BALBERIA, BENNET C.

| BAUTISTA, JOSEPH RAYMUND| BONITE, KIM

NATURAL LAW 1C | ATTY. DAVID BERMUDO
OPOSA V. FACTORAN (G.R. No. 101083) July 30, 1993
I.

FACTS:

This case deals with the prevention of the misappropriation or impairment of Philippine
rainforests and arrest the unabated hemorrhage of the countrys vital life support systems and
continued rape of Mother Earth.
In 1991 a case was filed by minors (represented by their parents) and the Philippine
Ecological Network (PENI) against the then Secretary of the Department of Environment and
Natural Resources (DENR), Fulgencio Factoran, Jr. who was substituted by the new secretary,
Angel Alcala. The complaint was instituted to be a taxpayers class suit as it alleges that all
citizens of the Philippines are entitled to benefit, use and enjoyment of the countrys virgin
tropical rainforests. The suit also alleges that this suit represents people who are sharing the
same sentiment towards the preservation of our natural resources (since not all of them could go
before the court). Furthermore, this was also asserted to be representative of the current
generation and generation that are yet to be born.
The suit calls for two primary actions that order the Department of Environment and
Natural Resources (DENR), its agents, representatives, and those acting on its behalf to:
(a) Cancel all existing timber license agreements in the country and;
(b) Cease and desist from receiving, accepting, processing, and renewing or approving
new timber license agreements.
The suit starts off with statement of facts regarding the country, the countrys islands, its
natural resources, and scientific evidences pointing to the requirement for the country to
maintain a balanced and healthful ecology (54% should be use for forest cover and 46% for
agricultural, residential, industrial, commercial, and other uses). They asserted that
deforestation resulted in, a. water shortages b. salinization c. massive erosion and loss of soil
fertility d. extinction of some of the countries flora and fauna e. disturbance and dislocation of
indigenous cultures f. siltation of rivers and seabed g. drought h. increasing velocity of typhoon
winds i. flooding of lowlands j. siltation and shortening of the life span of dams k. reduction of
earths capacity to process carbon dioxide.
Initially the petition was dismissed on the grounds of lack of cause of action, of being
political question, and of causing the impairment of contracts. The petitioners filed for certiorari
hence this case. They contend that there is a cause of action using articles 19, 20, and 21 of the
Civil Code (the right to a sound environment), Section 4 of Executive Order No. 192 that calls for
the creation of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) to safeguard the
peoples right to a healthful environment, Section 3 of Presidential Decree No. 1151 ( Philippine
Environmental Policy), and Section 16, Article II of the 1987 Constitution that recognizes the
right of the people to a balanced and healthful ecology. As well as the concept of generational
genocide in Criminal Law and the concept of mans inalienable right to self-preservation and
self-perpetuation in natural law.
II.

ISSUES:

1. Whether or not the plaintiffs, minors, can file a class action suit in behalf of all Filipinos?
2. Whether or not the complaint raises a justiciable issue?
3. Whether or not the original prayer of the plaintiffs result in the impairment of contracts?
III.

RULING

BALBERIA, BENNET C.| BAUTISTA, JOSEPH RAYMUND| BONITE, KIM

NATURAL LAW 1C | ATTY. DAVID BERMUDO
1. Yes they can, following the concept of intergenerational responsibility. Every generation has a
responsibility to the next to preserve the rhythm and harmony for the full enjoyment of a
balanced and healthful environment.
2. Yes. The respondent judge committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of
jurisdiction because it failed to recognize the legal right of the petitioners which is the right to a
balanced and healthful ecology that is incorporated in the 1987 Constitution under Section 16
Article II.
Moreover, these rights need not be written in the Constitution for this deals with rights
that are assumed from the very inception oh humankind. The reason why it was written was
because the framers feared that without a mandate as stated in the state policies future
generations would inherit nothing to sustain life. It is clear then that there is a legal right for a
balanced healthful ecology and the right to health. Given that it could also be said that this right
is further supported by Executive Order No. 192 and the Administrative Code of 1987 making
the cause of action existent.
4. No, it does not violate the non-impairment clause because licenses are not contracts,
properties or a property right that is protected by the due process clause of the Constitution. As
the court held in Tan v. Director of Forestry, a license is merely a permit or privilege to do what
otherwise would be unlawful and is not a contract. It is not irrevocable. The Chief Executive may
validly amend, modify, replace, or rescind licenses when national interests so require.
Given that it is not a contract, the non-impairment clause cannot be invoked.
Even if the licenses are contracts, the action stated in the case still does not affect it given
that no law or action by the Chief Executive to amend, modify, replace, or rescind licenses so it is
could not as of the moment be invoked. And furthermore, if there would be a law passed it
would not be considered as a violation of the non-impairment clause as the very nature of the
law deals with the exercising of the police power of the state to advance the right of the people to
a balanced and healthful ecology. The non-impairment clause yields to the police power of the
state.

IV.

APPLICATION OF NATURAL LAW

1. Interpretative Use of Natural Law

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

2. Justificatory Use of Natural Law

BALBERIA, BENNET C.| BAUTISTA, JOSEPH RAYMUND| BONITE, KIM

NATURAL LAW 1C | ATTY. DAVID BERMUDO
When Supreme Court allowed minors to be petitioners of a class action suit
The subject matter of the complaint is of common and general interest not just to
several, but to all citizens of the Philippines. Consequently, since the parties are so
numerous, it, becomes impracticable, if not totally impossible, to bring all of them before the
court. We likewise declare that the plaintiffs therein are numerous and representative enough
to ensure the full protection of all concerned interests.
Petitioners minors assert that they represent their generation as well as generations
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.

3. Regulatory Use of Natural Law

We reiterated this pronouncement in Felipe Ysmael, Jr. & Co., Inc. vs. Deputy Executive
Secretary: 26
. . . Timber licenses, permits and license agreements are the principal
instruments by which the State regulates the utilization and disposition
of forest resources to the end that public welfare is promoted. And it
can hardly be gainsaid that they merely evidence a privilege granted by
the State to qualified entities, and do not vest in the latter a permanent
or irrevocable right to the particular concession area and the forest
products therein. They may be validly amended, modified, replaced or
rescinded by the Chief Executive when national interests so require. Thus,
they are not deemed contracts within the purview of the due process of law
clause [See Sections 3(ee) and 20 of Pres. Decree No. 705, as amended. Also,
Tan v. Director of Forestry, G.R. No. L-24548, October 27, 1983, 125 SCRA 302].