Oposa vs. Factoran Case Digest (G.R. No.

101083, July 30, 1993)

FACTS: The plaintiffs in this case are all minors duly represented and joined by their
parents. The first complaint was filed as a taxpayer's class suit at the Branch 66
(Makati, Metro Manila), of the Regional Trial Court, National capital Judicial Region
against defendant (respondent) Secretary of the Department of Environment and
Natural Reasources (DENR). Plaintiffs alleged that they are entitled to the full benefit,
use and enjoyment of the natural resource treasure that is the country's virgin tropical
forests. They further asseverate that they represent their generation as well as
generations yet unborn and asserted that continued deforestation have caused a
distortion and disturbance of the ecological balance and have resulted in a host of
environmental tragedies.

and healthful ecology is as clear as DENR's duty to protect and advance the said
right.
A denial or violation of that right by the other who has the correlative duty or obligation
to respect or protect or respect the same gives rise to a cause of action. Petitioners
maintain that the granting of the TLA, which they claim was done with grave abuse of
discretion, violated their right to a balance and healthful ecology. Hence, the full
protection thereof requires that no further TLAs should be renewed or granted.
After careful examination of the petitioners' complaint, the Court finds it to be
adequate enough to show, prima facie, the claimed violation of their rights.
Second Issue: Political Issue.

Plaintiffs prayed that judgement be rendered ordering the respondent, his agents,
representatives and other persons acting in his behalf to cancel all existing Timber
License Agreement (TLA) in the country and to cease and desist from receiving,
accepting, processing, renewing or approving new TLAs.
Defendant, on the other hand, filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that the
complaint had no cause of action against him and that it raises a political question.

Second paragraph, Section 1 of Article VIII of the constitution provides for the
expanded jurisdiction vested upon the Supreme Court. It allows the Court to rule upon
even on the wisdom of the decision of the Executive and Legislature and to declare
their acts as invalid for lack or excess of jurisdiction because it is tainted with grave
abuse of discretion.
Third Issue: Violation of the non-impairment clause.

The RTC Judge sustained the motion to dismiss, further ruling that granting of the
relief prayed for would result in the impairment of contracts which is prohibited by the
Constitution.
Plaintiffs (petitioners) thus filed the instant special civil action for certiorari and asked
the court to rescind and set aside the dismissal order on the ground that the
respondent RTC Judge gravely abused his discretion in dismissing the action.
ISSUES:
(1) Whether or not the plaintiffs have a cause of action.
(2) Whether or not the complaint raises a political issue.
(3) Whether or not the original prayer of the plaintiffs result in the impairment of
contracts.
RULING:
First Issue: Cause of Action.
Respondents aver that the petitioners failed to allege in their complaint a specific
legal right violated by the respondent Secretary for which any relief is provided by law.
The Court did not agree with this. The complaint focuses on one fundamental legal
right -- the right to a balanced and healthful ecology which is incorporated in Section
16 Article II of the Constitution. The said right carries with it the duty to refrain from
impairing the environment and implies, among many other things, the judicious
management and conservation of the country's forests. Section 4 of E.O. 192
expressly mandates the DENR to be the primary government agency responsible for
the governing and supervising the exploration, utilization, development and
conservation of the country's natural resources. The policy declaration of E.O. 192 is
also substantially re-stated in Title XIV Book IV of the Administrative Code of 1987.
Both E.O. 192 and Administrative Code of 1987 have set the objectives which will
serve as the bases for policy formation, and have defined the powers and functions of
the DENR. Thus, right of the petitioners (and all those they represent) to a balanced

The Court held that the Timber License Agreement is an instrument by which the
state regulates the utilization and disposition of forest resources to the end that public
welfare is promoted. It is not a contract within the purview of the due process clause
thus, the non-impairment clause cannot be invoked. It can be validly withdraw
whenever dictated by public interest or public welfare as in this case. The granting of
license does not create irrevocable rights, neither is it property or property rights.
Moreover, the constitutional guaranty of non-impairment of obligations of contract is
limit by the exercise by the police power of the State, in the interest of public health,
safety, moral and general welfare. In short, the non-impairment clause must yield to
the police power of the State.
The instant petition, being impressed with merit, is hereby GRANTED and the RTC
decision is SET ASIDE.
***
LANDMARK CASE: In 1990, 44 children, through their parents, sought to make the
DENR Secretary stop issuing licenses to cut timber, invoking their right to a healthful
environment. They brought the case in the name of all the children in the Philippines
and in the name of the generations yet unborn!
FACTS:
The petitioners, all minors, sought the help of the Supreme Court to order the
respondent, then Secretary of DENR, to cancel all existing Timber License Agreement
(TLA) in the country and to cease and desist from receiving, accepting, processing,
renewing or approving new TLAs. They alleged that the massive commercial logging
in the country is causing vast abuses on rain-forest.They further asserted that the
rights of their generation and the rights of the generations yet unborn to a balanced
and healthful ecology. Plaintiffs further assert that the adverse and detrimental
consequences of continued and deforestation are so capable of unquestionable

demonstration that the same may be submitted as a matter of judicial notice. This
notwithstanding, they expressed their intention to present expert witnesses as well as
documentary, photographic and film evidence in the course of the trial.
ISSUE: Whether or not the petitioners have a locus standi.
HELD: The SC decided in the affirmative. Locus standi means the right of the litigant
to act or to be heard.Under Section 16, Article II of the 1987 constitution, it states that:
The state shall protect and advance the right of the people to a balanced and
healthful ecology in accord with the rhythm and harmony of nature. Petitioners,
minors assert that they represent their generation as well as generation yet unborn.
We find no difficulty in ruling that they can, for themselves, for others of their
generation and for the succeeding generations, file a class suit. Their personality to
sue in behalf of the succeeding generations can only be based on the concept of
intergenerational responsibility insofar as the right to a balanced and healthful
ecology is concerned. Such a right, as hereinafter expounded considers the rhythm
and harmony of nature. Nature means the created world in its entirety. Such rhythm
and harmony indispensably include, inter alia, the judicious disposition, utilization,
management, renewal and conservation of the countrys forest, mineral, land, waters
fisheries, wildlife, off- shore areas and other natural resources to the end that their
exploration, development and utilization be equitably accessible to the present as well
as future generations. Needless to say, every generation has a responsibility to the
next to preserve that rhythm and harmony for the full enjoyment of a balanced and
healthful ecology. Put a little differently, the minors assertion of their right to a sound
environment constitutes, at the same time, the performance of their obligation to
ensure the protection of that right for the generations to come. This landmark case
has been ruled as a class suit because the subject matter of the complaint is of
common and general interest, not just for several but for ALL CITIZENS OF THE
PHILIPPINES.
LAGUNA LAKE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY vs COURT OF APPEALS
231 SCRA 292
G.R. No. 110120 March 16, 1994
FACTS

On March 8, 1991, the Task Force Camarin Dumpsite of Our Lady of

Lourdes Parish, Barangay Camarin, Caloocan City, filed a lettercomplaint with the Laguna Lake Development Authority seeking to stop the
operation of the 8.6-hectare open garbage dumpsite in Tala Estate,
Barangay Camarin, Caloocan City due to its harmful effects on the health of
the residents and the possibility of pollution of the water content of the
surrounding area.

The LLDA Legal and Technical personnel found that the City Government of
Caloocan was maintaining an open dumpsite at the Camarin area without
first securing an Environmental Compliance Certificate (ECC) from the
Environmental Management Bureau (EMB) of the Department of
Environment and Natural Resources, as required under Presidential Decree
No. 1586, and clearance from LLDA as required under Republic Act No.
4850, as amended by Presidential Decree No. 813 and Executive Order No.
927, series of 1983.

The LLDA found that the water collected from the leachate and the receiving
streams could considerably affect the quality, in turn, of the receiving waters
since it indicates the presence of bacteria, other than coliform, which may
have contaminated the sample during collection or handling.

On December 5, 1991, the LLDA issued a Cease and Desist Order ordering
the City Government of Caloocan, Metropolitan Manila Authority, their
contractors, and other entities, to completely halt, stop and desist from
dumping any form or kind of garbage and other waste matter at the Camarin
dumpsite.

On September 25, 1992, the LLDA, with the assistance of the Philippine
National Police, enforced its Alias Cease and Desist Order by prohibiting the
entry of all garbage dump trucks into the Tala Estate, Camarin area being
utilized as a dumpsite.

The City Government of Caloocan filed with the Regional Trial Court of
Caloocan City an action for the declaration of nullity of the cease and desist
order

In its complaint, the City Government of Caloocan sought to be declared as

the sole authority empowered to promote the health and safety and enhance
the right of the people in Caloocan City to a balanced ecology within its
territorial jurisdiction.
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT

On October 16, 1992, Judge Manuel Jn. Serapio, after hearing the motion to
dismiss, issued in the consolidated cases an order denying LLDA's motion to
dismiss and granting the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction enjoining
the LLDA, its agent and all persons acting for and on its behalf, from
enforcing or implementing its cease and desist order which prevents plaintiff
City of Caloocan from dumping garbage at the Camarin dumpsite during the
pendency of this case and/or until further orders of the court.
COURT OF APPEALS

On April 30, 1993, the Court of Appeals promulgated its decision holding
that: (1) the Regional Trial Court has no jurisdiction on appeal to try, hear
and decide the action for annulment of LLDA's cease and desist order,
including the issuance of a temporary restraining order and preliminary
injunction in relation thereto, since appeal therefrom is within the exclusive
and appellate jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals under Section 9, par. (3), of
Batas Pambansa Blg. 129; and (2) the Laguna Lake Development Authority
has no power and authority to issue a cease and desist order under its
enabling law, Republic Act No. 4850, as amended by P.D. No. 813 and
Executive
Order
No. 927, series of 1983.
ISSUE

Whether or not the LLDA has the authority to entertain the complaint against
the dumping of garbage in the open dumpsite in Barangay Camarin
authorized by the City Government of Caloocan which is allegedly
endangering the health, safety, and welfare of the residents therein and the
sanitation and quality of the water in the area brought about by exposure to
pollution caused by such open garbage dumpsite
SUPREME COURT

Yes.
As a general rule, the adjudication of pollution cases generally pertains to
the Pollution Adjudication Board (PAB), except in cases where the special
law provides for another forum.
It must be recognized in this regard that the LLDA, as a specialized
administrative agency, is specifically mandated under Republic Act No. 4850
and its amendatory laws to carry out and make effective the declared
national policy 20 of promoting and accelerating the development and
balanced growth of the Laguna Lake area and the surrounding provinces of
Rizal and Laguna and the cities of San Pablo, Manila, Pasay, Quezon and
Caloocan 21 with due regard and adequate provisions for environmental
management and control, preservation of the quality of human life and
ecological systems, and the prevention of undue ecological disturbances,
deterioration and pollution.
Under such a broad grant and power and authority, the LLDA, by virtue of its
special charter, obviously has the responsibility to protect the inhabitants of
the Laguna Lake region from the deleterious effects of pollutants emanating
from the discharge of wastes from the surrounding areas.
In carrying out the aforementioned declared policy, the LLDA is mandated,
among others, to pass upon and approve or disapprove all plans, programs,
and projects proposed by local government offices/agencies within the
region, public corporations, and private persons or enterprises where such
plans, programs and/or projects are related to those of the LLDA for the
development of the region.

ISSUE

Whether or not the LLDA has the power and authority to issue a "cease and
desist" order under Republic Act No. 4850 and its amendatory laws
SUPREME COURT

Yes.

By its express terms, Republic Act No. 4850, as amended by P.D. No. 813
and Executive Order No. 927, series of 1983, authorizes the LLDA to "make,
alter or modify order requiring the discontinuance or pollution." 24 (Emphasis
supplied) Section 4, par. (d) explicitly authorizes the LLDA to make whatever
order may be necessary in the exercise of its jurisdiction.

To be sure, the LLDA was not expressly conferred the power "to issue an exparte cease and desist order" in a language, as suggested by the City
Government of Caloocan, similar to the express grant to the defunct National
Pollution Control Commission under Section 7 of P.D. No. 984 which,
admittedly was not reproduced in P.D. No. 813 and E.O. No. 927, series of
1983. However, it would be a mistake to draw therefrom the conclusion that
there is a denial of the power to issue the order in question when the power
"to make, alter or modify orders requiring the discontinuance of pollution" is
expressly and clearly bestowed upon the LLDA by Executive Order No. 927,
series of 1983.

The immediate response to the demands of "the necessities of protecting

vital public interests" gives vitality to the statement on ecology embodied in
the Declaration of Principles and State Policies or the 1987 Constitution.
Article II, Section 16 which provides:

The State shall protect and advance the right of the people to a balanced
and healthful ecology in accord with the rhythm and harmony of nature.
As a constitutionally guaranteed right of every person, it carries the
correlative duty of non-impairment. This is but in consonance with the
declared policy of the state "to protect and promote the right to health of the
people and instill health consciousness among them." 28 It is to be borne in
mind that the Philippines is party to the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights and the Alma Conference Declaration of 1978 which recognize health
as a fundamental human right.

***
Facts:
The Laguna Lake Development Authority (LLDA) was created through RA No. 4850 in
order to execute the policy towards environmental protection and sustainable
development so as to accelerate the development and balanced growth of the
Laguna Lake area and the surrounding provinces and towns.
PD No. 813 amended certain sections of RA 4850 since water quality studies have
shown that the lake will deteriorate further if steps are not taken to check the same.
EO 927 further defined and enlarged the functions and powers of the LLDA and
enumerated the towns, cities and provinces encompassed by the term Laguna de
Bay Region.
Upon implementation of RA 7160 (Local Government Code of 1991), the
municipalities assumed exclusive jurisdiction & authority to issue fishing privileges
within their municipal waters since Sec.149 thereof provides: Municipal corporations
shall have the authority to grant fishery privileges in the municipal waters and impose
rental fees or charges therefore
Big fishpen operators took advantage of the occasion to establish fishpens & fish
cages to the consternation of the LLDA.
The implementation of separate independent policies in fish cages & fish pen
operation and the indiscriminate grant of fishpen permits by the lakeshore
municipalities have saturated the lake with fishpens, thereby aggravating the current
environmental problems and ecological stress of Laguna Lake.
The LLDA then served notice to the general public that (1) fishpens, cages & other
aqua-culture structures unregistered with the LLDA as of March 31, 1993 are
declared illegal; (2) those declared illegal shall be subject to demolition by the
Presidential Task Force for Illegal Fishpen and Illegal Fishing; and (3) owners of those
declared illegal shall be criminally charged with violation of Sec.39-A of RA 4850 as
amended by PD 813.
A month later, the LLDA sent notices advising the owners of the illegally constructed
fishpens, fishcages and other aqua-culture structures advising them to dismantle their
respective structures otherwise demolition shall be effected.
Issues:
1.Which agency of the government the LLDA or the towns and municipalities
comprising the region should exercise jurisdiction over the Laguna lake and its

environs insofar as the issuance of permits for fishery privileges is concerned?

2. Whether the LLDA is a quasi-judicial agency?
Held:
1. Sec.4(k) of the charter of the LLDA, RA 4850, the provisions of PD 813,and Sec.2
of EONo.927, specifically provide that the LLDA shall have exclusive jurisdiction to
issue permits for the use of all surface water for any projects or activities in or
affecting the said region. On the other hand, RA 7160 has granted to the
municipalities the exclusive authority to grant fishery privileges on municipal
waters. The provisions of RA 7160 do not necessarily repeal the laws creating
the LLDA and granting the latter water rights authority over Laguna de Bay and the
lake region.
Where there is a conflict between a general law and a special statute, latter
should prevail since it evinces the legislative intent more clearly than the
general statute. The special law is to be taken as an exception to the general law in
the absence of special circumstances forcing a contrary conclusion. Implied repeals
are not favored and, as much as possible, effect must be given to all enactments of
the legislature. A special law cannot be repealed, amended or altered by a
subsequent general law by mere implication.

The power of LGUs to issue fishing privileges was granted for revenue purposes. On
the other hand, the power of the LLDA to grant permits for fishpens, fish cages, and
other aqua-culture structures is for the purpose of effectively regulating & monitoring
activities in the Laguna de Bay region and for lake control and management. It
partakes of the nature of police power which is the most pervasive, least limitable
and most demanding of all state powers including the power of taxation.
Accordingly, the charter of the LLDA which embodies a valid exercise of police power
should prevail over the LGC of 1991 on matters affecting Laguna de Bay.
2. The LLDA has express powers as a regulatory and quasi-judicial body in respect to
pollution cases with authority to issue a cease and desist order and on matters
affecting the construction of illegal fishpens, fish cages and other aqua-culture
structures in Laguna de Bay.
Sec.149 of RA 7160 has not repealed the provisions of the charter of the LLDA, RA
4850, as amended. Thus, the LLDA has the exclusive jurisdiction to issue permits for
enjoyment of fishery privileges in Laguna de Bay to the exclusion of municipalities
situated therein and the authority to exercise such powers as are by its charter vested
on it.