G.R. No.

101083 absorbent mechanism of forests, (j) the siltation and shortening of the lifespan of multi-billion peso dams constructed and
operated for the purpose of supplying water for domestic uses, irrigation and the generation of electric power, and (k) the
DAVIDE, JR., J.: 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."
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, Plaintiffs further assert that the adverse and detrimental consequences of continued deforestation are so capable of
it touches on the issue of whether the said petitioners have a cause of action to "prevent the misappropriation or impairment" unquestionable demonstration that the same may be submitted as a matter of judicial notice. This notwithstanding, they
of Philippine rainforests and "arrest the unabated hemorrhage of the country's vital life-support systems and continued rape of expressed their intention to present expert witnesses as well as documentary, photographic and film evidence in the course of
Mother Earth." the trial.

The controversy has its genesis in Civil Case No. 90-777 which was filed before Branch 66 (Makati, Metro Manila) of the As their cause of action, they specifically allege that:
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 "CAUSE OF ACTION
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 7. Plaintiffs replead by reference the foregoing allegations.
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 8. Twenty-five (25) years ago, the Philippines had some sixteen (16) million hectares of rainforests constituting roughly 53% of
motion by the petitioners.[1] The complaint[2] was instituted as a taxpayers' class suit[3] and alleges that the plaintiffs "are all the country's land mass.
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 rainforests." The same was filed for themselves and others who are equally 9. Satellite images taken in 1987 reveal that there remained no more than 1.2 million hectares of said rainforests or four per
concerned about the preservation of said resource but are "so numerous that it is impracticable to bring them all before the cent (4.0%) of the country's land area.
Court." The minors further asseverate that they "represent their generation as well as generations yet unborn."[4]
10. More recent surveys reveal that a mere 850,000 hectares of virgin old-growth rainforests are left, barely 2.8% of the entire
Consequently, it is prayed for that judgment be rendered:
land mass of the Philippine archipelago and about 3.0 million hectares of immature and uneconomical secondary growth
"x x x ordering defendant, his agents, representatives and other persons acting in his behalf to -- forests.

(1) Cancel all existing timber license agreements in the country; 11. Public records reveal that 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.
(2) Cease and desist from receiving, accepting, processing, renewing or approving new timber license agreements."
A copy of the TLA holders and the corresponding areas covered is hereto attached as Annex 'A'.
and granting the plaintiffs "x x x such other reliefs just and equitable under the premises."[5]
12. At the present rate of deforestation, i.e. about 200,000 hectares per annum or 25 hectares per annum or 25 hectares per
The complaint starts off with the general averments that the Philippine archipelago of 7,100 islands has a land area of thirty hour -- nighttime, Saturdays, Sundays and holidays included -- the Philippines will be bereft of forest resources after the end of
million (30,000,000) hectares and is endowed with rich, lush and verdant rainforests in which varied, rare and unique species of this ensuing decade, if not earlier.
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 13. The adverse effects, disastrous consequences, serious injury and irreparable damage of this continued trend of
evidence reveals that in order to maintain a balanced and healthful ecology, the country's land area should be utilized on the deforestation to the plaintiff minors' generation and to generations yet unborn are evident and incontrovertible. As a matter of
basis of a ratio of fifty-four per cent (54%) for forest cover and forty-six per cent (46%) for agricultural, residential, industrial, fact, the environmental damages enumerated in paragraph 6 hereof are already being felt, experienced and suffered by the
commercial and other uses; the distortion and disturbance of this balance as a consequence of deforestation have resulted in a generation of plaintiff adults.
host of environmental tragedies, such as (a) water shortages resulting from the drying up of the water table, otherwise known
14. The continued allowance by defendant of TLA holders to cut and deforest the remaining forest stands will work great
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
damage and irreparable injury to plaintiffs -- especially plaintiff minors and their successors -- who may never see, use, benefit
salt water, incontrovertible examples of which may be found in the island of Cebu and the Municipality of Bacoor, Cavite, (c)
from and enjoy this rare and unique natural resource treasure.
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,
This act of defendant constitutes a misappropriation and/or impairment of the natural resource property he holds in trust for
(d) the endangering and extinction of the country's unique, rare and varied flora and fauna, (e) the disturbance and dislocation
the benefit of plaintiff minors and succeeding generations.
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) 15. Plaintiffs have a clear and constitutional right to a balanced and healthful ecology and are entitled to protection by the
recurrent spells of drought as is presently experienced by the entire country, (h) increasing velocity of typhoon winds which State in its capacity as the parens patriae.
result from the absence of windbreakers, (i) the flooding of lowlands and agricultural plains arising from the absence of the
16. Plaintiffs have exhausted all administrative remedies with the defendant's office. On March 2, 1990, plaintiffs served upon On 18 July 1991, respondent Judge issued an order granting the aforementioned motion to dismiss.[7] In the said order, not
defendant a final demand to cancel all logging permits in the country. 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 reliefs prayed for would result in the impairment of
A copy of the plaintiffs' letter dated March 1, 1990 is hereto attached as Annex 'B'. contracts which is prohibited by the fundamental law of the land.

17. Defendant, however, fails and refuses to cancel the existing TLA's, to the continuing serious damage and extreme prejudice Plaintiffs thus filed the instant special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court and ask this Court to
of plaintiffs. 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
18. The continued failure and refusal by defendant to cancel the TLA's is an act violative of the rights of plaintiffs, especially case.[8]
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 has been abundantly blessed with. 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
19. Defendant's refusal to cancel the aforementioned TLA's is manifestly contrary to the public policy enunciated in the filed a reply thereto.
Philippine Environmental Policy which, in pertinent part, states that it is the policy of the State --
Petitioners contend that the complaint clearly and unmistakably states a cause of action as it contains sufficient allegations
'(a) to create, develop, maintain and improve conditions under which man and nature can thrive in productive and enjoyable concerning their right to a sound environment based on Articles 19, 20 and 21 of the Civil Code (Human Relations), Section 4 of
harmony with each other; 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,
'(b) to fulfill the social, economic and other requirements of present and future generations of Filipinos and; the concept of generational genocide in Criminal Law and the concept of man's inalienable right to self-preservation and self-
perpetuation embodied in natural law. Petitioners likewise rely on the respondent's correlative obligation, per Section 4 of E.O.
'(c) to ensure the attainment of an environmental quality that is conducive to a life of dignity and well-being'. (P.D. 1151, 6
No. 192, to safeguard the people's right to a healthful environment.
June 1977)
It is further claimed that the issue of the respondent Secretary's alleged grave abuse of discretion in granting Timber License
20. Furthermore, defendant's continued refusal to cancel the aforementioned TLA's is contradictory to the Constitutional
Agreements (TLAs) to cover more areas for logging than what is available involves a judicial question.
policy of the State to --
Anent the invocation by the respondent Judge of the Constitution's non-impairment clause, petitioners maintain that the same
a. effect 'a more equitable distribution of opportunities, income and wealth' and 'make full and efficient use of natural
does not apply in this case because TLAs are not contracts. They likewise submit that even if TLAs may be considered protected
resources (sic).' (Section 1, Article XII of the Constitution);
by the said clause, it is well settled that they may still be revoked by the State when public interest so requires.

b. 'protect the nation's marine wealth.' (Section 2, ibid);

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
c. 'conserve and promote the nation's cultural heritage and resources (sic).' (Section 14, Article XIV, id.);
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
d. 'protect and advance the right of the people to a balanced and healthful ecology in accord with the rhythm and harmony
theory that the question of whether logging should be permitted in the country is a political question which should be properly
of nature.' (Section 16, Article II, id.).
addressed to the executive or legislative branches of Government. They therefore assert that the petitioners' recourse is not to
21. Finally, defendant's act is contrary to the highest law of humankind -- the natural law -- and violative of plaintiffs' right to file an action in court, but to lobby before Congress for the passage of a bill that would ban logging totally.
self-preservation and perpetuation.
As to the matter of the cancellation of the TLAs, respondents submit that the same cannot be done by the State without due
22. There is no other plain, speedy and adequate remedy in law other than the instant action to arrest the unabated process of law. Once issued, a TLA remains effective for a certain period of time -- usually for twenty-five (25) years. During its
hemorrhage of the country's vital life-support systems and continued rape of Mother Earth."[6] 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
On 22 June 1990, the original defendant, Secretary Factoran, Jr., filed a Motion to Dismiss the complaint based on two (2) indiscriminately cancelled without the requisite hearing would be violative of the requirements of due process.
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 Before going any further, We must first focus on some procedural matters. Petitioners instituted Civil Case No. 90-777 as a class
the Motion, the petitioners maintain that (1) the complaint shows a clear and unmistakable cause of action, (2) the motion is suit. The original defendant and the present respondents did not take issue with this matter. Nevertheless, We hereby rule that
dilatory and (3) the action presents a justiciable question as it involves the defendant's abuse of discretion. 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 and in the instant "SEC. 16. The State shall protect and advance the right of the people to a balanced and healthful ecology in accord with the
petition, the latter being but an incident to the former. rhythm and harmony of nature."

This case, however, has a special and novel element. Petitioners minors assert that they represent their generation as well as This right unites with the right to health which is provided for in the preceding section of the same article:
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 class suit. Their personality to sue in behalf of the succeeding generations can only be based on the "SEC. 15. The State shall protect and promote the right to health of the people and instill health consciousness among them."
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 While the right to a balanced and healthful ecology is to be found under the Declaration of Principles and State Policies and not
rhythm and harmony indispensably include, inter alia, the judicious disposition, utilization, management, renewal and 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
conservation of the country's forest, mineral, land, waters, fisheries, wildlife, off-shore areas and other natural resources to the latter. Such a right belongs to a different category of rights altogether for it concerns nothing less than self-preservation and
end that their exploration, development and utilization be equitably accessible to the present as well as future generations.[10] self-perpetuation -- aptly and fittingly stressed by the petitioners -- the advancement of which may even be said to predate all
Needless to say, every generation has a responsibility to the next to preserve that rhythm and harmony for the full enjoyment governments and constitutions. As a matter of fact, these basic rights need not even be written in the Constitution for they are
of a balanced and healthful ecology. Put a little differently, the minors' assertion of their right to a sound environment assumed to exist from the inception of humankind. If they are now explicitly mentioned in the fundamental charter, it is
constitutes, at the same time, the performance of their obligation to ensure the protection of that right for the generations to because of the well-founded fear of its framers that unless the rights to a balanced and healthful ecology and to health are
come. mandated as state policies by the Constitution itself, thereby highlighting their continuing importance and imposing upon the
state a solemn obligation to preserve the first and protect and advance the second, the day would not be too far when all else
The locus standi of the petitioners having thus been addressed, We shall now proceed to the merits of the petition. 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.
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 The right to a balanced and healthful ecology carries with it the correlative duty to refrain from impairing the environment.
challenged order for having been issued with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction. The pertinent portions During the debates on this right in one of the plenary sessions of the 1986 Constitutional Commission, the following exchange
of the said order read as follows: transpired between Commissioner Wilfrido Villacorta and Commissioner Adolfo Azcuna who sponsored the section in question:

xxx "MR. VILLACORTA:

"After a careful and circumspect evaluation of the Complaint, the Court cannot help but agree with the defendant. For although Does this section mandate the State to provide sanctions against all forms of pollution -- air, water and noise pollution?
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 MR. AZCUNA:
(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. 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]
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 The said right implies, among many other things, the judicious management and conservation of the country's forests. Without
Powers' of the three (3) co-equal branches of the Government. such forests, the ecological or environmental balance would be irreversibly disrupted.

The Court is likewise of the impression that it cannot, no matter how we stretch our jurisdiction, grant the reliefs prayed for by Conformably with the enunciated right to a balanced and healthful ecology and the right to health, as well as the other related
the plaintiffs, i.e., to cancel all existing timber license agreements in the country and to cease and desist from receiving, provisions of the Constitution concerning the conservation, development and utilization of the country's natural resources,[13]
accepting, processing renewing or approving new timber license agreements. For to do otherwise would amount to then President Corazon C. Aquino promulgated on 10 June 1987 E.O. No. 192,[14] Section 4 of which expressly mandates that
'impairment of contracts' abhored (sic) by the fundamental law."[11] 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
We do not agree with the trial court's conclusion that the plaintiffs failed to allege with sufficient definiteness a specific legal forest and grazing lands, mineral resources, including those in reservation and watershed areas, and lands of the public domain,
right involved or a specific legal wrong committed, and that the complaint is replete with vague assumptions and conclusions as well as the licensing and regulation of all natural resources as may be provided for by law in order to ensure equitable
based on unverified data. A reading of the complaint itself belies these conclusions. 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:
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 "SEC. 3. Declaration of Policy. -- It is hereby declared the policy of the State to ensure the sustainable use, development,
1987 Constitution explicitly provides: 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 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 A cause of action is defined as:
environmental cost implications relative to their utilization, development and conservation of our natural resources."
"x x x an act or omission of one party in violation of the legal right or rights of the other; and its essential elements are legal
This policy declaration is substantially re-stated in Title XIV, Book IV of the Administrative Code of 1987,[15] specifically in right of the plaintiff, correlative obligation of the defendant, and act or omission of the defendant in violation of said legal
Section 1 thereof which reads: right."[18]

"SEC. 1. Declaration of Policy. -- (1) The State shall ensure, for the benefit of the Filipino people, the full exploration and 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,
development as well as the judicious disposition, utilization, management, renewal and conservation of the country's forest, [19] the question submitted to the court for resolution involves the sufficiency of the facts alleged in the complaint itself. No
mineral, land, waters, fisheries, wildlife, off-shore areas and other natural resources, consistent with the necessity of other matter should be considered; furthermore, the truth or falsity of the said allegations is beside the point for the truth
maintaining a sound ecological balance and protecting and enhancing the quality of the environment and the objective of thereof is deemed hypothetically admitted. The only issue to be resolved in such a case is: admitting such alleged facts to be
making the exploration, development and utilization of such natural resources equitably accessible to the different segments of true, may the court render a valid judgment in accordance with the prayer in the complaint?[20] In Militante vs. Edrosolano,
the present as well as future generations. [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
(2) The State shall likewise recognize and apply a true value system that takes into account social and environmental cost the facts alleged and deemed hypothetically admitted, what the law grants or recognizes is effectively nullified. If that happens,
implications relative to the utilization, development and conservation of our natural resources." there is a blot on the legal order. The law itself stands in disrepute."

The above provision stresses "the necessity of maintaining a sound ecological balance and protecting and enhancing the quality After a careful examination of the petitioners' complaint, We find the statements under the introductory affirmative allegations,
of the environment." Section 2 of the same Title, on the other hand, specifically speaks of the mandate of the DENR; however, as well as the specific averments under the subs-heading CAUSE OF ACTION, to be adequate enough to show, prima facie, the
it makes particular reference to the fact of the agency's being subject to law and higher authority. Said section provides: claimed violation of their rights. On the basis thereof, they may thus be granted, wholly of 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,
"SEC. 2. Mandate. -- (1) The Department of Environment and Natural Resources shall be primarily responsible for the the grantees thereof for they are indispensable parties.
implementation of the foregoing policy.
The foregoing considered, Civil Case No. 90-777 cannot be said to raise a political question. Policy formulation or determination
(2) It shall, subject to law and higher authority, be in charge of carrying out the State's constitutional mandate to control and by the executive or legislative branches of Government is not squarely put in issue. What is principally involved is the
supervise the exploration, development, utilization, and conservation of the country's natural resources." 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
Both E.O. No. 192 and the Administrative Code of 1987 have set the objectives which will serve as the bases for policy impenetrable shield that protects executive and legislative actions from judicial inquiry or review. The second paragraph of
formulation, and have defined the powers and functions of the DENR. section 1, Article VIII of the Constitution states that:

It may, however, be recalled that even before the ratification of the 1987 Constitution, specific statutes already paid special "Judicial power includes the duty of the courts of justice to settle actual controversies involving rights which are legally
attention to the "environmental right" of the present and future generations. On 6 June 1977, P.D. No. 1151 (Philippine demandable and enforceable, and to determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack
Environmental Policy) and P.D. No. 1152 (Philippine Environment Code) were issued. The former "declared a continuing policy or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the Government."
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 fulfil the social, economic and other requirements of present and future generations Commenting on this provision in his book, Philippine Political Law,[22] Mr. Justice Isagani A. Cruz, a distinguished member of his
of Filipinos, and (c) to insure the attainment of an environmental quality that is conducive to a life of dignity and well- Court, says:
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. "The first part of the authority represents the traditional concept of judicial power, involving the settlement of conflicting rights
as conferred by law. The second part of the authority represents a broadening of judicial power to enable the courts of justice
Thus, the right of the petitioners (and all those they represent) to a balanced and healthful ecology is as clear as the DENR's to review what was before forbidden territory, to wit, the discretion of the political departments of the government.
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. 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
A denial or violation of that right by the other who has the correlative duty or obligation to respect or protect the same gives because tainted with grave abuse of discretion. The catch, of course, is the meaning of 'grave abuse of discretion,' which is a
rise to a cause of action. Petitioners maintain that the granting of the TLAs, which they claim was done with grave abuse of very elastic phrase that can expand or contract according to the disposition of the judiciary."
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. In Daza vs. Singson,[23] Mr. Justice Cruz, now speaking for this Court, noted:
"In the case now before us, the jurisdictional objection becomes even less tenable and decisive. The reason is that, even if we "SEC. 10. No law impairing the obligation of contracts shall be passed."[27]
were to assume that the issue presented before us was political in nature, we would still not be precluded from resolving it
under the expanded jurisdiction conferred upon us that now covers, in proper cases, even the political question. Article VII, cannot be invoked.
Section 1, of the Constitution clearly provides: x x x."
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
The last ground invoked by the trial court in dismissing the complaint is the non-impairment of contracts clause found in the executive issuance declaring the cancellation or modification of existing timber licenses. Hence, the non-impairment clause
Constitution. The court a quo declared that: 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
"The Court is likewise of the impression that it cannot, no matter how we stretch our jurisdiction, grant the reliefs prayed for by nature and purpose, such a law could have only been passed in the exercise of the police power of the state for the purpose of
the plaintiffs, i.e., to cancel all existing timber license agreements in the country and to cease and desist from receiving, advancing the right of the people to a balanced and healthful ecology, promoting their health and enhancing the general
accepting, processing, renewing or approving new timber license agreements. For to do otherwise would amount to welfare. In Abe vs. Foster Wheeler Corp.,[28] this Court stated:
'impairment of contracts' abhored (sic) by the fundamental law."[24]
"The freedom of contract, under our system of government, is not meant to be absolute. The same is understood to be subject
We are not persuaded at all; on the contrary, We are amazed, if not shocked, by such a sweeping pronouncement. In the first to reasonable legislative regulation aimed at the promotion of public health, moral, safety and welfare. In other words, the
place, the respondent Secretary did not, for obvious reasons, even invoke in his motion to dismiss the non-impairment clause. constitutional guaranty of non-impairment of obligations of contract is limited by the exercise of the police power of the State,
If he had done so, he would have acted with utmost infidelity to the Government by providing undue and unwarranted benefits in the interest of public health, safety, moral and general welfare."
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. The reason for this is emphatically set forth in Nebia vs. New York,[29] quoted in Philippine American Life Insurance Co. vs.
He was aware that as correctly pointed out by the petitioners, into every timber license must be read Section 20 of the Forestry Auditor General,[30] to wit:
Reform Code (P.D. No. 705) which provides:
"'Under our form of government the use of property and the making of contracts are normally matters of private and not of
"x x x Provided, That when the national interest so requires, the President may amend, modify, replace or rescind any contract, public concern. The general rule is that both shall be free of governmental interference. But neither property rights nor
concession, permit, licenses or any other form of privilege granted herein x x x." 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
Needless to say, all licenses may thus be revoked or rescinded by executive action. It is not a contract, property or a property to regulate it in the common interest.'"
right protected by the due process clause of the Constitution. In Tan vs. Director of Forestry,[25] this Court held:
In short, the non-impairment clause must yield to the police power of the state.[31]
"x x x 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 Finally, it is difficult to imagine, as the trial court did, how the non-impairment clause could apply with respect to the prayer to
license or privilege, which can be validly withdrawn whenever dictated by public interest or public welfare as in this case. 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
'A license is merely a permit or privilege to do what otherwise would be unlawful, and is not a contract between the authority, is not entitled to it as a matter of right.
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 WHEREFORE, being impressed with merit, the instant Petition is hereby GRANTED, and the challenged Order of respondent
irrevocable rights, neither is it property or property rights (People vs. Ong Tin, 54 O.G. 7576). x x x" 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.
We reiterated this pronouncement in Felipe Ysmael, Jr. & Co., Inc. vs. Deputy Executive Secretary:[26]
No pronouncement as to costs.
"x x x 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 SO ORDERED.
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 Cruz, Padilla, Bidin, Griño-Aquino, Regalado, Romero, Nocon, Bellosillo, Melo, and Quiason, JJ., concur.
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, Feliciano, J., see separate opinion concurring in the result.
G.R. No. L-24548, October 27, 1983, 125 SCRA 302]."
Narvasa, C.J., Puno, and Vitug, JJ., no part.
Since timber licenses are not contracts, the non-impairment clause, which reads: