LPS 142: Environmental Law 1

Case Digests I

Oposa vs Factoran

Facts: The complaint starts off with the general averments that the
Philippine archipelago of 7,100 islands has a land area of thirty million
(30,000,000) hectares and is endowed with rich, lush and verdant
rainforests in which varied, rare and unique species of flora and fauna
may be found. A ratio of fifty-four per cent (54%) for forest cover and
forty-six per cent (46%) for agricultural, residential, industrial,
commercial and other uses; the distortion and disturbance of this
balance as a consequence of deforestation have resulted in a host of
environmental tragedies

Allegations: On 22 June 1990, the original defendant, Secretary

Factoran, Jr., filed a Motion to Dismiss the complaint based on two (2)
grounds, namely: (1) the plaintiffs have no cause of action against him
and (2) the issue raised by the plaintiffs is a political question which
properly pertains to the legislative or executive branches of
Government. In their 12 July 1990 Opposition to the Motion, the
petitioners maintain that (1) the complaint shows a clear and
unmistakable cause of action, (2) the motion is dilatory and (3) the
action presents a justiciable question as it involves the defendant's
abuse of discretion.

Furthermore, petitioners argue that the complaint cleartly and

unmistakably states a cause of action as it contains sufficient
allegations concerning their right to a sound environment based on Art
19, 20 and 21 of the Civil Code, Sec. 4 of EO 192, Sec. 3 of PD 1151
Section 16, Art. 2 of the constitution. And that the TLAs are not
contracts, which subsequently may be revoked by the State when the
public interest so requires.

On the other hand, respondents argue that petitioners failed to allege

in their complaint a specific legal right violated by the respondent
Secretary as the complaint is vague as referring to an alleged
environmental right.

RTC: issued an order granting the aforementioned motion to dismiss

Issues:
Procedural: Whether petitioners have the legal standing for the suit?
Substantive: Whether Art II Sec. 16 may be a source of a right?
Whether revoking TLAs would result in the violation of the
non-impairment clause of the Constitution?

1
Ruling: Their (petitioners) 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 balance and
healthful ecology is concerned.

While the right to a balanced and healthful ecology is to be found

under the Art II 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 right belongs to a different category of rights
altogether for it concerns nothing less than self-preservation and self-
perpetuation, the advancement of which may even be said to predate
all governments and constitutions.

A timber license is an instrument by which the State regulates the

utilization and disposition of forest resources to the end that public
welfare is promoted. A timber license is not a contract within the
purview of the due process clause; it is only a license or privilege,
which can be validly withdrawn whenever dictated by public interest or
public welfare as in this case. Assuming and granting further that a law
has actually been passed mandating cancellations or modifications
(TLA), the same cannot still be stigmatized as a violation of the non-
impairment clause. This is because by its very nature and purpose,
such as law could have only been passed in the exercise of the police
power of the state for the purpose of advancing the right of the people
to a balanced and healthful ecology, promoting their health and
enhancing the general welfare.

The instant motion is granted

 LPS 142: Environmental Law 3
Case Digests I

Resident Marine Mammals vs Reyes

Facts: Petitioners filed a petition concering Service Contract 46 which

allowed the exploration, development and exploitation of petroleum
resources within the Taon Strait.

On June 13, 2002, the Philippine government entered into a

Geophysical Survey and Exploration Contract with Japex. On December
21, 2004, DOE and JAPEX formally converted the said GSEC into a
Service Contract 46 for the exploration, development, production of
petroleum resources in a block covering approximately 2,850 sq.
kilometers offshore to Taon Strait.

Subsequently, JAPEX committeed to drill one exploration well in the

marine waters of Aloguinsan and Pinamungajan, where the Taon Strait
was declared a protected seascape. Because of such, Japex agreed to
comply with PD 1586. On Jan. 31, 2007 the Protected Area
Management Board issued Res. No. 2007-001, wherein it adopted the
Initial Environmental Examination (IEE) commissioned by JAPEX, and
favorably recommended the approval of JAPEXs application for an ECC,
which was subsequently granted by the EMB on March 2007.

Petitioners aleged that JAPEXs oil exploration activities resulted to

fish kills manifested by the reduced number of fish catch. And they
further allege that the ECC obtained by the private respondent JAPEX is
invalid because public consultations and discussions with the affected
stakeholders, a pre-requisite of the issuance of the ECC. With regard to
the procedural aspect, the pet. likewise argue that the court should
exercise epistolary jurisdiction in the present case

Respondents argue that petitioners do not possess any legal standing

to file the present petitio; that SC-46 did not violate the constitution.

Issue:

Procedural: Whether petitioners have locus standi?

Substantive:
Whether SC 46 violates the Constitution

3
 Whether the issuance of the ECC in Environmentally Critical
Areas and Habitats is legal and proper

Ruling:

Recently, the Court passed the landmark Rules of Procedure for

Environmental Cases,51 which allow for a "citizen suit," and permit
any Filipino citizen to file an action before our courts for violations of
our environmental laws:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

SEC. 5. Citizen suit. - Any Filipino citizen in representation of

others, including minors or generations yet unborn, may file an
action to enforce rights or obligations under environmental
laws. This provision liberalizes standing for all cases filed enforcing
environmental laws and collapses the traditional rule on personal and
direct interest, on the principle that humans are stewards of
nature

the need to give the Resident Marine Mammals legal standing has
been eliminated by our Rules, which allow any Filipino citizen, as a
steward of nature, to bring a suit to enforce our environmental laws. It
is worth noting here that the Stewards are joined as real parties in the
Petition and not just in representation of the named cetacean speci
 LPS 142: Environmental Law 5
Case Digests I

es. The Stewards, Ramos and Eisma-Osorio, having shown in their

petition that there may be possible violations of laws concerning the
habitat of the Resident Marine Mammals, are therefore declared to
possess the legal standing to file this
petition.chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary

n the new service contracts, the foreign contractors provide capital,

technology and technical know-how, and managerial expertise in the
creation and operation of large-scale mining/extractive enterprises;
and the government, through its agencies (DENR, MGB), actively
exercises control and supervision over the entire
operation.68cralawlawlibrary

Such service contracts may be entered into only with respect to

minerals, petroleum and other mineral oils. The grant thereof is subject
to several safeguards, among which are these requirements:

(1) The service contract shall be crafted in accordance with a general

law that will set standard or uniform terms, conditions and
requirements, presumably to attain a certain uniformity in provisions
and avoid the possible insertion of terms disadvantageous to the
country.

(2) The President shall be the signatory for the government because,
supposedly before an agreement is presented to the President for
signature, it will have been vetted several times over at different levels
to ensure that it conforms to law and can withstand public scrutiny.

(3) Within thirty days of the executed agreement, the President shall
report it to Congress to give that branch of government an opportunity
to look over the agreement and interpose timely objections, if
any.69cralawlawlibrary

Since PD 87 was not repeal, this is presumed to be the enabling law

behind the exploration

While the Court finds that Presidential Decree No. 87 is sufficient to

satisfy the requirement of a general law, the absence of the two other
conditions, that the President be a signatory to SC-46, and that
Congress be notified of such contract, renders it null and void.

5
Public respondents' implied argument that based on the "alter ego
principle," their acts are also that of then President Macapagal-
Arroyo's, cannot apply in this case. In Joson v. Torres,77 we explained
the concept of the alter ego principle or the doctrine of qualified
political agency and its limit in this wise:chanro

As this Court has held in La Bugal, our Constitution requires that the
President himself be the signatory of service agreements with foreign-
owned corporations involving the exploration, development, and
utilization of our minerals, petroleum, and other mineral oils. This
power cannot be taken lightly.

In this case, the public respondents have failed to show that the
President had any participation in SC-46. Their argument that their acts
are actually the acts of then President Macapagal-Arroyo, absent proof
of her disapproval, must fail as the requirement that the President
herself enter into these kinds of contracts is embodied not just in any
ordinary statute, but in the Constitution itself

Since the Taon Strait is a protected area as prescribed by the NIPAS

Act, an Environmental Impact Assessment should be made prior to the
undertaking of any activity in the area. Unless an ECC under the EIA
system is obtained, no activity inconsistent with the goals of the NIPAS
Act shall be implemented.

Thus, SC-46 is in clear violation of the Constitution.

Tano vs Socrates

Facts: Petitioners caption their petition praying that the Court shall
declare unconstitutional Ord. No. 15-92, Office Order No. 23 and
others.

On December 15, 1992 the SB of Palawan passed an Ordinance

banning the shipment of live fish and lobster outside Puerto Princesa.
 LPS 142: Environmental Law 7
Case Digests I

To implement such ordinance, Acting Mayor Lucero issued Office Order

23 which calls for the inspection of ships for their documents and etc.
Upon the implementation of such ordinances, they arrested herein
petitioners which was the cause of action for this case.

With this, the petitioner alleged the following

Issues: Whether the ordinances deprived them of due procress and was
violative of the constitution