The petitioners, represented by their parents, filed a class suit against the DENR Secretary and a judge, seeking the cancellation of all existing timber license agreements. They argued this was necessary to protect their right and the right of future generations to a balanced ecology. The respondents claimed the petitioners had no cause of action and the issue was a political question. The Supreme Court ruled: [1] The petitioners had locus standi as it was a valid class suit. [2] They demonstrated a cause of action by showing a violation of their right to a balanced ecology. [3] It was not merely a political question but involved enforcing established rights and policies. [4] Canceling the licenses would not impair contracts
The petitioners, represented by their parents, filed a class suit against the DENR Secretary and a judge, seeking the cancellation of all existing timber license agreements. They argued this was necessary to protect their right and the right of future generations to a balanced ecology. The respondents claimed the petitioners had no cause of action and the issue was a political question. The Supreme Court ruled: [1] The petitioners had locus standi as it was a valid class suit. [2] They demonstrated a cause of action by showing a violation of their right to a balanced ecology. [3] It was not merely a political question but involved enforcing established rights and policies. [4] Canceling the licenses would not impair contracts
Original Description:
oposa v factoran legal standing of future generations
The petitioners, represented by their parents, filed a class suit against the DENR Secretary and a judge, seeking the cancellation of all existing timber license agreements. They argued this was necessary to protect their right and the right of future generations to a balanced ecology. The respondents claimed the petitioners had no cause of action and the issue was a political question. The Supreme Court ruled: [1] The petitioners had locus standi as it was a valid class suit. [2] They demonstrated a cause of action by showing a violation of their right to a balanced ecology. [3] It was not merely a political question but involved enforcing established rights and policies. [4] Canceling the licenses would not impair contracts
The petitioners, represented by their parents, filed a class suit against the DENR Secretary and a judge, seeking the cancellation of all existing timber license agreements. They argued this was necessary to protect their right and the right of future generations to a balanced ecology. The respondents claimed the petitioners had no cause of action and the issue was a political question. The Supreme Court ruled: [1] The petitioners had locus standi as it was a valid class suit. [2] They demonstrated a cause of action by showing a violation of their right to a balanced ecology. [3] It was not merely a political question but involved enforcing established rights and policies. [4] Canceling the licenses would not impair contracts
Factoran 1 July 30, 1993 GR No. 101083 Davide J. Jonathan Torres Petitioners: Minors represented by their parents Respondents: Fulgencio S. Factoran, Jr (DENR SEC) Eriberto Rosario (Presiding Judge of the RTC, Makati, Branch 66)
Doctrine: Facts: 1. The complaint was instituted as a taxpayers' class suit 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 minors further asseverate that they "represent their generation as well as generations yet unborn." 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. 2. On 22 June 1990, Factoran, filed a Motion to Dismiss the complaint based on 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.
3. 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.
4. On 18 July 1991, respondent Judge issued an order granting the aforementioned
motion to dismiss. 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.
5. 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. PETITIONERS 6. Petitioners contend that the it has 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 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. No. 192, to safeguard the people's right to a healthful environment.
7. 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.
8. Petitioners maintain that TLAs are not contracts. 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.
RESPONDENT 9. Petitioners failed to allege in their complaint a specific legal right violated by Factoran for which any relief is provided by law. 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.
10. 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. Issue/s: Ruling: 1. Does the petitioners have locus standi? 1. YES 2. Does the Petitioners have Cause of Action? 2. YES 3. Is the issue of cancelation of TCA a political question? 3. NO 4. Does canceling TCA, violate the non-impairment of contracts? 4. NO Ratio:
Does the petitioners have locus standi?
The civil case is 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. 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 petition, the latter being but an incident to the former.
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.
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.
Cause of Action
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.
these basic rights need not even be written in the Constitution for they are assumed to exist from the inception of humankind.
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
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.
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.
Impairment of Contracts
Every timber license must be read Section 20 of the Forestry Reform Code (P.D. No. 705) which provides:
. . . 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 . . .
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.
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
