OPOSA v. FACTORAN, GR No.

101083, 1993-07-30

Facts:

The controversy has its genesis in Civil Case No. 90-777 which was filed
before Branch 66 (Makati, Metro Manila) of the 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 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 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 motion by the

petitioners.[1] The complaint[2] was instituted as a taxpayers' class
suit[3] 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 rainforests." The same was... filed for themselves and others who
are equally concerned about the preservation of said resource but are "so
numerous that it is impracticable to bring them all before the Court." The
minors further asseverate that they "represent their generation as well as
generations yet... unborn."[4]

Plaintiffs further assert that the adverse and detrimental consequences of

continued deforestation are so capable of unquestionable demonstration
that the same may be submitted as a matter of judicial notice. This
notwithstanding, they expressed their intention to present... expert
witnesses as well as documentary, photographic and film evidence in the
course of the trial.

As their cause of action, they specifically allege that:

"CAUSE OF ACTION

7. Plaintiffs replead by reference the foregoing allegations.

8. Twenty-five (25) years ago, the Philippines had some sixteen (16)
million hectares of rainforests constituting roughly 53% of the country's
land mass.
9. Satellite images taken in 1987 reveal that there remained no more
than 1.2 million hectares of said rainforests or four per cent (4.0%) of the
country's land area.

10. More recent surveys reveal that a mere 850,000 hectares of virgin
old-growth rainforests are left, barely 2.8% of the entire land mass of the
Philippine archipelago and about 3.0 million hectares of immature and
uneconomical secondary... growth forests.

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.

A copy of the TLA holders and the corresponding areas covered is hereto
attached as Annex 'A'.

12. At the present rate of deforestation, i.e. about 200,000 hectares per
annum or 25 hectares per annum or 25 hectares per hour -- nighttime,
Saturdays, Sundays and holidays included -- the Philippines will be bereft
of forest resources... after the end of this ensuing decade, if not earlier.

13. The adverse effects, disastrous consequences, serious injury and

irreparable damage of this continued trend of deforestation to the plaintiff
minors' generation and to generations yet unborn are evident and
incontrovertible. As a matter... of fact, the environmental damages
enumerated in paragraph 6 hereof are already being felt, experienced and
suffered by the generation of plaintiff adults.

14. The continued allowance by defendant of TLA holders to cut and

deforest the remaining forest stands will work great damage and
irreparable injury to plaintiffs -- especially plaintiff minors and their
successors -- who may never see, use,... benefit from and enjoy this rare
and unique natural resource treasure.

This act of defendant constitutes a misappropriation and/or impairment of

the natural resource property he holds in trust for the benefit of plaintiff
minors and succeeding generations.

15. Plaintiffs have a clear and constitutional right to a balanced and

healthful ecology and are entitled to protection by the State in its
capacity as the parens patriae.

16. Plaintiffs have exhausted all administrative remedies with the

defendant's office. On March 2, 1990, plaintiffs served upon defendant a
final demand to cancel all logging permits in the country.
A copy of the plaintiffs' letter dated March 1, 1990 is hereto attached as
Annex 'B'.

17. Defendant, however, fails and refuses to cancel the existing TLA's,
to the continuing serious damage and extreme prejudice of plaintiffs.

18. The continued failure and refusal by defendant to cancel the TLA's
is an act violative of the rights of plaintiffs, especially 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.

19. Defendant's refusal to cancel the aforementioned TLA's is

manifestly contrary to the public policy enunciated in the Philippine
Environmental Policy which, in pertinent part, states that it is the policy
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 fulfill the social, economic and other requirements of present

and future generations of Filipinos and;

'(c) to ensure the attainment of an environmental quality that is

conducive to a life of dignity and well-being'. (P.D. 1151, 6 June 1977)

20. Furthermore, defendant's continued refusal to cancel the

aforementioned TLA's is contradictory to the Constitutional policy of the
State to --... a. effect 'a more equitable distribution of opportunities,
income and wealth' and 'make full and efficient use of natural resources
(sic).' (Section 1, Article XII of the Constitution);... b. 'protect the
nation's marine wealth.' (Section 2, ibid);... c. 'conserve and
promote the nation's cultural heritage and resources (sic).' (Section 14,
Article XIV, id.);... d. 'protect and advance the right of the people to
a balanced and healthful ecology in accord with the rhythm and harmony
of nature.' (Section 16, Article II, id.).

21. Finally, defendant's act is contrary to the highest law of humankind

-- the natural law -- and violative of plaintiffs' right to self-preservation and
perpetuation.

22. There is no other plain, speedy and adequate remedy in law other
than the instant action to arrest the unabated hemorrhage of the
country's vital life-support systems and continued rape of Mother
Earth."[6]
On 22 June 1990, the original defendant, Secretary Factoran, Jr., filed a
Motion to Dismiss the complaint based on two (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. 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.

On 18 July 1991, respondent Judge issued an order granting the

aforementioned motion to dismiss.

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.

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 filed a reply thereto.

Issues:

Consequently, it is prayed for that judgment be rendered:

"x x x 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."... and granting the plaintiffs
"x x x such other reliefs just and equitable under the premises."[5]

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 executive
issuance declaring the cancellation or modification of existing timber
licenses. Hence, the non-impairment clause cannot as yet be... invoked.

Ruling:

"After a careful and circumspect evaluation of the Complaint, the Court

cannot help but agree with the defendant. For although 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 (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.

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.

After a careful examination of the petitioners' complaint, We find the

statements under the introductory affirmative allegations, as well as the
specific averments under the subs-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 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, the grantees thereof for they are... indispensable
parties.

The last ground invoked by the trial court in dismissing the complaint is
the non-impairment of contracts clause found in the Constitution. The
court a quo declared that:

"The Court is likewise of the impression that it cannot, no matter how we

stretch our jurisdiction, grant the reliefs prayed for by the plaintiffs, i.e.,
to cancel all existing timber license agreements in the country and to
cease and desist from receiving, accepting,... processing, renewing or
approving new timber license agreements. For to do otherwise would
amount to 'impairment of contracts' abhored (sic) by the fundamental
law."[24]

In the first place, the respondent Secretary did not, for obvious reasons,
even invoke in his motion to dismiss the non-impairment clause. If he had
done so, he... would have acted with utmost infidelity to the Government
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.

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 executive
issuance declaring the cancellation or modification of existing timber
licenses. Hence, the non-impairment clause cannot as yet be... invoked.

governmental

In short, the non-impairment clause must yield to the police power of the
state.[31]

In short, the non-impairment clause must yield to the police power of the
state.[31]

Finally, it is difficult to imagine, as the trial court did, how the non-
impairment clause could apply with respect to the prayer to 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 is not entitled to it as a matter of
right.

being impressed with merit, the instant Petition is hereby GRANTED, and
the challenged Order of respondent 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.

Principles: