratification of the 79:6 Constitution, specific statutes
alread" paid special attention to the "environmental right" of the present and future generations. $n 5
Fune 7966, P.=. 0o. 77A7 (Philippine 2nvironmental Polic") and P.=. 0o. 77A> (Philippine 2nvironment
Code) were issued. &he former "declared a continuing polic" of the .tate (a) to create, develop, maintain
and improve conditions under which man and nature can thrive in productive and en*o"able harmon" with
each other, (b) to fulfill the social, economic and other re;uirements of present and future generations of
1ilipinos, and (c) to insure the attainment of an environmental ;ualit" that is conducive to a life of dignit"
and wellbeing." 75 !s its goal, it speaks of the "responsibilities of each generation as trustee and
guardian of the environment for succeeding generations." 76 &he latter statute, on the other hand, gave
flesh to the said polic".
&hus, the right of the petitioners (and all those the" represent) to a balanced and healthful ecolog" is as
clear as the =20,Os dut" under its mandate and b" virtue of its powers and functions under 2.$. 0o.
79> and the !dministrative Code of 79:6 to protect and advance the said right.
! denial or violation of that right b" the other who has the correlative dut" or obligation to respect or
protect the same gives rise to a cause of action. Petitioners maintain that the granting of the &!s, which
the" claim was done with grave abuse of discretion, violated their right to a balanced and healthful
ecolog"< hence, the full protection thereof re;uires that no further &!s should be renewed or granted.
! cause of action is defined as)
". . . an act or omission of one part" in violation of the legal right or rights of the other< and its essential
elements are legal right of the plaintiff, correlative obligation of the defendant, and act or omission of the
defendant in violation of said legal right." 7:
/t is settled in this *urisdiction that in a motion to dismiss based on the ground that the complaint fails to
state a cause of action, 79 the ;uestion submitted to the court for resolution involves the sufficienc" of the
facts alleged in the complaint itself. 0o other matter should be considered< furthermore, the truth or
falsit" of the said allegations is beside the point for the truth thereof is deemed h"potheticall" admitted.
&he onl" issue to be resolved in such a case is) admitting such alleged facts to be true, ma" the court
render a valid *udgment in accordance with the pra"er in the complaintK >8 /n 4ilitante vs. 2drosolano,
>7 this Court laid down the rule that the *udiciar" should "e'ercise the utmost care and circumspection in
passing upon a motion to dismiss on the ground of the absence thereof Mcause of actionN lest, b" its failure
to manifest a correct appreciation of the facts alleged and deemed h"potheticall" admitted, what the law
grants or recogni#es is effectivel" nullified. /f that happens, there is a blot on the legal order. &he law
itself stands in disrepute."
!fter a careful e'amination of the petitionersO complaint, (e find the statements under the introductor"
affirmative allegations, as well as the specific averments under the subheading C!-.2 $1 !C&/$0, to
be ade;uate enough to show, prima facie, the claimed violation of their rights. $n the basis thereof, the"
ma" thus be granted, wholl" or partl", the reliefs pra"ed for. /t bears stressing, however, that insofar as the
cancellation of the &!s is concerned, there is the need to implead, as part" defendants, the grantees
thereof for the" are indispensable parties.
&he foregoing considered, Civil Case 0o. 98666 cannot be said to raise a political ;uestion. Polic"
formulation or determination b" the e'ecutive or legislative branches of Government is not s;uarel" put
in issue. (hat is principall" involved is the enforcement of a right visavis policies alread"
formulated and e'pressed in legislation. /t must, nonetheless, be emphasi#ed that the political ;uestion
doctrine is no longer the insurmountable obstacle to the e'ercise of *udicial power or the impenetrable
shield that protects e'ecutive and legislative actions from *udicial in;uir" or review. &he second
paragraph of section 7, !rticle 3/// of the Constitution states that)
"Fudicial power includes the dut" of the courts of *ustice to settle actual controversies involving rights
which are legall" demandable and enforceable, and to determine whether or not there has been a grave
abuse of discretion amounting to lack or e'cess of *urisdiction on the part of an" branch or instrumentalit"
of the Government."
Commenting on this provision in his book, Philippine Political aw, >> 4r. Fustice /sagani !. Cru#, a
distinguished member of this Court, sa"s)
"&he first part of the authorit" represents the traditional concept of *udicial power, involving the
settlement of conflicting rights as conferred b" law. &he second part of the authorit" represents a
broadening of *udicial power to enable the courts of *ustice to review what was before forbidden territor",
to wit, the discretion of the political departments of the government. !s worded, the new provision vests
in the *udiciar", and particularl" the .upreme Court, the power to rule upon even the wisdom of the
decisions of the e'ecutive and the legislature and to declare their acts invalid for lack or e'cess of
*urisdiction because tainted with grave abuse of discretion. &he catch, of course, is the meaning of Ograve
abuse of discretion,O which is a ver" elastic phrase that can e'pand or contract according to the
disposition of the *udiciar"."
/n =a#a vs. .ingson, >D 4r. Fustice Cru#, now speaking for this Court, noted) "/n the case now before us,
the *urisdictional ob*ection 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
resolving it under the e'panded *urisdiction conferred upon us that now covers, in proper cases, even the
political ;uestion. !rticle 3//, .ection 7, of the Constitution clearl" provides) . . ."
&he last ground invoked b" the trial court in dismissing the complaint is the nonimpairment of
contracts clause found in the Constitution. &he court a ;uo declared that)
"&he Court is likewise of the impression that it cannot, no matter how we stretch our *urisdiction, grant
the reliefs pra"ed for b" the plaintiffs, i.e., to cancel all e'isting timber license agreements in the countr"
and to cease and desist from receiving, accepting, processing, renewing or approving new timber license
agreements. 1or to do otherwise would amount to Oimpairment of contractsO abhored (sic) b" the
fundamental law." >@
(e are not persuaded at all< on the contrar", (e are ama#ed, if not shocked, b" such a sweeping
pronouncement. /n the first place, the respondent .ecretar" did not, for obvious reasons, even invoke in
his motion to dismiss the nonimpairment clause. /f he had done so, he would have acted with utmost
infidelit" to the Government b" providing undue and unwarranted benefits and advantages to the timber
license holders because he would have forever bound the Government to strictl" respect the said licenses
according to their terms and conditions regardless of changes in polic" and the demands of public interest
and welfare. %e was aware that as correctl" pointed out b" the petitioners, into ever" timber license must
be read .ection >8 of the 1orestr" ,eform Code (P.=. 0o. 68A) which provides)
". . . Provided, &hat when the national interest so re;uires, the President ma" amend, modif", replace or
rescind an" contract, concession, permit, licenses or an" other form of privilege granted herein . . ."
0eedless to sa", all licenses ma" thus be revoked or rescinded b" e'ecutive action. /t is not a contract,
propert" or a propert" right protected b" the due process clause of the Constitution. /n &an vs. =irector of
1orestr", >A this Court held)
". . . ! timber license is an instrument b" which the .tate regulates the utili#ation and disposition of forest
resources to the end that public welfare is promoted. ! timber license is not a contract within the purview
of the due process clause< it is onl" a license or privilege, which can be validl" withdrawn whenever
dictated b" public interest or public welfare as in this case.
O! license is merel" a permit or privilege to do what otherwise would be unlawful, and is not a contract
between the authorit", federal, state, or municipal, granting it and the person to whom it is granted<
neither is it propert" or a propert" right, nor does it create a vested right< nor is it ta'ationO (D6 C.F. 75:).
&hus, this Court held that the granting of license does not create irrevocable rights, neither is it propert"
or propert" rights (People vs. $ng &in, A@ $.G. 6A65) . . ."
(e reiterated this pronouncement in 1elipe Bsmael, Fr. Q Co., /nc. vs. =eput" 2'ecutive .ecretar") >5
". . . &imber licenses, permits and license agreements are the principal instruments b" which the .tate
regulates the utili#ation and disposition of forest resources to the end that public welfare is promoted. !nd
it can hardl" be gainsaid that the" merel" evidence a privilege granted b" the .tate to ;ualified entities,
and do not vest in the latter a permanent or irrevocable right to the particular concession area and the
forest products therein. &he" ma" be validl" amended, modified, replaced or rescinded b" the Chief
2'ecutive when national interests so re;uire. &hus, the" are not deemed contracts within the purview of
the due process of law clause M.ee .ections D(ee) and >8 of Pres. =ecree 0o. 68A, as amended. !lso, &an
v. =irector of 1orestr", G.,. 0o. >@A@:, $ctober >6, 79:D, 7>A .C,! D8>N."
.ince timber licenses are not contracts, the nonimpairment clause, which reads)
".2C. 78. 0o law impairing the obligation of contracts shall be passed." >6 cannot be invoked.
/n the second place, even if it is to be assumed that the same are contracts, the instant case does not
involve a law or even an e'ecutive issuance declaring the cancellation or modification of e'isting timber
licenses. %ence, the nonimpairment clause cannot as "et be invoked. 0evertheless, granting further that
a law has actuall" been passed mandating cancellations or modifications, the same cannot still be
stigmati#ed as a violation of the nonimpairment clause. &his is because b" its ver" nature and purpose,
such a law could have onl" been passed in the e'ercise of the police power of the state for the purpose of
advancing the right of the people to a balanced and healthful ecolog", promoting their health and
enhancing the general welfare. /n !be vs. 1oster (heeler Corp., >: this Court stated)
"&he freedom of contract, under our s"stem of government, is not meant to be absolute. &he same is
understood to be sub*ect to reasonable legislative regulation aimed at the promotion of public health,
moral, safet" and welfare. /n other words, the constitutional guarant" of nonimpairment of obligations
of contract is limited b" the e'ercise of the police power of the .tate, in the interest of public health,
safet", moral and general welfare."
&he reason for this is emphaticall" set forth in 0ebia vs. 0ew Bork, >9 ;uoted in Philippine !merican
ife /nsurance Co. vs. !uditor General, D8 to wit)
" O-nder our form of government the use of propert" and the making of contracts are normall" matters of
private and not of public concern. &he general rule is that both shall be free of governmental interference.
?ut neither propert" rights nor contract rights are absolute< for government cannot e'ist if the citi#en ma"
at will use his propert" to the detriment of his fellows, or e'ercise his freedom of contract to work them
harm. 2;uall" fundamental with the private right is that of the public to regulate it in the common
interest.O "
/n short, the nonimpairment clause must "ield to the police power of the state. D7
1inall", it is difficult to imagine, as the trial court did, how the nonimpairment clause could appl" with
respect to the pra"er to en*oin the respondent .ecretar" from receiving, accepting, processing, renewing
or approving new timber licenses for, save in cases of renewal, no contract would have as of "et e'isted in
the other instances. 4oreover, with respect to renewal, the holder is not entitled to it as a matter of right.
(%2,21$,2, being impressed with merit, the instant Petition is hereb" G,!0&2=, and the challenged
$rder of respondent Fudge of 7: Ful" 7997 dismissing Civil Case 0o. 98666 is hereb" set aside. &he
petitioners ma" therefore amend their complaint to implead as defendants the holders or grantees of the
;uestioned timber license agreements.
0o pronouncement as to costs.
.$ $,=2,2=.
Cru#, Padilla, ?idin, GriSo!;uino, ,egalado, ,omero, 0ocon, ?ellosillo, 4elo and Ruiason, FF.,
concur.
0arvasa (C.F.), no part< related to one of the parties.
1eliciano, F., please see separate opinion concurring in the result. Puno, F., no part in the deliberations.
3itug, F., no part< / was not "et with the Court when the case was deliberated upon.
.eparate $pinions
12/C/!0$, F., concurring)
/ *oin in the result reached b" m" distinguished brother in the Court, =avide, Fr., F. in this case which, to
m" mind, is one of the most important cases decided b" this Court in the last few "ears. &he seminal
principles laid down in this decision are likel" to influence profoundl" the direction and course of the
protection and management of the environment, which of course embraces the utili#ation of all the natural
resources in the territorial base of our polit". / have therefore sought to clarif", basicall" to m"self, what
the Court appears to be sa"ing.
&he Court e'plicitl" states that petitioners have the locus standi necessar" to sustain the bringing and
maintenance of this suit (=ecision, pp. 777>). ocus standi is not a function of petitionersO claim that
their suit is properl" regarded as a class suit. / understand locus standi to refer to the legal interest which a
plaintiff must have in the sub*ect matter of the suit. ?ecause of the ver" broadness of the concept of
"class" here involved membership in this "class" appears to embrace ever"one living in the countr"
whether now or in the future it appears to me that ever"one who ma" be e'pected to benefit from the
course of action petitioners seek to re;uire public respondents to take, is vested with the necessar" locus
standi. &he Court ma" be seen therefore to be recogni#ing a beneficiariesO right of action in the field of
environmental protection, as against both the public administrative agenc" directl" concerned and the
private persons or entities operating in the field or sector of activit" involved. (hether such a
beneficiariesO right of action ma" be found under an" and all circumstances, or whether some failure to
act, in the first instance, on the part of the governmental agenc" concerned must be shown ("prior
e'haustion of administrative remedies"), is not discussed in the decision and presumabl" is left for future
determination in an appropriate case.
&he Court has also declared that the complaint has alleged and focused upon "one specific fundamental
legal right the right to a balanced and healthful ecolog"" (=ecision, p. 7@). &here is no ;uestion that
"the right to a balanced and healthful ecolog"" is "fundamental" and that, accordingl", it has been
"constitutionali#ed." ?ut although it is fundamental in character, / suggest, with ver" great respect, that it
cannot be characteri#ed as "specific," without doing e'cessive violence to language. /t is in fact ver"
difficult to fashion language more comprehensive in scope and generali#ed in character than a right to "a
balanced and healthful ecolog"." &he list of particular claims which can be subsumed under this rubric
appears to be entirel" openended) prevention and control of emission of to'ic fumes and smoke from
factories and motor vehicles< of discharge of oil, chemical effluents, garbage and raw sewage into rivers,
inland and coastal waters b" vessels, oil rigs, factories, mines and whole communities< of dumping of
organic and inorganic wastes on open land, streets and thoroughfares< failure to rehabilitate land after
stripmining or openpit mining< kaingin or slashandburn farming< destruction of fisheries, coral
reefs and other living sea resources through the use of d"namite or c"anide and other chemicals<
contamination of ground water resources< loss of certain species of fauna and flora< and so on. &he other
statements pointed out b" the Court) .ection D, 2'ecutive $rder 0o. 79> dated 78 Fune 79:6< .ection 7,
&itle T/3, ?ook /3 of the 79:6 !dministrative Code< and P.=. 0o. 77A7, dated 5 Fune 7966 all appear
to be formulations of polic", as general and abstract as the constitutional statements of basic polic" in
!rticle //, .ections 75 (!the right C to a balanced and healthful ecolog"W) and 7A (!the right to
healthW).
P.=. 0o. 77A>, also dated 5 Fune 7966, entitled !&he Philippine 2nvironment Code,W is, upon the other
hand, a compendious collection of more !specific environment management policiesW and
!environment ;ualit" standardsW (fourth !(hereasW clause, Preamble) relating to an e'tremel" wide
range of topics)
(a) air ;ualit" management<
(b) water ;ualit" management<
(c) land use management<
(d) natural resources management and conservation embracing<
(i) fisheries and a;uatic resources<
(ii) wild life<
(iii) forestr" and soil conservation<
(iv) flood control and natural calamities<
(v) energ" development<
(vi) conservation and utili#ation of surface and ground water
(vii) mineral resources
&wo (>) points are worth making in this connection. 1irstl", neither petitioners nor the Court has
identified the particular provision or provisions (if an") of the Philippine 2nvironment code which give
rise to a specific legal right which petitioners are seeking to enforce. .econdl", the Philippine
2nvironment Code identifies with notable care the particular government agenc" charged with the
formulation and implementation of guidelines and programs dealing with each of the headings and sub+
headings mentioned above. &he Philippine 2nvironment Code does not, in other words, appear to
contemplate action on the part of private persons who are beneficiaries of implementation of that Code.
!s a matter of logic, b" finding petitionersX cause of action as anchored on a legal right comprised in the
constitutional statements above noted, the Court is in effect sa"ing that .ection 7A (and .ection 75) of
!rticle // of the Constitution are self+e'ecuting and *udiciall" enforceable even in their present form. &he
implications of this doctrine will have to be e'plored in future cases< those implications are too large and
far+reaching in nature even to be hinted at here.
4" suggestion is simpl" that petitioners must, before the trial court, show a more specific legal right C a
right cast in language of a significantl" lower order of generalit" than !rticle // (7A) of the Constitution C
that is or ma" be violated b" the actions, or failures to act, imputed to the public respondent b" petitioners
so that the trial court can validl" render *udgment granting all or part of the relief pra"ed for. &o m" mind,
the Court should be understood as simpl" sa"ing that such a more specific legal right or rights ma" well
e'ist in our corpus of law, considering the general polic" principles found in the Constitution and the
e'istence of the Philippine 2nvironment Code, and that the trial court should have given petitioners an
effective opportunit" so to demonstrate, instead of aborting the proceedings on a motion to dismiss.
/t seems to me important that the legal right which is an essential component of a cause of action be a
specific, operable legal right, rather than a constitutional or statutor" polic", for at least two (>) reasons.
$ne is that unless the legal right claimed to have been violated or disregarded is given specification in
operational terms, defendants ma" well be unable to defend themselves intelligentl" and effectivel"< in
other words, there are due process dimensions to this matter.
&he second is a broader+gauge consideration C where a specific violation of law or applicable regulation
is not alleged or proved, petitioners can be e'pected to fall back on the e'panded conception of *udicial
power in the second paragraph of .ection 7 of !rticle 3/// of the Constitution which reads)
.ection 7. ' ' '
Fudicial power includes the dut" of the courts of *ustice to settle actual controversies involving rights
which are legall" demandable and enforceable, and to determine whether or not there has been a grave
abuse of discretion amounting to lack or e'cess of *urisdiction on the part of an" branch or instrumentalit"
of the Government. (2mphases supplied)
(hen substantive standards as general as !the right to a balanced and health" ecolog"W and !the right
to healthW are combined with remedial standards as broad ranging as !a grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or e'cess of *urisdiction,W the result will be, it is respectfull" submitted, to propel
courts into the uncharted ocean of social and economic polic" making. !t least in respect of the vast area
of environmental protection and management, our courts have no claim to special technical competence
and e'perience and professional ;ualification. (here no specific, operable norms and standards are
shown to e'ist, then the polic" making departments C the legislative and e'ecutive departments C must
be given a real and effective opportunit" to fashion and promulgate those norms and standards, and to
implement them before the courts should intervene.
4" learned brother =avide, Fr., F., rightl" insists that the timber companies, whose concession agreements
or &!Xs petitioners demand public respondents should cancel, must be impleaded in the proceedings
below. /t might be asked that, if petitionersX entitlement to the relief demanded is not dependent upon
proof of breach b" the timber companies of one or more of the specific terms and conditions of their
concession agreements (and this, petitioners implicitl" assume), what will those companies litigate aboutK
&he answer / suggest is that the" ma" seek to dispute the e'istence of the specific legal right petitioners
should allege, as well as the realit" of the claimed factual ne'us between petitionersX specific legal rights
and the claimed wrongful acts or failures to act of public respondent administrative agenc". &he" ma"
also controvert the appropriateness of the remed" or remedies demanded b" petitioners, under all the
circumstances which e'ist.
/ vote to grant the Petition for Certiorari because the protection of the environment, including the forest
cover of our territor", is of e'treme importance of (sic) the countr". &he doctrines set out in the CourtXs
decision issued toda" should, however, be sub*ected to closer e'amination.
Petition granted. Challenged order set aside.