Oposa vs. Factoran (G.R. No.

101083, July 30, 1993) (2) Whether or not the original prayer of the plaintiffs result in the
impairment of contracts.
The plaintiffs in this case are all minors duly represented and joined by (3) Whether or not the TLAs can be cancelled.
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) First Issue: Cause of Action.
Secretary of the Department of Environment and Natural Reasources
(DENR). Plaintiffs alleged that they are entitled to the full benefit, use
Do petitioners have a cause of action to prevent the
and enjoyment of the natural resource treasure that is the country's
misappropriation or impairment of Philippine rainforests and
virgin tropical forests. They further asseverate that they represent their
arrest the unabated hemorrhage of the country’s vital life-support
generation as well as generations yet unborn and asserted that
systems and continued rape of Mother Earth? [in legal terms, do
continued deforestation have caused a distortion and disturbance of
the petitioners have a cause of action under sec. 16 of Art II based
the ecological balance and have resulted in a host of environmental
on “inter-generational justice and responsibility”] – YES.
tragedies.

• Complaint contains sufficient allegations concerning their right to a

 25 years ago, the PH has 16million hectares of rainforests sound environment based on Arts. 19, 20 and 21 of the Civil Code
(53% of country’s land mass); 1987 satellite images show (Human Relations),
there remained no more than 1.2million hectares of said
rainforests (4%)
o Section 4 of E.O. No. 192 creating the DENR, Sec. 3 of
 Public records reveal that the defendant's predecessors
P.D. No. 1151 (Philippine Environmental Policy), o Sec. 16,
have granted timber license agreements ('TLA's') to various
Art. II of the 1987 Constitution recognizing the right of
corps to cut the aggregate area of 3.89 million hectares for
the people to a balanced and healthful ecology, the
commercial logging purposes.
concept of generational genocide in Criminal Law and the
 The continued allowance by DENR of TLA holders to cut and concept of man's inalienable right to self-preservation and
deforest the remaining forest stands will work great damage self-perpetuation embodied in natural law.
and irreparable injury to plaintiffs, especially the minors
and their successors, who may never see, use, benefit from
and enjoy this rare and unique natural resource treasure. o Petitioners likewise rely on the respondent's correlative
obligation per Sec. 4 of E.O. No. 192, to safeguard the
 11 environmental damages already being felt by the
people's right to a healthful environment
generation of plaintiff adults

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

o water shortages resulting from drying up of the
under the Declaration of Principles and State Policies and not
"aquifer," o salinization of the water table
under the Bill of Rights, it does not follow that it is less important
o massive erosion and the consequential loss of soil
than any of the civil and political rights enumerated in the latter.
fertility

o Such a right belongs to a different category of rights

o endangering and extinction of PH unique and rare
altogether for it concerns nothing less than self- preservation
flora & fauna o disturbance and dislocation of
and self-perpetuation – the advancement of which may even
indigenous cultural communities, o the siltation of rivers
be said to predate all governments and constitutions.
and seabeds and destruction of corals
o recurrent drought spells
o The right need not even be written in the Constitution.
If it is, it is only because of the well- founded fear of the
o increasing velocity of typhoons from absence of
framers that unless the rights to a balanced and healthful
windbreakers
ecology and to health are mandated as state policies, the
o flooding of lowlands and agricultural plains
day would come when all else would be lost not only for the
o siltation and shortening of the lifespan of multi-billion
present generation, but also for those to come generations
peso dams
which stand to inherit nothing but parched earth incapable of
o reduction of earth's capacity to process CO2 gases,
sustaining life.
catastrophic climatic changes such as phenomenon of
global warming
• The right to a balanced and healthful ecology carries with it the
correlative duty to refrain from impairing the environment.
Plaintiffs prayed that judgement be rendered ordering the respondent,
his agents, representatives and other persons acting in his behalf to • Commissioner Azcuna said that the section mandates the State to
cancel all existing Timber License Agreement (TLA) in the country and provide sanctions against all forms of pollution. The said right implies,
to cease and desist from receiving, accepting, processing, renewing or among many other things, the judicious management and conservation
approving new TLAs. of the country's forests.

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.
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.
1
 EO 192: mandates that the DENR "shall be the primary
government agency responsible for the conservation,
management, development and proper use of the country's
environment and natural resources, specifically ... 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." – restated in the Admin. Code of
1987. It stresses "the necessity of maintaining a sound
ecological balance and protecting and enhancing the quality
of the environment."
 Other laws paying special attention to the environmental
right: PD1151 (PH Env’tal Policy) and PD1152 (PH Env’tal
Code)
• 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
correlative duty or obligation to respect or protect the same gives rise
to a cause of action.
Third Issue: Violation of the non-impairment clause.
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.
Can the Court grant the cancellation of all TLAs and to order the
cessation and desistance from receiving, accepting, processing
and approving new TLAs? - Yes
• RTC dismissed the complaint because the prayer is violative of the
non-impairment clause – but SC said it does not.
o A Timber License Agreement is not a
contract, property or a property right protested by the
due process clause of the Constitution.
o Factoran would have acted with utmost infidelity
to the Govt 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.
o Sec. 20 of the Forestry Reform Code must be
read in every TLA: “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” – 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.
Resident Marine Mammals v. Reyes
(The Tañon Strait is a narrow passage of water bounded by the
islands of Cebu in the East and Negros in the West. It harbors a rich
biodiversity of marine life, including endangered species of dolphins
and whales. For this reason, former President Fidel V. Ramos declared
the Tañon Strait as a protected seascape in 1998)
• The case involves 2 consolidated cases.
st
o 1 case: The petitioner, “Resident Marine Mammals,” are the
toothed whales, dolphins, porpoises, and other cetacean species that
inhabit Tanõ n Strait. Their Stewards: Gloria Ramos and Rose-Liza
Eisma Osorio are their legal guardians and friends.
nd
o 2 case: The petitioner, Central Visayas Fisherfold Development
Center, is the organization establish for the welfare of fisherfolk in
Region 7.
o Both cases are against Depart of Energy Secretary Angelo Reyes.
• 2002, the government of the PH, acting through DOE, entered into a
Geophysical Survey and Exploration Contract (GSEC-102) with
Japan Petroleum Exploration (JAPEX).
o This contract involves geological and geophysical studies
̃ n Strait.
of the Tano
o It also included geophysical and satellite surveys as wells
as gas sampling
• 2004, DOE and JAPEX formally converted GSEC-102 to SC-46 for
the exploration, development, and production of petroleum
resources covering 2,850 sqm offshore the Tañon Strait.
o JAPEX conducted drill one exploration well during the
project in compliance with the Environmental Impact
Assessment found in PD 1586.
o JAPEX was issued an Environmental Compliance
Certificate (ECC).
• Petitioners now went to the SC for redress seeking to enjoin SC-46
from implementation and to nullify the ECC in violation of the
Constitution.
o RMM and their Stewards contend that JAPEX’s oil
exploration activities have an adverse ecological impact on
the Tañon Strait.
o RMM and the Stewards showed a study made that showed
that the fish catch was reduced drastically by 50 to 70
percent, the average harvest per day went from 15-20 kilos
to 1-2 kilos a day. They attribute these decreases to the
destruction of the "payao" also known as the “artificial
reef."
o They further contend that the ECC obtained by JAPEX
is invalid because public consultations and discussions
with the affected stakeholders were not held.
o FIDEC confirms the allegations made by RMM of reduced
fish catch and lack of public consultations with the fisherfolk
and other stakeholders prior to the issuance of the ECC.
o Moreover, FIDEC alleges that during the seismic surveys
and drilling, it was barred from entering and fishing within a
7km radius from the point where the oilrig was located
greater than the 1.5km radius "exclusion zone" stated in the
contract.
• DOE, through the OSG, contend that:
o (1) RMM and Stewards have no legal standing to file the present
petition,
o (2) SC-46 does not violate the Constitution and the various laws,
o (3) ECC was issued in accordance with existing laws and
regulations;
o (4) DOE may not be compelled by mandamus to furnish petitioners
copies of all documents relating
to SC-46; and
o (5) all the petitioners failed to show that they are entitled to injunctive
relief.
o Moreover, the OSG contended that the case is moot and academic
due to the termination of the contract prior to the judgement of the
case. (SC did not accept this for (1) a grave violation of the
Constitution; (2) exceptional character of the situation and the
paramount public interest; (3) constitutional issue raised requires
formulation of controlling principles to guide the bench, the bar, and the
public; and (4) The case is capable of repetition yet evading review.
ISSUES/HELD;
Does the RMM have legal standing? YES!
• OSG argues that Sec. 1, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court states that “only
natural and juridical” entities can file a suit and that the Oposa case
does not apply since they were all natural persons, even though some
are unborn.
• SC discussed the issue on whether animals or inanimate objects
have legal standing in the 1972 US case of Sierra v. Roges C.B.
Morton, where Justice Douglas dissented that inanimate objects are
sometimes parties in litigation.
o He said that “a ship has a legal personality for maritime purposes.
The corporation sole is an acceptable adversary and large fortunes
ride on its cases. The ordinary corporation is a "person" for purposes of
the adjudicatory processes, whether it represents proprietary, spiritual,
aesthetic, or charitable causes. So valleys, alpine meadows, rivers,
lakes, estuaries, beaches, ridges, groves of trees, swampland, or even
air that feels the destructive pressures of modern technology and
modem life. The river is the living symbol of all the life it sustains or
nourishes—fish, aquatic insects, water ouzels, otter, fisher, deer, elk,
bear, and all other animals, including man, who are dependent on it or
who enjoy it for its sight, its sound, or its life.”
 In the PH, locus standi in environmental cases has a more
liberalized approach.
o The current trend moves towards simplification of
procedures and facilitating court access in
environmental cases.
 Recently, the landmark Rules of Procedure for
Environmental Cases was approved, it allows for a “citizen
suit” and permit and Filipino citizen to file to courts violations
of the environmental laws basing on the reasoning that
humans are “stewards of nature”:
o The enactment of the Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases
enabled litigants enforcing environmental rights to file their cases as
citizen suits.
o It liberalized standing for all cases filed enforcing environmental laws
and collapses the traditional rule on personal and direct interest, based
on the principle that humans are stewards of nature.
o The need to give animals legal standing in environmental cases has
been eliminated by the Rules
since any Filipino citizen, as a steward of nature, is allowed to
bring a suit to enforce environmental laws. RMM and their
stewards has locus standing to file this petition. – Hence,
“humans are the stewards of nature”.
• In fact, even before the Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases
became effective, this Court had already taken a permissive position
on the issue of locus standi in environmental cases. (Oposa).
o The right to a balanced and healthful ecology, a right that does not
even need to be stated in our Constitution as it is assumed to exist
from the inception of humankind, carries with it the correlative duty to
refrain from impairing the environment.
o 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.
Can they implead Pres. GMA as an unwilling co-petitioner?—NO.
 Sec. 10, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court provides for the
provision of unwilling co-plaintiff.
 The reason cited by the Stewards to include former PGMA in
their petition, is insufficient to implead her as an unwilling co-
petitioner. Impleading the former President as an unwilling
co-petitioner, for an act she made in the performance of the
functions of her office, is contrary to the public policy against
embroiling the President in suits, "to assure the exercise of
Presidential duties and functions free from any hindrance or
distraction, considering that being the Chief Executive of the
Government is a job that, aside from requiring all of the office
holder's time, also demands undivided attention."
Is Service Contract No. 46 valid?—NO, it is unconstitutional.
• According to Sec. 2, Art. 12 of the Constitution:
o The President may enter into agreements with foreign-owned
corporations involving either technical or financial assistance for
large-scale exploration, development, and utilization of minerals,
petroleum, and other mineral oils according to the general terms
and conditions provided by law, based on real contributions to
the economic growth and general welfare of the country. In such
agreements, the State shall promote the development and use of local
scientific and technical resources. The President shall notify the
Congress of every contract entered into in accordance with this
provision, within thirty days from its execution.
 SC discussed whether service contracts are still allowed in
the 1987 Constitution.
o In the case of La Bugal, the SC held that the deletion of the
words “service contracts” in the
Constitution did not amount to a ban on them per se. The
same is evidenced in the deliberations in
the Constitutional Commission.
 More importantly, the case of La Bugal enumerated the
safeguards based on the Constitution and SC held
that SC-46 is null and void for non-compliance:
o 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.
• 1st requisite: There is a subsisting general law:
o SC held that PD 87 or the Oil Exploration and Development Act
of 1972 is the general law that
governs the oil exploration.
o Even though it was enacted by Marcos, the same is considered valid
and effective absent a repealing
law. areas. In order to explore for resources in a protected area, the
• 2nd and 3rd requisites: President was not a signatory to SC-46 exploration must be performed in accordance with an environmental
and the same was not submitted to Congress. impact assessment (EIA). The Court noted that JAPEX started the
o SC held that even though there is a general law, the President was seismic surveys before any EIA was performed; therefore its activity
not a signatory and the Congress is not notified of such contract, was unlawful. Id., pp. 33-34. Furthermore, the Tanon Strait is a NIPAS
renders it null and void. area, and exploration and utilization of energy resources can only be
authorized through a law passed by the Philippine Congress. Because
o OSG opined that DOE Sec. acted as an “alter ego” of the President. Congress had not specifically authorized the activity in Tañon Strait,
The same does not apply in this case. the Court declared that no energy exploration should be permitted in
o SC held that in the case of Joson v. Torres, the same principle is that area.
limited, to wit: Under this doctrine, which recognizes the establishment
of a single executive, all executive and administrative organizations are
adjuncts of the Executive Department, the heads of the various
executive departments are assistants and agents of the Chief
Executive, and, except in cases where the Chief Executive is
required by the Constitution or law to act in person or the
exigencies of the situation demand that he act personally.
o Also, in the case of La Bugal, the SC held that “under the doctrine
of constitutional supremacy, if a law or contract violates any norm
of the constitution that law or contract whether promulgated by
the legislative or by the executive branch or entered into by
private persons for private purposes is null and void and without
any force and effect. Thus, since the Constitution is the fundamental,
paramount and supreme law of the nation, it is deemed written in every
statute and contract.”

Did Service Contract 46 violate other laws?—YES. (not really

related to Consti.)
• Petitioners claim that SC 46 violate RA 9147 or the National
Integrated Protected Areas System Act of 1992, RA 8550 or the
Philippine Fisheries Code of 1998, and other laws.
 Under Proclamation No. 2146, the Tano ̃ n Strait is an
environmentally critical area having been declared as a
protected area in 1998. Any activity outside the scope of its
management plan may only be implemented pursuant to an
ECC secured after undergoing to determine the effects of
such activity on its ecological system.
 SC held that the said law may serve as the general law
upon which a service contract for petroleum exploration and
extraction may be authorized, the exploitation and utilization
of this energy resource in the present case may be allowed
only through a law passed by Congress, since the Tañon
Strait is a NIPAS area. Since there is no such law specifically
allowing oil exploration and/or extraction in the Tano ̃ n Strait,
no energy resource exploitation and utilization may be done
in said protected seascape.

As to standing, the Court declined to extend the principle of standing

beyond natural and juridical persons, even though it recognized that
the current trend in Philippine jurisprudence “moves towards
simplification of procedures and facilitating court access in
environmental cases.” Id., p. 15. Instead, the Court explained, “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.”

The Court then held that while SC-46 was authorized Presidential
Decree No. 87 on oil extraction, the contract did not fulfill two additional
constitutional requirements. Section 2 Article XII of the 1987
Constitution requires a service contract for oil exploration and
extraction to be signed by the president and reported to
congress. Because the JAPEX contract was executed solely by the
Energy Secretary, and not reported to the Philippine congress, the
Court held that it was unconstitutional

In addition, the Court also ruled that the contract violated the National
Integrated Protected Areas System Act of 1992 (NIPAS Act), which
generally prohibits exploitation of natural resources in protected