1) OPOSA v. FACTORAN (July 30, 1993)FACTS The present
controversy has its genesis in a Civil Case filed by the
plaintiffs,who are all minors, duly represented and joined by their
parents. The complaintwasinstitutedasataxpayers classsuit
andallegesthat theplaintiffsareciti!ensofthe"epublicof
the#hilippines, taxpayers, andentitledtothefullbenefit, use and
enjoyment of the natural resource treasure that is the
countrysvirgin tropical forests. They further asseverate that they
$represent theirgenerationas well as generations yet unborn.%
Theysought tocancel allexisting Timber &icense Agreements
'T&As( in the country and to orderdefendant, then Secretary of
the )epartment of *nvironment and +atural"esources, andits agents
toceaseanddesist fromreceiving, accepting,processing, renewing or
approving new T&As. The complaint included scientific evidence
indicating how we could maintain abalancedandhealthfulecology.
Anydistortionordisturbanceofthis balancehave resulted in
environmental tragedies. The adverse effects of this continuedtrend
of deforestation to the plaintiffs generation and to generations
yet unbornare evident and incontrovertible. The continued allowance
by the defendant ofT&A holderstocut anddeforest
theremainingforest standswill wor,greatdamage and irreparable
injury to plaintiffs who may never see, use, benefit fromand enjoy
this rare and uni-ue natural resource treasure. )efendant filed a
.otion to )ismiss the complaint on the grounds that plaintiffshave
no cause of action and that the issue raised is a political
-uestion. "espondent /udgeissuedanorder
grantingtheaforementionedmotiontodismiss. 0n the said order, not
only was the defendants claim was sustained,the defendant /udge
further ruled that the granting of relief prayed for wouldresult in
impairment of contracts which is prohibited by the fundamental law
ofthe land. 1ence, plaintiffs filed the instant specialcivilaction
forcertiorariand as, thisCourt to rescind and set aside the
dismissal order on the ground thatrespondent /udge gravely abused
his discretion in dismissing the action.ISSUE Whether the l!"#t"$$%
h!ve l&'u% %t!#(" ) *ES."2&0+3 As to the matter of the
cancellation of T&As, respondents submit that the samecannot be
done by the State without violating due process of law. 4nce
issued,a T&A
remainseffectiveandthesamecanneitherberevisednorcancelledunless the
holder has been found to have violated the terms of the agreementor
other forestry laws and regulations. #etitioners5proposition to
have alltheT&As indiscriminately cancelled without the
re-uisite hearing would be violativeof the re-uirements of due
process. All licenses may be revo,ed or rescinded. A timber license
is an instrument bywhich the State regulates the utili!ation and
disposition of forest resources tothe end that public welfare is
promoted. A timber license is not a contract withinthe purview of
the due process clause6 it is only a license or privilege, whichcan
be validly withdrawn whenever dictated by public interest or public
welfareas in this case. The subject matter of the complaint is of
common and general interest not justto several, but to all citi!ens
of the #hilippines. #laintiffs personality to sue inbehalf of
succeeding generations is based on the concept of
intergenerationalresponsibility insofar as the right to a balanced
and healthful ecology isconcerned. Suchright
considerstherhythmandharmonyof nature. *verygeneration has a
responsibility to the next to preserve that rhythm and harmonyfor
the full enjoyment of a balanced and healthful ecology. This
specificfundamental legal right, the right to a balanced and
healthful ecology, issolemnly incorporated in the fundamental law
'Section 78, Article 00 of the 79:;Constitution(. shore areas and
othernatural resources, including the protection and enhancement of
the -ualityof the environment, and e-uitable access of the
different segments of thepopulation to the development and the use
of the country5s naturalresources, not only for the present
generation but for future generations aswell. 0t is also the policy
of the state to recogni!e and apply a true valuesystem including
social and environmental cost implications relative to
theirutili!ation, development and conservation of our natural
resources. Thispolicydeclarationissubstantiallyre>statedit
TitleE0F,=oo,0Fof theAdministrative Code of 79:;, 1+ specifically
in Section 7 thereof which readsDSec. 7. Declaration of Policy. ?
'7( The State shall ensure, for the benefit oftheFilipinopeople,
thefull explorationanddevelopment aswell asthejudicious
disposition, utili!ation, management, renewal and conservation
ofthe country5s forest, mineral, land, waters, fisheries, wildlife,
off>shore areasand other natural resources, consistent with the
necessity of maintaining asound ecologicalbalance and protecting
and enhancing the -uality of theenvironment and the objective of
ma,ing the exploration, development andutili!ationof suchnatural
resourcese-uitablyaccessibletothedifferentsegments of the present
as well as future generations.'@( The State shallli,ewise recogni!e
and apply a true value system thatta,es into account social and
environmental cost implications relative to theutili!ation,
development and conservation of our natural resources. The above
provision stresses Bthe necessity of maintaining a sound
ecologicalbalance and protecting and enhancing the -uality of the
environment.B Section@ of the same Title, on the other hand,
specifically spea,s of the mandate of the)*+"6 however, it ma,es
particular reference to the fact of the agency5s beingsubject to
law and higher authority. Said section providesDSec. @.Mandate.
?'7( The )epartment of *nvironment and +atural"esources shall
beprimarilyresponsiblefor theimplementationof theforegoing
policy.'@( 0t shall, subject to law and higher authority, be in
charge of carrying outthe State5s constitutional mandate to control
and supervise the exploration,development, utili!ation, and
conservation of the country5s naturalresources. =oth *.4. +4. 79@
and the Administrative Code of 79:; have set the
objectiveswhichwill serveasthebasesfor policyformulation,
andhavedefinedthepowers and functions of the )*+". 0t may, however,
be recalled that even before the ratification of 79:;Constitution,
specific statutes already paid special attention to
theBenvironmental rightB of present and future generations. 4n 8
/une 79;;, #.).+o. 77G7 '#hilippine *nvironmental #olicy( and #.).
+o. 77G@ '#hilippine*nvironment Code( were issued. The former
Bdeclared a continuing policy ofthe State 'a( to create, develop,
maintain and improve conditions under
whichmanandnaturecanthriveinproductiveandenjoyableharmonywitheachother,
'b( to fulfill the social, economic and other re-uirements of
present andfuture generations of Filipinos, and 'c( to insure the
attainment of anenvironmental -uality that is conducive to a life
of dignity and well>being.B As itsgoal, it spea,s of the
Bresponsibilities of each generation as trustee andguardian of the
environment for succeeding generations.B The latter statute, onthe
other hand, gave flesh to the said policy. Thus, the right of the
plaintiffs 'and all those they represent( to a balanced
andhealthful ecology is as clear as )*+"5s duty ? under its mandate
and by virtueof its powers and functions under *.4. +o. 79@ and the
Administrative Code of79:; ? to protect and advance the said right.
A denial or violation of that rightby the other who has the
corelative duty or obligation to respect or protect thesame gives
rise to a cause of action. #etitioners maintain that the granting
ofthe T&As, which they claim was done with grave abuse of
discretion, violatedtheir right to a balanced and healthful
ecology6 hence, the full protection thereofre-uires that no further
T&As should be renewed or granted.,)-A .U/A-0.1-AAN TRI.A-
ASSOCIATION, INC. 2S. 2ICTOR O. RA3OS, ET A-. (3!r'h ,9, ,011)FACTS
/ul. @G, 79:;D #res. A-uino issued *4 @;9 authori!ing the )*+"
Secretary toaccept,consider and evaluateproposals from
foreign>owned corporationsforcontracts involving either
technical or financial assistance for large>scaleexploration,
development and utili!ation of minerals. The #resident mayexecute
with the foreign proponent, upon recommendation of the Secretary.
.ar. C, 799GD #res. "amos approved "A ;9A@ '#hilippine .ining Act
799G( togovernthe exploration,development,
utili!ation,andprocessing of all miningresources. 0t too, effect on
Apr. 9, 799G. .ar. CH, 799GD #res. "amos entered into a Financial
and Technical AssistanceAgreement 'FTAA( with intensive activities(
exploration, development and utili!ation are nowallowed.o Third,
+AT2"A& "*S42"C*S subject of the activitiesD restricted
to.0+*"A&S, #*T"4&*2.and4T1*".0+*"A&40&S.
Thisistolimitservice contracts to areas where Filipino capital is
insufficient.o Fourth, theagreementsmust
be0+ACC4")A+C*SCA&*exploration, development andutili!ationof
minerals,petroleum and mineraloils, the #resident may enter into
agreements withforeign>owned corporations involving financial or
technical assistance. For theAthmodeli,einthecaseat bar,
alegally>organi!edforeign>ownedcorporation'lessthanGHJof
thecapital isownedbyFilipinociti!ens( isdeemed a -ualified person.
&argescalein"A;9A@isdeterminedbythesi!eof thecontract
areaasopposed to the amount invested 'OGH .( under *4 @;9. Also,
the collection of government share in an FTAA shall commence
AFT*"the FTAA Contractor has fully recovered its pre>operating
expenses, explorationand development
expenditures.0SS2*SK"2&0+3D1. Whether E.O. N&. ,49, the l!5
"# $&r'e 5he# the W3C FTAA 5!%
e6e'ute(,'!7e"#t&e$$e't)*ES.*.4. +o.
@;9becameeffectiveimmediatelyuponitspublication in the 4fficial
3a!ette on Aug. C, 79:;. AHJ( re-uirement. 0t was intended to be a
safeguardto prevent abuses. Service contracts are not allowed.
TheC4+C4.too, intoconsiderationthe$)raft of
the79:82#&awConstitutional #roject% when it adopted the concept
of $agreementsPinvolving either technical or financial
assistance%.o The 2# &aw draft proponents viewed service
contracts under the 79;CConstitutionasgrantsof beneficial
ownershipof thecountrysnaturalresources to foreign owned
corporations. $agreementsPinvolvingeithertechnical orfinancial
assistance% > doesnot absolutelyindicatetheintent toexcludeother
modes of assistance. The phrase signifies the possibility of
theinclusion of other activities, provided they bear some
reasonablerelationship to and compatibility with financial or
technical assistance. 1adthey intended for an absolute prohibition,
they would have adoptedlanguage unmista,ably restrictive and
stringent. 0sof theviewthat the79:;Constitutionstill
allowsforservicecontractssubject to several restrictions and
modifications. 0nvalidating "A ;9A@ and the FTAA could
unnecessarily burden the recoveryof the industry and the employment
of opportunities it would li,ely generate.#rudent lending practices
necessitate a certain degree of involvement in theborrowers
management process. Also, technical arrangements oftennecessarily
include interface with the management process itself. 0s of the
view that he C4+C4. intended the Constitution to be flexible
andadaptable. Taada v. Angara:There is a need to interpret the
Constitution to cover$refreshing winds of change necessitated by
unfolding events%.3) I%!9!#" Cru= v. >ENR (>e'e7:er ?,
,000)FACTS #etitioners0sagani Cru!andCesar *uropabrought suit for
prohibitionandmandamus as citi!ens and taxpayers, assailing the
constitutionality of certainprovisionsof
the0ndigenous#eoples"ightsAct of 799;'"epublicAct +o.:C;7( and its
0mplementing "ules and "egulations. o Certainprovisionsof the0#"A
andits0mplementing"ulesamount tounlawful deprivationof
theStatesownershipoverlandsof thepublicdomain as wellas minerals
and other natural resources, in violation ofthe "egalian )octrine
embodied in Sec. @, Art. E00 of the Constitution.o
=yprovidingforanall>encompassingdefinitionof $ancestral
domains%and$ancestral lands% whichmight
evenincludeprivatelandsfoundwithinsaidareas, SectionsC'a( andC'b(
violatetherightsof privatelandowners.o #rovisions of the 0#"A
defining the powers and jurisdiction of the
+C0#andma,ingcustomarylawapplicabletothesettlement of
disputesinvolving ancestral domains and ancestral lands violate the
due processclause of the Constitution.o "uleF00, #art 00, Sec. 7of
+C0# A.4. +o. 7whichprovidesthat $theadministrative relationship of
the +C0# to the 4ffice of the #resident ischaracteri!ed as a
lateralbut autonomous relationship for purposes ofpolicy and
program coordination% infringes upon the #residents power
ofcontrolover executive departments under Section 7;, Article F00
of theConstitution. "espondents were re-uired by the Court to
comment.o Chairperson and Commissioners of the +ational Commission
on0ndigenous #eoples '+C0#(, the government agency created by said
Actto implement provisions, defended the constitutionality of
0#"A.Secretary of )*+" and Secretary of )epartment of =udget
and.anagement ')=.( also filed their comment through the
Solicitor3eneral, which viewed 0#"A as partly unconstitutional on
the ground thatit grants ownership over natural resources to
indigenous peoples. Sevaral parties filed for their .otions to
0ntervene.o Senator /uan Flavier 'one of the authors of 0#"A(,
#onciano =ennagen'member of the 79:8 Constitutional Commission(,
and leaders andmembers of 77@ groups of indigenous peoples joined
+C0# in defendingthe constitutionality of 0#"A.o Commission on
1uman "ights 'C1"( asserted that 0#"A is anexpression of the
principle of parens patriae and that the State has
theresponsibility to protect and guarantee the rights of those who
are at aserious disadvantage li,e indigenous peoples.o 0,alahan
0ndigenous #eople and the 1aribon Foundation forConservationof
+atural "esources, 0nc. '1aribon, et al.( agreedwith+C0#, Flavier,
et al. that 0#"A is consistent with the Constitution.ISSUE) Whether
the @ue%t"e( r&v"%"% &$ IPRA !re u#'%t"tut"!l )NO.After
duedeliberation, sevenmembersof theCourt votedtodismissthepetition,
while seven other members of the Court voted to grant the petition.
As thevotes were e-ually divided ';>;( and the necessary
majority was not obtained, thecase was redeliberated upon.1owever,
after redeliberation, the voting remainedthesame.Accordingly,
pursuant to"uleG8, Section;of the"ules of Civil#rocedure, the
petition is )0S.0SS*).Se!r!teAC'urr"#9A>"%%e#t"#9 O"#"