Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 91 views

    Minors of The Philippines v. DENR Et Al

    Uploaded by

    Mario Mauzar
    The Supreme Court ruled in favor of petitioner minors represented by their parents, finding that they had legal standing to challenge the Department of Environment and Natural Resources' granting of Timber License Agreements. The Court recognized the petitioners' constitutional right to a balanced and healthy ecology. It also found the case justiciable, as it involved the DENR's potential grave abuse of discretion. Finally, the Court rejected the argument that ruling for the petitioners would violate the non-impairment of contracts clause, noting that TLAs are licenses rather than contracts. The Court allowed the petitioners to amend their complaint against the TLA holders.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Minors of The Philippines v. DENR Et Al

    Uploaded by

    Mario Mauzar
    91 views2 pages
    The Supreme Court ruled in favor of petitioner minors represented by their parents, finding that they had legal standing to challenge the Department of Environment and Natural Resources' granting of Timber License Agreements. The Court recognized the petitioners' constitutional right to a balanced and healthy ecology. It also found the case justiciable, as it involved the DENR's potential grave abuse of discretion. Finally, the Court rejected the argument that ruling for the petitioners would violate the non-impairment of contracts clause, noting that TLAs are licenses rather than contracts. The Court allowed the petitioners to amend their complaint against the TLA holders.

    Original Title

    Minors of the Philippines v. DENR Et Al

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court ruled in favor of petitioner minors represented by their parents, finding that they had legal standing to challenge the Department of Environment and Natural Resources' granting of Timber License Agreements. The Court recognized the petitioners' constitutional right to a balanced and healthy ecology. It also found the case justiciable, as it involved the DENR's potential grave abuse of discretion. Finally, the Court rejected the argument that ruling for the petitioners would violate the non-impairment of contracts clause, noting that TLAs are licenses rather than contracts. The Court allowed the petitioners to amend their complaint against the TLA holders.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    91 views2 pages

    Minors of The Philippines v. DENR Et Al

    Uploaded by

    Mario Mauzar
    The Supreme Court ruled in favor of petitioner minors represented by their parents, finding that they had legal standing to challenge the Department of Environment and Natural Resources' granting of Timber License Agreements. The Court recognized the petitioners' constitutional right to a balanced and healthy ecology. It also found the case justiciable, as it involved the DENR's potential grave abuse of discretion. Finally, the Court rejected the argument that ruling for the petitioners would violate the non-impairment of contracts clause, noting that TLAs are licenses rather than contracts. The Court allowed the petitioners to amend their complaint against the TLA holders.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    CASE DIGEST: MINORS OF THE PHILIPPINES VS.

     DENR
    Leave a reply

    G.R. No 101083
    Minors of the Philippines vs. DENR
    July 30, 1993
    FACTS:

    Petitioner minors, represented by their parents, contended that the granting of the TLAs (Timber
    License Agreement) by respondent DENR was done with grave abuse of discretion, violated their
    constitutional right to a balanced and healthful ecology; hence, the full protection thereof requires
    that no further TLAs should be renewed or granted. RTC dismissed the class suit on the ff grounds:
    1)lack of cause of action; 2)the issue involved a  political question and 3)the relief sought would
    violate the non-impairment of contracts clause.

    ISSUES:

    Whether or not minors had the legal personality to initiate the suit.
    Whether or not the case was justiciable.
    Whether or not the relief sought would violate the non-impairment of contracts clause

    RULING:

    The Court ruled in favor of petitioners.

    The petitioners had the locus standi necessary to sustain the bringing and, maintenance of the suit.
    The Court recognized the beneficiaries’ right of action in the field of environmental protection, citing
    provisions in the Constitution of the rights of the people specifically that of Sec 16, Art 2, which is the
    specific legal right invoked by the petitioners. The Court also stressed the correlative duty of the
    DENR as the branch of government tasked with the conservation, development and utilization of the
    country’s natural resources (E.O. No. 192 and Administrative Code of 1987). 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 to protect and advance the said right.
    ADVERTISEMENT

    REPORT THIS AD

    As to the issue on political question, the case should be afforded judicial review, citing second
    paragraph of sec1, Article VIII of the Constitution which states that 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. The Court may take cognizance of cases involving issues on ‘grave abuse of
    discretion’.

    The Court also assailed the ruling of the lower court, invoking the non-impairment clause, reasoning,
    for one, that the respondents did not even raise the said issue. Granting for argument’s sake that
    respondents did, the TLA is not a contract but is only a license or a privilege which may be subject to
    withdrawal by proper authority if deemed necessary for the general welfare and betterment of the
    country.
    (side issue: The Court granted the petition, allowing petitioners to amend complaint against TLA
    holders.)

    You might also like