G.R. No.

101083 July 30, 1993

In a broader sense, this petition bears upon the right of

Filipinos to a balanced and healthful ecology which the
petitioners dramatically associate with the twin concepts of
"inter-generational responsibility" and "inter-generational
justice." Specifically, 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 country's vital life
support systems and continued rape of Mother Earth."

JUAN ANTONIO, ANNA ROSARIO and JOSE ALFONSO, all

surnamed OPOSA, minors, and represented by their
parents ANTONIO and RIZALINA OPOSA, ROBERTA
NICOLE SADIUA, minor, represented by her parents
CALVIN and ROBERTA SADIUA, CARLO, AMANDA SALUD
and PATRISHA, all surnamed FLORES, minors and
represented by their parents ENRICO and NIDA FLORES,
GIANINA DITA R. FORTUN, minor, represented by her
parents SIGRID and DOLORES FORTUN, GEORGE II and
MA. CONCEPCION, all surnamed MISA, minors and
represented by their parents GEORGE and MYRA MISA,
BENJAMIN ALAN V. PESIGAN, minor, represented by his
parents ANTONIO and ALICE PESIGAN, JOVIE MARIE
ALFARO, minor, represented by her parents JOSE and
MARIA VIOLETA ALFARO, MARIA CONCEPCION T.
CASTRO, minor, represented by her parents FREDENIL
and JANE CASTRO, JOHANNA DESAMPARADO,
minor, represented by her parents JOSE and ANGELA
DESAMPRADO, CARLO JOAQUIN T. NARVASA, minor,
represented by his parents GREGORIO II and CRISTINE
CHARITY NARVASA, MA. MARGARITA, JESUS IGNACIO,
MA. ANGELA and MARIE GABRIELLE, all surnamed
SAENZ, minors, represented by their parents ROBERTO
and AURORA SAENZ, KRISTINE, MARY ELLEN, MAY,
GOLDA MARTHE and DAVID IAN, all surnamed KING,
minors, represented by their parents MARIO and HAYDEE
KING, DAVID, FRANCISCO and THERESE VICTORIA, all
surnamed ENDRIGA, minors, represented by their parents
BALTAZAR and TERESITA ENDRIGA, JOSE MA. and
REGINA MA., all surnamed ABAYA, minors, represented by
their parents ANTONIO and MARICA ABAYA, MARILIN,
MARIO, JR. and MARIETTE, all surnamed CARDAMA,
minors, represented by their parents MARIO and LINA
CARDAMA, CLARISSA, ANN MARIE, NAGEL, and IMEE
LYN, all surnamed OPOSA, minors and represented by
their parents RICARDO and MARISSA OPOSA, PHILIP
JOSEPH, STEPHEN JOHN and ISAIAH JAMES, all
surnamed QUIPIT, minors, represented by their parents
JOSE MAX and VILMI QUIPIT, BUGHAW CIELO,
CRISANTO, ANNA, DANIEL and FRANCISCO, all surnamed
BIBAL, minors, represented by their parents FRANCISCO,
JR. and MILAGROS BIBAL, and THE PHILIPPINE
ECOLOGICAL NETWORK, INC., petitioners,
vs.
THE HONORABLE FULGENCIO S. FACTORAN, JR., in his
capacity as the Secretary of the Department of
Environment and Natural Resources, and THE
HONORABLE ERIBERTO U. ROSARIO, Presiding Judge of
the RTC, Makati, Branch 66, respondents.

The controversy has its genesis in Civil Case No. 90-77 which
was filed before Branch 66 (Makati, Metro Manila) of the
Regional Trial Court (RTC), National Capital Judicial Region.
The principal plaintiffs therein, now the principal petitioners, are
all minors duly represented and joined by their respective
parents. Impleaded as an additional plaintiff is the Philippine
Ecological Network, Inc. (PENI), a domestic, non-stock and
non-profit corporation organized for the purpose of, inter alia,
engaging in concerted action geared for the protection of our
environment and natural resources. The original defendant
was the Honorable Fulgencio S. Factoran, Jr., then Secretary
of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources
(DENR). His substitution in this petition by the new Secretary,
the Honorable Angel C. Alcala, was subsequently ordered
upon proper motion by the petitioners. 1 The complaint 2 was
instituted as a taxpayers' class suit 3 and alleges that the
plaintiffs "are all citizens of the Republic of the Philippines,
taxpayers, and entitled to the full benefit, use and enjoyment of
the natural resource treasure that is the country's virgin tropical
forests." The same was filed for themselves and others who
are equally concerned about the preservation of said resource
but are "so numerous that it is impracticable to bring them all
before the Court." The minors further asseverate that they
"represent their generation as well as generations yet
unborn." 4 Consequently, it is prayed for that judgment be
rendered:
. . . ordering defendant, his agents,
representatives and other persons acting in
his behalf to
(1) Cancel all existing timber license
agreements in the country;
(2) Cease and desist from receiving,
accepting, processing, renewing or
approving new timber license agreements.
and granting the plaintiffs ". . . such other reliefs just and
equitable under the premises." 5

Oposa Law Office for petitioners.

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; these rainforests
contain a genetic, biological and chemical pool which is
irreplaceable; they are also the habitat of indigenous Philippine
cultures which have existed, endured and flourished since time
immemorial; scientific evidence reveals that in order to

The Solicitor General for respondents.

DAVIDE, JR., J.:

maintain a balanced and healthful ecology, the country's land

area should be utilized on the basis of 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, such as (a) water shortages resulting
from drying up of the water table, otherwise known as the
"aquifer," as well as of rivers, brooks and streams, (b)
salinization of the water table as a result of the intrusion therein
of salt water, incontrovertible examples of which may be found
in the island of Cebu and the Municipality of Bacoor, Cavite, (c)
massive erosion and the consequential loss of soil fertility and
agricultural productivity, with the volume of soil eroded
estimated at one billion (1,000,000,000) cubic meters per
annum approximately the size of the entire island of
Catanduanes, (d) the endangering and extinction of the
country's unique, rare and varied flora and fauna, (e) the
disturbance and dislocation of cultural communities, including
the disappearance of the Filipino's indigenous cultures, (f) the
siltation of rivers and seabeds and consequential destruction of
corals and other aquatic life leading to a critical reduction in
marine resource productivity, (g) recurrent spells of drought as
is presently experienced by the entire country, (h) increasing
velocity of typhoon winds which result from the absence of
windbreakers, (i) the floodings of lowlands and agricultural
plains arising from the absence of the absorbent mechanism of
forests, (j) the siltation and shortening of the lifespan of multibillion peso dams constructed and operated for the purpose of
supplying water for domestic uses, irrigation and the
generation of electric power, and (k) the reduction of the earth's
capacity to process carbon dioxide gases which has led to
perplexing and catastrophic climatic changes such as the
phenomenon of global warming, otherwise known as the
"greenhouse effect."

10. More recent surveys reveal that a mere

850,000 hectares of virgin old-growth
rainforests are left, barely 2.8% of the entire
land mass of the Philippine archipelago and
about 3.0 million hectares of immature and
uneconomical secondary growth forests.
11. Public records reveal that the
defendant's, predecessors have granted
timber license agreements ('TLA's') to
various corporations to cut the aggregate
area of 3.89 million hectares for commercial
logging purposes.
A copy of the TLA holders and the
corresponding areas covered is hereto
attached as Annex "A".
12. At the present rate of
deforestation, i.e. about 200,000 hectares
per annum or 25 hectares per hour
nighttime, Saturdays, Sundays and holidays
included the Philippines will be bereft of
forest resources after the end of this ensuing
decade, if not earlier.
13. The adverse effects, disastrous
consequences, serious injury and irreparable
damage of this continued trend of
deforestation to the plaintiff minor's
generation and to generations yet unborn
are evident and incontrovertible. As a matter
of fact, the environmental damages
enumerated in paragraph 6 hereof are
already being felt, experienced and suffered
by the generation of plaintiff adults.

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.

14. The continued allowance by defendant of

TLA holders to cut and deforest the
remaining forest stands will work great
damage and irreparable injury to plaintiffs
especially plaintiff minors and their
successors who may never see, use,
benefit from and enjoy this rare and unique
natural resource treasure.

As their cause of action, they specifically allege that:

CAUSE OF ACTION

This act of defendant constitutes a

misappropriation and/or impairment of the
natural resource property he holds in trust for
the benefit of plaintiff minors and succeeding
generations.

7. Plaintiffs replead by reference the

foregoing allegations.
8. Twenty-five (25) years ago, the Philippines
had some sixteen (16) million hectares of
rainforests constituting roughly 53% of the
country's land mass.

15. Plaintiffs have a clear and constitutional

right to a balanced and healthful ecology and
are entitled to protection by the State in its
capacity as the parens patriae.

9. Satellite images taken in 1987 reveal that

there remained no more than 1.2 million
hectares of said rainforests or four per cent
(4.0%) of the country's land area.

16. Plaintiff have exhausted all

administrative remedies with the defendant's
office. On March 2, 1990, plaintiffs served

upon defendant a final demand to cancel all

logging permits in the country.

d. "protect and advance the right of the

people to a balanced and healthful ecology
in accord with the rhythm and harmony of
nature." (Section 16, Article II, id.)

A copy of the plaintiffs' letter dated March 1,

1990 is hereto attached as Annex "B".

21. Finally, defendant's act is contrary to the

highest law of humankind the natural law
and violative of plaintiffs' right to selfpreservation and perpetuation.

17. Defendant, however, fails and refuses to

cancel the existing TLA's to the continuing
serious damage and extreme prejudice of
plaintiffs.

22. There is no other plain, speedy and

adequate remedy in law other than the
instant action to arrest the unabated
hemorrhage of the country's vital life support
systems and continued rape of Mother
Earth. 6

18. The continued failure and refusal by

defendant to cancel the TLA's is an act
violative of the rights of plaintiffs, especially
plaintiff minors who may be left with a
country that is desertified (sic), bare, barren
and devoid of the wonderful flora, fauna and
indigenous cultures which the Philippines
had been abundantly blessed with.

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.

19. Defendant's refusal to cancel the

aforementioned TLA's is manifestly contrary
to the public policy enunciated in the
Philippine Environmental Policy which, in
pertinent part, states that it is the policy of
the State
(a) to create, develop, maintain and improve
conditions under which man and nature can
thrive in productive and enjoyable harmony
with each other;

On 18 July 1991, respondent Judge issued an order granting

the aforementioned motion to dismiss. 7 In the said order, not
only was the defendant's claim that the complaint states no
cause of action against him and that it raises a political
question sustained, the respondent Judge further ruled that
the granting of the relief prayed for would result in the
impairment of contracts which is prohibited by the fundamental
law of the land.

(b) to fulfill the social, economic and other

requirements of present and future
generations of Filipinos and;
(c) to ensure the attainment of an
environmental quality that is conductive to a
life of dignity and well-being. (P.D. 1151, 6
June 1977)

Plaintiffs thus filed the instant special civil action

for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court and
ask this Court to rescind and set aside the dismissal order on
the ground that the respondent Judge gravely abused his
discretion in dismissing the action. Again, the parents of the
plaintiffs-minors not only represent their children, but have also
joined the latter in this case. 8

20. Furthermore, defendant's continued

refusal to cancel the aforementioned TLA's is
contradictory to the Constitutional policy of
the State to

On 14 May 1992, We resolved to give due course to the

petition and required the parties to submit their respective
Memoranda after the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) filed
a Comment in behalf of the respondents and the petitioners
filed a reply thereto.

a. effect "a more equitable distribution of

opportunities, income and wealth" and
"make full and efficient use of natural
resources (sic)." (Section 1, Article XII of the
Constitution);

Petitioners contend that the complaint clearly and unmistakably

states a cause of action as it contains sufficient allegations
concerning their right to a sound environment based on Articles
19, 20 and 21 of the Civil Code (Human Relations), Section 4
of Executive Order (E.O.) No. 192 creating the DENR, Section
3 of Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 1151 (Philippine
Environmental Policy), Section 16, Article II of the 1987
Constitution recognizing the right of the people to a balanced
and healthful ecology, the concept of generational genocide in

b. "protect the nation's marine wealth."

(Section 2, ibid);
c. "conserve and promote the nation's
cultural heritage and resources (sic)"
(Section 14, Article XIV,id.);

Criminal Law and the concept of man's inalienable right to selfpreservation and self-perpetuation embodied in natural law.
Petitioners likewise rely on the respondent's correlative
obligation per Section 4 of E.O. No. 192, to safeguard the
people's right to a healthful environment.

and in the instant petition, the latter being but an incident to the
former.
This case, however, has a special and novel element.
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. Such a right, as hereinafter expounded, considers
the "rhythm and harmony of nature." Nature means the created
world in its entirety. 9 Such rhythm and harmony indispensably
include, inter alia, the judicious disposition, utilization,
management, renewal and conservation of the country's 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. 10 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.

It is further claimed that the issue of the respondent Secretary's

alleged grave abuse of discretion in granting Timber License
Agreements (TLAs) to cover more areas for logging than what
is available involves a judicial question.
Anent the invocation by the respondent Judge of the
Constitution's non-impairment clause, petitioners maintain that
the same does not apply in this case because TLAs are not
contracts. They likewise submit that even if TLAs may be
considered protected by the said clause, it is well settled that
they may still be revoked by the State when the public interest
so requires.
On the other hand, the 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. They see nothing in the complaint but vague and nebulous
allegations concerning an "environmental right" which
supposedly entitles the petitioners to the "protection by the
state in its capacity as parens patriae." Such allegations,
according to them, do not reveal a valid cause of action. They
then reiterate the theory that the question of whether logging
should be permitted in the country is a political question which
should be properly addressed to the executive or legislative
branches of Government. They therefore assert that the
petitioners' resources is not to file an action to court, but to
lobby before Congress for the passage of a bill that would ban
logging totally.

The locus standi of the petitioners having thus been

addressed, We shall now proceed to the merits of the petition.
After a careful perusal of the complaint in question and a
meticulous consideration and evaluation of the issues raised
and arguments adduced by the parties, We do not hesitate to
find for the petitioners and rule against the respondent Judge's
challenged order for having been issued with grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction. The pertinent
portions of the said order reads as follows:

As to the matter of the cancellation of the TLAs, respondents

submit that the same cannot be done by the State without due
process of law. Once issued, a TLA remains effective for a
certain period of time usually for twenty-five (25) years.
During its effectivity, 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 forestry laws and regulations. Petitioners' proposition to
have all the TLAs indiscriminately cancelled without the
requisite hearing would be violative of the requirements of due
process.

xxx xxx xxx

After a careful and circumspect evaluation of
the Complaint, the Court cannot help but
agree with the defendant. For 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 they are seeking to enforce and protect,
or a specific legal wrong they are seeking to
prevent and redress (Sec. 1, Rule 2, RRC).
Furthermore, the Court notes that the
Complaint is replete with vague assumptions
and vague conclusions based on unverified
data. In fine, plaintiffs fail to state a cause of
action in its Complaint against the herein
defendant.

Before going any further, We must first focus on some

procedural matters. Petitioners instituted Civil Case No. 90-777
as a class suit. The original defendant and the present
respondents did not take issue with this matter. Nevertheless,
We hereby rule that the said civil case is indeed a class 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. Hence, all the requisites
for the filing of a valid class suit under Section 12, Rule 3 of the
Revised Rules of Court are present both in the said civil case

Furthermore, the Court firmly believes that

the matter before it, being impressed with
political color and involving a matter of public
policy, may not be taken cognizance of by

this Court without doing violence to the

sacred principle of "Separation of Powers" of
the three (3) co-equal branches of the
Government.

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.

The Court is likewise of the impression that it

cannot, no matter how we stretch our
jurisdiction, grant the reliefs prayed for by the
plaintiffs, i.e., to cancel all existing timber
license agreements in the country and to
cease and desist from receiving, accepting,
processing, renewing or approving new
timber license agreements. For to do
otherwise would amount to "impairment of
contracts" abhored (sic) by the fundamental
law. 11

The right to a balanced and healthful ecology carries with it the

correlative duty to refrain from impairing the environment.
During the debates on this right in one of the plenary sessions
of the 1986 Constitutional Commission, the following exchange
transpired between Commissioner Wilfrido Villacorta and
Commissioner Adolfo Azcuna who sponsored the section in
question:
MR. VILLACORTA:
Does this section mandate the State to provide sanctions
against all forms of pollution air, water and noise pollution?

We do not agree with the trial court's conclusions 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. A reading of the
complaint itself belies these conclusions.

MR. AZCUNA:
Yes, Madam President. The right to healthful (sic) environment
necessarily carries with it the correlative duty of not impairing
the same and, therefore, sanctions may be provided for
impairment of environmental balance. 12

The complaint focuses on one specific fundamental legal right

the right to a balanced and healthful ecology which, for the
first time in our nation's constitutional history, is solemnly
incorporated in the fundamental law. Section 16, Article II of the
1987 Constitution explicitly provides:

The said right implies, among many other things, the judicious
management and conservation of the country's forests.
Without such forests, the ecological or environmental balance
would be irreversiby disrupted.

Sec. 16. 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.

Conformably with the enunciated right to a balanced and

healthful ecology and the right to health, as well as the other
related provisions of the Constitution concerning the
conservation, development and utilization of the country's
natural resources, 13 then President Corazon C. Aquino
promulgated on 10 June 1987 E.O. No. 192, 14 Section 4 of
which expressly mandates that the Department of Environment
and Natural Resources "shall be the primary government
agency responsible for the conservation, management,
development and proper use of the country's environment and
natural resources, specifically forest and grazing 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 may be
provided for by law in order to ensure equitable sharing of the
benefits derived therefrom for the welfare of the present and
future generations of Filipinos." Section 3 thereof makes the
following statement of policy:

This right unites with the right to health which

is provided for in the preceding section of the
same article:
Sec. 15. The State shall protect and promote
the right to health of the people and instill
health consciousness among them.
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

Sec. 3. Declaration of Policy. It is hereby

declared the policy of the State to ensure the
sustainable use, development, management,
renewal, and conservation of the country's
forest, mineral, land, off-shore areas and
other natural resources, including the
protection and enhancement of the quality of
the environment, and equitable access of the
different segments of the population to the
development and the use of the country's

natural resources, not only for the present

generation but for future generations as well.
It is also the policy of the state to recognize
and apply a true value system including
social and environmental cost implications
relative to their utilization, development and
conservation of our natural resources.

It may, however, be recalled that even before the ratification of

the 1987 Constitution, specific statutes already paid special
attention to the "environmental right" of the present and future
generations. On 6 June 1977, P.D. No. 1151 (Philippine
Environmental Policy) and P.D. No. 1152 (Philippine
Environment Code) were issued. The former "declared a
continuing policy of the State (a) to create, develop, maintain
and improve conditions under which man and nature can thrive
in productive and enjoyable harmony with each other, (b) to
fulfill the social, economic and other requirements of present
and future generations of Filipinos, and (c) to insure the
attainment of an environmental quality that is conducive to a
life of dignity and well-being." 16 As its goal, it speaks of the
"responsibilities of each generation as trustee and guardian of
the environment for succeeding generations." 17 The latter
statute, on the other hand, gave flesh to the said policy.

This policy declaration is substantially re-stated it Title XIV,

Book IV of the Administrative Code of 1987, 15 specifically in
Section 1 thereof which reads:
Sec. 1. Declaration of Policy. (1) The
State shall ensure, for the benefit of the
Filipino people, the full exploration and
development as well as the judicious
disposition, utilization, management, renewal
and conservation of the country's forest,
mineral, land, waters, fisheries, wildlife, offshore areas and other natural resources,
consistent with the necessity of maintaining
a sound ecological balance and protecting
and enhancing the quality of the environment
and the objective of making the exploration,
development and utilization of such natural
resources equitably accessible to the
different segments of the present as well as
future generations.

Thus, the right of the petitioners (and all those they represent)
to a balanced and healthful ecology is as clear as the DENR's
duty under its mandate and by virtue of its powers and
functions under E.O. No. 192 and the Administrative Code of
1987 to protect and advance the said right.
A denial or violation of that right by the other who has the
corelative duty or obligation to respect or protect the same
gives rise to a cause of action. Petitioners maintain that the
granting of the TLAs, which they claim was done with grave
abuse of discretion, violated their right to a balanced and
healthful ecology; hence, the full protection thereof requires
that no further TLAs should be renewed or granted.

(2) The State shall likewise recognize and

apply a true value system that takes into
account social and environmental cost
implications relative to the utilization,
development and conservation of our natural
resources.

A cause of action is defined as:

. . . an act or omission of one party 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. 18

The above provision stresses "the necessity of maintaining a

sound ecological balance and protecting and enhancing the
quality of the environment." Section 2 of the same Title, on the
other hand, specifically speaks of the mandate of the DENR;
however, it makes particular reference to the fact of the
agency's being subject to law and higher authority. Said
section provides:

It is settled in this jurisdiction that in a motion to dismiss based

on the ground that the complaint fails to state a cause of
action, 19 the question submitted to the court for resolution
involves the sufficiency of the facts alleged in the complaint
itself. No other matter should be considered; furthermore, the
truth of falsity of the said allegations is beside the point for the
truth thereof is deemed hypothetically admitted. The only issue
to be resolved in such a case is: admitting such alleged facts to
be true, may the court render a valid judgment in accordance
with the prayer in the complaint? 20 In Militante vs.
Edrosolano, 21 this Court laid down the rule that the judiciary
should "exercise the utmost care and circumspection in
passing upon a motion to dismiss on the ground of the
absence thereof [cause of action] lest, by its failure to manifest
a correct appreciation of the facts alleged and deemed
hypothetically admitted, what the law grants or recognizes is
effectively nullified. If that happens, there is a blot on the legal
order. The law itself stands in disrepute."

Sec. 2. Mandate. (1) The Department of

Environment and Natural Resources shall be
primarily responsible for the implementation
of the foregoing policy.
(2) It shall, subject to law and higher
authority, be in charge of carrying out the
State's constitutional mandate to control and
supervise the exploration, development,
utilization, and conservation of the country's
natural resources.
Both E.O. NO. 192 and the Administrative Code of 1987 have
set the objectives which will serve as the bases for policy
formulation, and have defined the powers and functions of the
DENR.

After careful examination of the petitioners' complaint, We find

the statements under the introductory affirmative allegations,
as well as the specific averments under the sub-heading
CAUSE OF ACTION, to be adequate enough to show, prima
facie, the claimed violation of their rights. On the basis thereof,
they may thus be granted, wholly or partly, the reliefs prayed
for. It bears stressing, however, that insofar as the cancellation
of the TLAs is concerned, there is the need to implead, as
party defendants, the grantees thereof for they are
indispensable parties.

In the case now before us, the jurisdictional

objection becomes even less tenable and
decisive. The 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 revolving it under the
expanded jurisdiction conferred upon us that
now covers, in proper cases, even the
political question. Article VII, Section 1, of the
Constitution clearly provides: . . .

The foregoing considered, Civil Case No. 90-777 be said to

raise a political question. Policy formulation or determination by
the executive or legislative branches of Government is not
squarely put in issue. What is principally involved is the
enforcement of a right vis-a-vis policies already formulated and
expressed in legislation. It must, nonetheless, be emphasized
that the political question doctrine is no longer, the
insurmountable obstacle to the exercise of judicial power or the
impenetrable shield that protects executive and legislative
actions from judicial inquiry or review. The second paragraph
of section 1, Article VIII of the Constitution states that:

The last ground invoked by the trial court in dismissing the

complaint is the non-impairment of contracts clause found in
the Constitution. The court a quo declared that:
The Court is likewise of the impression that it
cannot, no matter how we stretch our
jurisdiction, grant the reliefs prayed for by the
plaintiffs, i.e., to cancel all existing timber
license agreements in the country and to
cease and desist from receiving, accepting,
processing, renewing or approving new
timber license agreements. For to do
otherwise would amount to "impairment of
contracts" abhored (sic) by the fundamental
law. 24

Judicial power includes the duty of the courts

of justice to settle actual controversies
involving rights which are legally
demandable and enforceable, and to
determine whether or not there has been a
grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack
or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any
branch or instrumentality of the Government.

We are not persuaded at all; on the contrary, We are amazed,

if not shocked, by such a sweeping pronouncement. In the first
place, the respondent Secretary did not, for obvious reasons,
even invoke in his motion to dismiss the non-impairment
clause. If he had done so, he would have acted with utmost
infidelity to the Government by providing undue and
unwarranted benefits and advantages to the timber license
holders because he would have forever bound the Government
to strictly respect the said licenses according to their terms and
conditions regardless of changes in policy and the demands of
public interest and welfare. He was aware that as correctly
pointed out by the petitioners, into every timber license must
be read Section 20 of the Forestry Reform Code (P.D. No. 705)
which provides:

Commenting on this provision in his book, Philippine Political

Law, 22 Mr. Justice Isagani A. Cruz, a distinguished member of
this Court, says:
The first part of the authority represents the
traditional concept of judicial power, involving
the settlement of conflicting rights as
conferred as law. The second part of the
authority represents a broadening of judicial
power to enable the courts of justice to
review what was before forbidden territory, to
wit, the discretion of the political departments
of the government.

. . . Provided, That when the national interest

so requires, the President may amend,
modify, replace or rescind any contract,
concession, permit, licenses or any other
form of privilege granted herein . . .

As worded, the new provision vests in the

judiciary, and particularly the Supreme Court,
the power to rule upon even the wisdom of
the decisions of the executive and the
legislature and to declare their acts invalid
for lack or excess of jurisdiction because
tainted with grave abuse of discretion. The
catch, of course, is the meaning of "grave
abuse of discretion," which is a very elastic
phrase that can expand or contract
according to the disposition of the judiciary.

Needless to say, all licenses may thus be revoked or

rescinded by executive action. It is not a contract,
property or a property right protested by the due
process clause of the Constitution. In Tan vs. Director
of Forestry, 25 this Court held:
. . . 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

In Daza vs. Singson, 23 Mr. Justice Cruz, now speaking for this
Court, noted:

privilege, which can be validly withdrawn

whenever dictated by public interest or public
welfare as in this case.

a balanced and healthful ecology, promoting their health and

enhancing the general welfare. In Abe vs. Foster Wheeler
Corp. 28 this Court stated:

A license is merely a permit or privilege to do

what otherwise would be unlawful, and is not
a contract between the authority, federal,
state, or municipal, granting it and the
person to whom it is granted; neither is it
property or a property right, nor does it
create a vested right; nor is it taxation (37
C.J. 168). Thus, this Court held that the
granting of license does not create
irrevocable rights, neither is it property or
property rights (People vs. Ong Tin, 54 O.G.
7576).

The freedom of contract, under our system

of government, is not meant to be absolute.
The same is understood to be subject to
reasonable legislative regulation aimed at
the promotion of public health, moral, safety
and welfare. In other words, the
constitutional guaranty of non-impairment of
obligations of contract is limited by the
exercise of the police power of the State, in
the interest of public health, safety, moral
and general welfare.
The reason for this is emphatically set forth in Nebia vs. New
York, 29 quoted in Philippine American Life Insurance Co. vs.
Auditor General, 30 to wit:

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].

Under our form of government the use of

property and the making of contracts are
normally matters of private and not of public
concern. The general rule is that both shall
be free of governmental interference. But
neither property rights nor contract rights are
absolute; for government cannot exist if the
citizen may at will use his property to the
detriment of his fellows, or exercise his
freedom of contract to work them harm.
Equally fundamental with the private right is
that of the public to regulate it in the common
interest.
In short, the non-impairment clause must yield to the police
power of the state. 31
Finally, it is difficult to imagine, as the trial court did, how the
non-impairment clause could apply with respect to the prayer
to enjoin the respondent Secretary from receiving, accepting,
processing, renewing or approving new timber licenses for,
save in cases of renewal, no contract would have as of yet
existed in the other instances. Moreover, with respect to
renewal, the holder is not entitled to it as a matter of right.

Since timber licenses are not contracts, the non-impairment

clause, which reads:
Sec. 10. No law impairing, the obligation of
contracts shall be passed. 27

WHEREFORE, being impressed with merit, the instant Petition

is hereby GRANTED, and the challenged Order of respondent
Judge of 18 July 1991 dismissing Civil Case No. 90-777 is
hereby set aside. The petitioners may therefore amend their
complaint to implead as defendants the holders or grantees of
the questioned timber license agreements.

cannot be invoked.
In 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 executive issuance declaring the cancellation or
modification of existing timber licenses. Hence, the nonimpairment clause cannot as yet be invoked. Nevertheless,
granting further that a law has actually been passed mandating
cancellations or modifications, 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

No pronouncement as to costs.
SO ORDERED.
OPOSA vs. FACTORAN
G.R. No. 101083. July 30, 1993 - - Digested Case

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.

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.

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