Republic of the Philippines CRISANTO, ANNA, DANIEL and FRANCISCO, all surnamed BIBAL,

SUPREME COURT minors, represented by their parents FRANCISCO, JR. and

Manila MILAGROS BIBAL, and THE PHILIPPINE ECOLOGICAL NETWORK,
INC., petitioners,
EN BANC vs.
THE HONORABLE FULGENCIO S. FACTORAN, JR., in his capacity
  as the Secretary of the Department of Environment and Natural
Resources, and THE HONORABLE ERIBERTO U. ROSARIO,
Presiding Judge of the RTC, Makati, Branch 66, respondents.
G.R. No. 101083 July 30, 1993
Oposa Law Office for petitioners.
JUAN ANTONIO, ANNA ROSARIO and JOSE ALFONSO, all
surnamed OPOSA, minors, and represented by their parents
ANTONIO and RIZALINA OPOSA, ROBERTA NICOLE SADIUA, The Solicitor General for respondents.
minor, represented by her parents CALVIN and ROBERTA SADIUA,
CARLO, AMANDA SALUD and PATRISHA, all surnamed FLORES,
minors and represented by their parents ENRICO and NIDA
FLORES, GIANINA DITA R. FORTUN, minor, represented by her DAVIDE, JR., J.:
parents SIGRID and DOLORES FORTUN, GEORGE II and MA.
CONCEPCION, all surnamed MISA, minors and represented by their In a broader sense, this petition bears upon the right of Filipinos to a
parents GEORGE and MYRA MISA, BENJAMIN ALAN V. PESIGAN, balanced and healthful ecology which the petitioners dramatically
minor, represented by his parents ANTONIO and ALICE PESIGAN, associate with the twin concepts of "inter-generational responsibility" and
JOVIE MARIE ALFARO, minor, represented by her parents JOSE "inter-generational justice." Specifically, it touches on the issue of
and MARIA VIOLETA ALFARO, MARIA CONCEPCION T. CASTRO, whether the said petitioners have a cause of action to "prevent the
minor, represented by her parents FREDENIL and JANE CASTRO, misappropriation or impairment" of Philippine rainforests and "arrest the
JOHANNA DESAMPARADO, unabated hemorrhage of the country's vital life support systems and
minor, represented by her parents JOSE and ANGELA continued rape of Mother Earth."
DESAMPRADO, CARLO JOAQUIN T. NARVASA, minor, represented
by his parents GREGORIO II and CRISTINE CHARITY NARVASA, The controversy has its genesis in Civil Case No. 90-77 which was filed
MA. MARGARITA, JESUS IGNACIO, MA. ANGELA and MARIE before Branch 66 (Makati, Metro Manila) of the Regional Trial Court
GABRIELLE, all surnamed SAENZ, minors, represented by their (RTC), National Capital Judicial Region. The principal plaintiffs therein,
parents ROBERTO and AURORA SAENZ, KRISTINE, MARY ELLEN, now the principal petitioners, are all minors duly represented and joined
MAY, GOLDA MARTHE and DAVID IAN, all surnamed KING, minors, by their respective parents. Impleaded as an additional plaintiff is the
represented by their parents MARIO and HAYDEE KING, DAVID, Philippine Ecological Network, Inc. (PENI), a domestic, non-stock and
FRANCISCO and THERESE VICTORIA, all surnamed ENDRIGA, non-profit corporation organized for the purpose of, inter alia, engaging in
minors, represented by their parents BALTAZAR and TERESITA concerted action geared for the protection of our environment and natural
ENDRIGA, JOSE MA. and REGINA MA., all surnamed ABAYA, resources. The original defendant was the Honorable Fulgencio S.
minors, represented by their parents ANTONIO and MARICA Factoran, Jr., then Secretary of the Department of Environment and
ABAYA, MARILIN, MARIO, JR. and MARIETTE, all surnamed Natural Resources (DENR). His substitution in this petition by the new
CARDAMA, minors, represented by their parents MARIO and LINA Secretary, the Honorable Angel C. Alcala, was subsequently ordered
CARDAMA, CLARISSA, ANN MARIE, NAGEL, and IMEE LYN, all upon proper motion by the petitioners.  The complaint  was instituted as a
1 2

surnamed OPOSA, minors and represented by their parents taxpayers' class suit  and alleges that the plaintiffs "are all citizens of the
3

RICARDO and MARISSA OPOSA, PHILIP JOSEPH, STEPHEN JOHN Republic of the Philippines, taxpayers, and entitled to the full benefit, use
and ISAIAH JAMES, all surnamed QUIPIT, minors, represented by and enjoyment of the natural resource treasure that is the country's virgin
their parents JOSE MAX and VILMI QUIPIT, BUGHAW CIELO,
tropical forests." The same was filed for themselves and others who are cultural communities, including the disappearance of the Filipino's
equally concerned about the preservation of said resource but are "so indigenous cultures, (f) the siltation of rivers and seabeds and
numerous that it is impracticable to bring them all before the Court." The consequential destruction of corals and other aquatic life leading to a
minors further asseverate that they "represent their generation as well as critical reduction in marine resource productivity, (g) recurrent spells of
generations yet unborn."  Consequently, it is prayed for that judgment be
4
drought as is presently experienced by the entire country, (h) increasing
rendered: velocity of typhoon winds which result from the absence of windbreakers,
(i) the floodings of lowlands and agricultural plains arising from the
. . . ordering defendant, his agents, representatives and absence of the absorbent mechanism of forests, (j) the siltation and
other persons acting in his behalf to — shortening of the lifespan of multi-billion peso dams constructed and
operated for the purpose of supplying water for domestic uses, irrigation
(1) Cancel all existing timber license agreements in the and the generation of electric power, and (k) the reduction of the earth's
country; 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."
(2) Cease and desist from receiving, accepting,
processing, renewing or approving new timber license
agreements. Plaintiffs further assert that the adverse and detrimental consequences of
continued and deforestation are so capable of unquestionable
demonstration that the same may be submitted as a matter of judicial
and granting the plaintiffs ". . . such other reliefs just and equitable under
notice. This notwithstanding, they expressed their intention to present
the premises." 5

expert witnesses as well as documentary, photographic and film

evidence in the course of the trial.
The complaint starts off with the general averments that the Philippine
archipelago of 7,100 islands has a land area of thirty million (30,000,000)
As their cause of action, they specifically allege that:
hectares and is endowed with rich, lush and verdant rainforests in which
varied, rare and unique species of flora and fauna may be found; these
rainforests contain a genetic, biological and chemical pool which is CAUSE OF ACTION
irreplaceable; they are also the habitat of indigenous Philippine cultures
which have existed, endured and flourished since time immemorial; 7. Plaintiffs replead by reference the foregoing
scientific evidence reveals that in order to maintain a balanced and allegations.
healthful ecology, the country's land area should be utilized on the basis
of a ratio of fifty-four per cent (54%) for forest cover and forty-six per cent 8. Twenty-five (25) years ago, the Philippines had some
(46%) for agricultural, residential, industrial, commercial and other uses; sixteen (16) million hectares of rainforests constituting
the distortion and disturbance of this balance as a consequence of roughly 53% of the country's land mass.
deforestation have resulted in a host of environmental tragedies, such as
(a) water shortages resulting from drying up of the water table, otherwise 9. Satellite images taken in 1987 reveal that there
known as the "aquifer," as well as of rivers, brooks and streams, (b) remained no more than 1.2 million hectares of said
salinization of the water table as a result of the intrusion therein of salt rainforests or four per cent (4.0%) of the country's land
water, incontrovertible examples of which may be found in the island of area.
Cebu and the Municipality of Bacoor, Cavite, (c) massive erosion and the
consequential loss of soil fertility and agricultural productivity, with the 10. More recent surveys reveal that a mere 850,000
volume of soil eroded estimated at one billion (1,000,000,000) cubic hectares of virgin old-growth rainforests are left, barely
meters per annum — approximately the size of the entire island of 2.8% of the entire land mass of the Philippine archipelago
Catanduanes, (d) the endangering and extinction of the country's unique, and about 3.0 million hectares of immature and
rare and varied flora and fauna, (e) the disturbance and dislocation of uneconomical secondary growth forests.
11. Public records reveal that the defendant's, served upon defendant a final demand to cancel all
predecessors have granted timber license agreements logging permits in the country.
('TLA's') to various corporations to cut the aggregate area
of 3.89 million hectares for commercial logging purposes. A copy of the plaintiffs' letter dated March 1, 1990 is
hereto attached as Annex "B".
A copy of the TLA holders and the corresponding areas
covered is hereto attached as Annex "A". 17. Defendant, however, fails and refuses to cancel the
existing TLA's to the continuing serious damage and
12. At the present rate of deforestation, i.e. about 200,000 extreme prejudice of plaintiffs.
hectares per annum or 25 hectares per hour — nighttime,
Saturdays, Sundays and holidays included — the 18. The continued failure and refusal by defendant to
Philippines will be bereft of forest resources after the end cancel the TLA's is an act violative of the rights of
of this ensuing decade, if not earlier. plaintiffs, especially plaintiff minors who may be left with a
country that is desertified (sic), bare, barren and devoid of
13. The adverse effects, disastrous consequences, the wonderful flora, fauna and indigenous cultures which
serious injury and irreparable damage of this continued the Philippines had been abundantly blessed with.
trend of deforestation to the plaintiff minor's generation
and to generations yet unborn are evident and 19. Defendant's refusal to cancel the aforementioned
incontrovertible. As a matter of fact, the environmental TLA's is manifestly contrary to the public policy
damages enumerated in paragraph 6 hereof are already enunciated in the Philippine Environmental Policy which,
being felt, experienced and suffered by the generation of in pertinent part, states that it is the policy of the State —
plaintiff adults.
(a) to create, develop, maintain and improve conditions
14. The continued allowance by defendant of TLA holders under which man and nature can thrive in productive and
to cut and deforest the remaining forest stands will work enjoyable harmony with each other;
great damage and irreparable injury to plaintiffs —
especially plaintiff minors and their successors — who (b) to fulfill the social, economic and other requirements of
may never see, use, benefit from and enjoy this rare and present and future generations of Filipinos and;
unique natural resource treasure.
(c) to ensure the attainment of an environmental quality
This act of defendant constitutes a misappropriation that is conductive to a life of dignity and well-being. (P.D.
and/or impairment of the natural resource property he 1151, 6 June 1977)
holds in trust for the benefit of plaintiff minors and
succeeding generations.
20. Furthermore, defendant's continued refusal to cancel
the aforementioned TLA's is contradictory to the
15. Plaintiffs have a clear and constitutional right to a Constitutional policy of the State to —
balanced and healthful ecology and are entitled to
protection by the State in its capacity as the parens
a. effect "a more equitable distribution of opportunities,
patriae.
income and wealth" and "make full and efficient use of
natural resources (sic)." (Section 1, Article XII of the
16. Plaintiff have exhausted all administrative remedies Constitution);
with the defendant's office. On March 2, 1990, plaintiffs
b. "protect the nation's marine wealth." (Section 2, ibid);
 c. "conserve and promote the nation's cultural heritage of the Solicitor General (OSG) filed a Comment in behalf of the
and resources (sic)" (Section 14, Article XIV, id.); respondents and the petitioners filed a reply thereto.

d. "protect and advance the right of the people to a Petitioners contend that the complaint clearly and unmistakably states a
balanced and healthful ecology in accord with the rhythm cause of action as it contains sufficient allegations concerning their right
and harmony of nature." (Section 16, Article II, id.) 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
21. Finally, defendant's act is contrary to the highest law the DENR, Section 3 of Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 1151 (Philippine
of humankind — the natural law — and violative of Environmental Policy), Section 16, Article II of the 1987 Constitution
plaintiffs' right to self-preservation and perpetuation. recognizing the right of the people to a balanced and healthful ecology,
the concept of generational genocide in Criminal Law and the concept of
22. There is no other plain, speedy and adequate remedy man's inalienable right to self-preservation and self-perpetuation
in law other than the instant action to arrest the unabated embodied in natural law. Petitioners likewise rely on the respondent's
hemorrhage of the country's vital life support systems and correlative obligation per Section 4 of E.O. No. 192, to safeguard the
continued rape of Mother Earth.  6 people's right to a healthful environment.

On 22 June 1990, the original defendant, Secretary Factoran, Jr., filed a It is further claimed that the issue of the respondent Secretary's alleged
Motion to Dismiss the complaint based on two (2) grounds, namely: (1) grave abuse of discretion in granting Timber License Agreements (TLAs)
the plaintiffs have no cause of action against him and (2) the issue raised to cover more areas for logging than what is available involves a judicial
by the plaintiffs is a political question which properly pertains to the question.
legislative or executive branches of Government. In their 12 July 1990
Opposition to the Motion, the petitioners maintain that (1) the complaint Anent the invocation by the respondent Judge of the Constitution's non-
shows a clear and unmistakable cause of action, (2) the motion is dilatory impairment clause, petitioners maintain that the same does not apply in
and (3) the action presents a justiciable question as it involves the this case because TLAs are not contracts. They likewise submit that even
defendant's abuse of discretion. 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
On 18 July 1991, respondent Judge issued an order granting the requires.
aforementioned motion to dismiss.  In the said order, not only was the
7

defendant's claim — that the complaint states no cause of action against On the other hand, the respondents aver that the petitioners failed to
him and that it raises a political question — sustained, the respondent allege in their complaint a specific legal right violated by the respondent
Judge further ruled that the granting of the relief prayed for would result Secretary for which any relief is provided by law. They see nothing in the
in the impairment of contracts which is prohibited by the fundamental law complaint but vague and nebulous allegations concerning an
of the land. "environmental right" which supposedly entitles the petitioners to the
"protection by the state in its capacity as parens patriae." Such
Plaintiffs thus filed the instant special civil action for certiorari under Rule allegations, according to them, do not reveal a valid cause of action.
65 of the Revised Rules of Court and ask this Court to rescind and set They then reiterate the theory that the question of whether logging should
aside the dismissal order on the ground that the respondent Judge be permitted in the country is a political question which should be
gravely abused his discretion in dismissing the action. Again, the parents properly addressed to the executive or legislative branches of
of the plaintiffs-minors not only represent their children, but have also Government. They therefore assert that the petitioners' resources is not
joined the latter in this case.
8 to file an action to court, but to lobby before Congress for the passage of
a bill that would ban logging totally.
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
As to the matter of the cancellation of the TLAs, respondents submit that constitutes, at the same time, the performance of their obligation to
the same cannot be done by the State without due process of law. Once ensure the protection of that right for the generations to come.
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 The locus standi of the petitioners having thus been addressed, We shall
revised nor cancelled unless the holder has been found, after due notice now proceed to the merits of the petition.
and hearing, to have violated the terms of the agreement or other forestry
laws and regulations. Petitioners' proposition to have all the TLAs After a careful perusal of the complaint in question and a meticulous
indiscriminately cancelled without the requisite hearing would be violative consideration and evaluation of the issues raised and arguments
of the requirements of due process. adduced by the parties, We do not hesitate to find for the petitioners and
rule against the respondent Judge's challenged order for having been
Before going any further, We must first focus on some procedural issued with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction.
matters. Petitioners instituted Civil Case No. 90-777 as a class suit. The The pertinent portions of the said order reads as follows:
original defendant and the present respondents did not take issue with
this matter. Nevertheless, We hereby rule that the said civil case is xxx xxx xxx
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
After a careful and circumspect evaluation of the
Philippines. Consequently, since the parties are so numerous, it,
Complaint, the Court cannot help but agree with the
becomes impracticable, if not totally impossible, to bring all of them
defendant. For although we believe that plaintiffs have but
before the court. We likewise declare that the plaintiffs therein are
the noblest of all intentions, it (sic) fell short of alleging,
numerous and representative enough to ensure the full protection of all
with sufficient definiteness, a specific legal right they are
concerned interests. Hence, all the requisites for the filing of a valid class
seeking to enforce and protect, or a specific legal wrong
suit under Section 12, Rule 3 of the Revised Rules of Court are present
they are seeking to prevent and redress (Sec. 1, Rule 2,
both in the said civil case and in the instant petition, the latter being but
RRC). Furthermore, the Court notes that the Complaint is
an incident to the former.
replete with vague assumptions and vague conclusions
based on unverified data. In fine, plaintiffs fail to state a
This case, however, has a special and novel element. Petitioners minors cause of action in its Complaint against the herein
assert that they represent their generation as well as generations yet defendant.
unborn. We find no difficulty in ruling that they can, for themselves, for
others of their generation and for the succeeding generations, file a class
Furthermore, the Court firmly believes that the matter
suit. Their personality to sue in behalf of the succeeding generations can
before it, being impressed with political color and
only be based on the concept of intergenerational responsibility insofar
involving a matter of public policy, may not be taken
as the right to a balanced and healthful ecology is concerned. Such a
cognizance of by this Court without doing violence to the
right, as hereinafter expounded, considers
sacred principle of "Separation of Powers" of the three (3)
the "rhythm and harmony of nature." Nature means the created world in
co-equal branches of the Government.
its entirety.  Such rhythm and harmony indispensably include, inter alia,
9

the judicious disposition, utilization, management, renewal and

conservation of the country's forest, mineral, land, waters, fisheries, The Court is likewise of the impression that it cannot, no
wildlife, off-shore areas and other natural resources to the end that their matter how we stretch our jurisdiction, grant the reliefs
exploration, development and utilization be equitably accessible to the prayed for by the plaintiffs, i.e., to cancel all existing
present as well as future generations.   Needless to say, every
10 timber license agreements in the country and to cease
generation has a responsibility to the next to preserve that rhythm and and desist from receiving, accepting, processing,
harmony for the full enjoyment of a balanced and healthful ecology. Put a renewing or approving new timber license agreements.
little differently, the minors' assertion of their right to a sound environment For to do otherwise would amount to "impairment of
contracts" abhored (sic) by the fundamental law.  11
We do not agree with the trial court's conclusions that the plaintiffs failed The right to a balanced and healthful ecology carries with it the
to allege with sufficient definiteness a specific legal right involved or a correlative duty to refrain from impairing the environment. During the
specific legal wrong committed, and that the complaint is replete with debates on this right in one of the plenary sessions of the 1986
vague assumptions and conclusions based on unverified data. A reading Constitutional Commission, the following exchange transpired between
of the complaint itself belies these conclusions. Commissioner Wilfrido Villacorta and Commissioner Adolfo Azcuna who
sponsored the section in question:
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 MR. VILLACORTA:
constitutional history, is solemnly incorporated in the fundamental law.
Section 16, Article II of the 1987 Constitution explicitly provides: Does this section mandate the State to
provide sanctions against all forms of
Sec. 16. The State shall protect and advance the right of pollution — air, water and noise pollution?
the people to a balanced and healthful ecology in accord
with the rhythm and harmony of nature. MR. AZCUNA:

This right unites with the right to health which is provided Yes, Madam President. The right to
for in the preceding section of the same article: healthful (sic) environment necessarily
carries with it the correlative duty of not
Sec. 15. The State shall protect and promote the right to impairing the same and, therefore,
health of the people and instill health consciousness sanctions may be provided for impairment
among them. of environmental balance.  12

While the right to a balanced and healthful ecology is to be found under The said right implies, among many other things, the judicious
the Declaration of Principles and State Policies and not under the Bill of management and conservation of the country's forests.
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 Without such forests, the ecological or environmental balance
category of rights altogether for it concerns nothing less than self- would be irreversiby disrupted.
preservation and self-perpetuation — aptly and fittingly stressed by the
petitioners — the advancement of which may even be said to predate all Conformably with the enunciated right to a balanced and healthful
governments and constitutions. As a matter of fact, these basic rights ecology and the right to health, as well as the other related provisions of
need not even be written in the Constitution for they are assumed to exist the Constitution concerning the conservation, development and utilization
from the inception of humankind. If they are now explicitly mentioned in of the country's natural resources,   then President Corazon C. Aquino
13

the fundamental charter, it is because of the well-founded fear of its promulgated on 10 June 1987 E.O. No. 192,   Section 4 of which
14

framers that unless the rights to a balanced and healthful ecology and to expressly mandates that the Department of Environment and Natural
health are mandated as state policies by the Constitution itself, thereby Resources "shall be the primary government agency responsible for the
highlighting their continuing importance and imposing upon the state a conservation, management, development and proper use of the country's
solemn obligation to preserve the first and protect and advance the environment and natural resources, specifically forest and grazing lands,
second, the day would not be too far when all else would be lost not only mineral, resources, including those in reservation and watershed areas,
for the present generation, but also for those to come — generations and lands of the public domain, as well as the licensing and regulation of
which stand to inherit nothing but parched earth incapable of sustaining all natural resources as may be provided for by law in order to ensure
life. equitable 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:
 Sec. 3. Declaration of Policy. — It is hereby declared the Sec. 2. Mandate. — (1) The Department of Environment
policy of the State to ensure the sustainable use, and Natural Resources shall be primarily responsible for
development, management, renewal, and conservation of the implementation of the foregoing policy.
the country's forest, mineral, land, off-shore areas and
other natural resources, including the protection and (2) It shall, subject to law and higher authority, be in
enhancement of the quality of the environment, and charge of carrying out the State's constitutional mandate
equitable access of the different segments of the to control and supervise the exploration, development,
population to the development and the use of the utilization, and conservation of the country's natural
country's natural resources, not only for the present resources.
generation but for future generations as well. It is also the
policy of the state to recognize and apply a true value Both E.O. NO. 192 and the Administrative Code of 1987 have set the
system including social and environmental cost objectives which will serve as the bases for policy formulation, and have
implications relative to their utilization, development and defined the powers and functions of the DENR.
conservation of our natural resources.
It may, however, be recalled that even before the ratification of the 1987
This policy declaration is substantially re-stated it Title XIV, Book IV of Constitution, specific statutes already paid special attention to the
the Administrative Code of 1987,  specifically in Section 1 thereof which
15
"environmental right" of the present and future generations. On 6 June
reads: 1977, P.D. No. 1151 (Philippine Environmental Policy) and P.D. No. 1152
(Philippine Environment Code) were issued. The former "declared a
Sec. 1. Declaration of Policy. — (1) The State shall continuing policy of the State (a) to create, develop, maintain and
ensure, for the benefit of the Filipino people, the full improve conditions under which man and nature can thrive in productive
exploration and development as well as the judicious and enjoyable harmony with each other, (b) to fulfill the social, economic
disposition, utilization, management, renewal and and other requirements of present and future generations of Filipinos,
conservation of the country's forest, mineral, land, waters, and (c) to insure the attainment of an environmental quality that is
fisheries, wildlife, off-shore areas and other natural conducive to a life of dignity and well-being."   As its goal, it speaks of the
16

resources, consistent with the necessity of maintaining a "responsibilities of each generation as trustee and guardian of the
sound ecological balance and protecting and enhancing environment for succeeding generations."   The latter statute, on the
17

the quality of the environment and the objective of making other hand, gave flesh to the said policy.
the exploration, development and utilization of such
natural resources equitably accessible to the different Thus, the right of the petitioners (and all those they represent) to a
segments of the present as well as future generations. 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
(2) The State shall likewise recognize and apply a true and the Administrative Code of 1987 — to protect and advance the said
value system that takes into account social and right.
environmental cost implications relative to the utilization,
development and conservation of our natural resources. 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
The above provision stresses "the necessity of maintaining a sound action. Petitioners maintain that the granting of the TLAs, which they
ecological balance and protecting and enhancing the quality of the claim was done with grave abuse of discretion, violated their right to a
environment." Section 2 of the same Title, on the other hand, specifically balanced and healthful ecology; hence, the full protection thereof requires
speaks of the mandate of the DENR; however, it makes particular that no further TLAs should be renewed or granted.
reference to the fact of the agency's being subject to law and higher
authority. Said section provides: A cause of action is defined as:
 . . . an act or omission of one party in violation of the legal legally demandable and enforceable, and to determine
right or rights of the other; and its essential elements are whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion
legal right of the plaintiff, correlative obligation of the amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of
defendant, and act or omission of the defendant in any branch or instrumentality of the Government.
violation of said legal right. 
18

Commenting on this provision in his book, Philippine Political Law,   Mr.

22

It is settled in this jurisdiction that in a motion to dismiss based on the Justice Isagani A. Cruz, a distinguished member of this Court, says:
ground that the complaint fails to state a cause of action,   the question
19

submitted to the court for resolution involves the sufficiency of the facts The first part of the authority represents the traditional
alleged in the complaint itself. No other matter should be considered; concept of judicial power, involving the settlement of
furthermore, the truth of falsity of the said allegations is beside the point conflicting rights as conferred as law. The second part of
for the truth thereof is deemed hypothetically admitted. The only issue to the authority represents a broadening of judicial power to
be resolved in such a case is: admitting such alleged facts to be true, enable the courts of justice to review what was before
may the court render a valid judgment in accordance with the prayer in forbidden territory, to wit, the discretion of the political
the complaint?   In Militante vs. Edrosolano,   this Court laid down the
20 21
departments of the government.
rule that the judiciary should "exercise the utmost care and
circumspection in passing upon a motion to dismiss on the ground of the As worded, the new provision vests in the judiciary, and
absence thereof [cause of action] lest, by its failure to manifest a correct particularly the Supreme Court, the power to rule upon
appreciation of the facts alleged and deemed hypothetically admitted, even the wisdom of the decisions of the executive and the
what the law grants or recognizes is effectively nullified. If that happens, legislature and to declare their acts invalid for lack or
there is a blot on the legal order. The law itself stands in disrepute." excess of jurisdiction because tainted with grave abuse of
discretion. The catch, of course, is the meaning of "grave
After careful examination of the petitioners' complaint, We find the abuse of discretion," which is a very elastic phrase that
statements under the introductory affirmative allegations, as well as the can expand or contract according to the disposition of the
specific averments under the sub-heading CAUSE OF ACTION, to be judiciary.
adequate enough to show, prima facie, the claimed violation of their
rights. On the basis thereof, they may thus be granted, wholly or partly, In Daza vs. Singson,   Mr. Justice Cruz, now speaking for this Court,
23

the reliefs prayed for. It bears stressing, however, that insofar as the noted:
cancellation of the TLAs is concerned, there is the need to implead, as
party defendants, the grantees thereof for they are indispensable parties.
In the case now before us, the jurisdictional objection
becomes even less tenable and decisive. The reason is
The foregoing considered, Civil Case No. 90-777 be said to raise a that, even if we were to assume that the issue presented
political question. Policy formulation or determination by the executive or before us was political in nature, we would still not be
legislative branches of Government is not squarely put in issue. What is precluded from revolving it under the expanded
principally involved is the enforcement of a right vis-a-vis policies already jurisdiction conferred upon us that now covers, in proper
formulated and expressed in legislation. It must, nonetheless, be cases, even the political question. Article VII, Section 1, of
emphasized that the political question doctrine is no longer, the the Constitution clearly provides: . . .
insurmountable obstacle to the exercise of judicial power or the
impenetrable shield that protects executive and legislative actions from
The last ground invoked by the trial court in dismissing the complaint is
judicial inquiry or review. The second paragraph of section 1, Article VIII
the non-impairment of contracts clause found in the Constitution. The
of the Constitution states that:
court a quo declared that:
Judicial power includes the duty of the courts of justice to
settle actual controversies involving rights which are
 The Court is likewise of the impression that it cannot, no granting it and the person to whom it is granted; neither is
matter how we stretch our jurisdiction, grant the reliefs it property or a property right, nor does it create a vested
prayed for by the plaintiffs, i.e., to cancel all existing right; nor is it taxation (37 C.J. 168). Thus, this Court held
timber license agreements in the country and to cease that the granting of license does not create irrevocable
and desist from receiving, accepting, processing, rights, neither is it property or property rights (People vs.
renewing or approving new timber license agreements. Ong Tin, 54 O.G. 7576).
For to do otherwise would amount to "impairment of
contracts" abhored (sic) by the fundamental law.  24
We reiterated this pronouncement in Felipe Ysmael, Jr. & Co., Inc. vs.
Deputy Executive Secretary:  26

We are not persuaded at all; on the contrary, We are amazed, if not

shocked, by such a sweeping pronouncement. In the first place, the . . . Timber licenses, permits and license agreements are
respondent Secretary did not, for obvious reasons, even invoke in his the principal instruments by which the State regulates the
motion to dismiss the non-impairment clause. If he had done so, he utilization and disposition of forest resources to the end
would have acted with utmost infidelity to the Government by providing that public welfare is promoted. And it can hardly be
undue and unwarranted benefits and advantages to the timber license gainsaid that they merely evidence a privilege granted by
holders because he would have forever bound the Government to strictly the State to qualified entities, and do not vest in the latter
respect the said licenses according to their terms and conditions a permanent or irrevocable right to the particular
regardless of changes in policy and the demands of public interest and concession area and the forest products therein. They
welfare. He was aware that as correctly pointed out by the petitioners, may be validly amended, modified, replaced or rescinded
into every timber license must be read Section 20 of the Forestry Reform by the Chief Executive when national interests so require.
Code (P.D. No. 705) which provides: Thus, they are not deemed contracts within the purview of
the due process of law clause [See Sections 3(ee) and 20
. . . Provided, That when the national interest so requires, of Pres. Decree No. 705, as amended. Also, Tan v.
the President may amend, modify, replace or rescind any Director of Forestry, G.R. No. L-24548, October 27, 1983,
contract, concession, permit, licenses or any other form of 125 SCRA 302].
privilege granted herein . . .
Since timber licenses are not contracts, the non-impairment clause,
Needless to say, all licenses may thus be revoked or rescinded which reads:
by executive action. It is not a contract, property or a property
right protested by the due process clause of the Constitution. Sec. 10. No law impairing, the obligation of contracts shall
In Tan vs. Director of Forestry,   this Court held:
25
be passed.  27

. . . A timber license is an instrument by which the State cannot be invoked.

regulates the utilization and disposition of forest
resources to the end that public welfare is promoted. A In the second place, even if it is to be assumed that the same are
timber license is not a contract within the purview of the contracts, the instant case does not involve a law or even an executive
due process clause; it is only a license or privilege, which issuance declaring the cancellation or modification of existing timber
can be validly withdrawn whenever dictated by public licenses. Hence, the non-impairment clause cannot as yet be invoked.
interest or public welfare as in this case. Nevertheless, granting further that a law has actually been passed
mandating cancellations or modifications, the same cannot still be
A license is merely a permit or privilege to do what stigmatized as a violation of the non-impairment clause. This is because
otherwise would be unlawful, and is not a contract by its very nature and purpose, such as law could have only been passed
between the authority, federal, state, or municipal, in the exercise of the police power of the state for the purpose of
advancing the right of the people to a balanced and healthful ecology, petitioners may therefore amend their complaint to implead as
promoting their health and enhancing the general welfare. In Abe vs. defendants the holders or grantees of the questioned timber license
Foster Wheeler agreements.
Corp.   this Court stated:
28

No pronouncement as to costs.
The freedom of contract, under our system of
government, is not meant to be absolute. The same is SO ORDERED.
understood to be subject to reasonable legislative
regulation aimed at the promotion of public health, moral, Cruz, Padilla, Bidin, Griño-Aquino, Regalado, Romero, Nocon, Bellosillo,
safety and welfare. In other words, the constitutional Melo and Quiason, JJ., concur.
guaranty of non-impairment of obligations of contract is
limited by the exercise of the police power of the State, in
Narvasa, C.J., Puno and Vitug, JJ., took no part.
the interest of public health, safety, moral and general
welfare.
 Separate Opinions
The reason for this is emphatically set forth in Nebia vs. New
York,   quoted in Philippine American Life Insurance Co. vs. Auditor
29 FELICIANO, J., concurring
General,  to wit:
30

I join in the result reached by my distinguished brother in the Court,

Under our form of government the use of property and the Davide, Jr., J., in this case which, to my mind, is one of the most
making of contracts are normally matters of private and important cases decided by this Court in the last few years. The seminal
not of public concern. The general rule is that both shall principles laid down in this decision are likely to influence profoundly the
be free of governmental interference. But neither property direction and course of the protection and management of the
rights nor contract rights are absolute; for government environment, which of course embraces the utilization of all the natural
cannot exist if the citizen may at will use his property to resources in the territorial base of our polity. I have therefore sought to
the detriment of his fellows, or exercise his freedom of clarify, basically to myself, what the Court appears to be saying.
contract to work them harm. Equally fundamental with the
private right is that of the public to regulate it in the The Court explicitly states that petitioners have the locus
common interest. standi necessary to sustain the bringing and, maintenance of this suit
(Decision, pp. 11-12). Locus standi is not a function of petitioners' claim
In short, the non-impairment clause must yield to the police power of the that their suit is properly regarded as a class suit. I understand locus
state. 
31 standi to refer to the legal interest which a plaintiff must have in the
subject matter of the suit. Because of the very broadness of the concept
of "class" here involved — membership in this "class" appears to
Finally, it is difficult to imagine, as the trial court did, how the non-
embrace everyone living in the country whether now or in the
impairment clause could apply with respect to the prayer to enjoin the
future — it appears to me that everyone who may be expected to benefit
respondent Secretary from receiving, accepting, processing, renewing or
from the course of action petitioners seek to require public respondents
approving new timber licenses for, save in cases of renewal, no contract
to take, is vested with the necessary locus standi. The Court may be
would have as of yet existed in the other instances. Moreover, with
seen therefore to be recognizing a beneficiaries' right of action in the field
respect to renewal, the holder is not entitled to it as a matter of right.
of environmental protection, as against both the public administrative
agency directly concerned and the private persons or entities operating in
WHEREFORE, being impressed with merit, the instant Petition is hereby the field or sector of activity involved. Whether such beneficiaries' right of
GRANTED, and the challenged Order of respondent Judge of 18 July action may be found under any and all circumstances, or whether some
1991 dismissing Civil Case No. 90-777 is hereby set aside. The failure to act, in the first instance, on the part of the governmental agency
concerned must be shown ("prior exhaustion of administrative (d) natural resources management and conservation
remedies"), is not discussed in the decision and presumably is left for embracing:
future determination in an appropriate case.
(i) fisheries and aquatic resources;
The Court has also declared that the complaint has alleged and focused
upon "one specific fundamental legal right — the right to a balanced and (ii) wild life;
healthful ecology" (Decision, p. 14). There is no question that "the right to
a balanced and healthful ecology" is "fundamental" and that, accordingly, (iii) forestry and soil conservation;
it has been "constitutionalized." But although it is fundamental in
character, I suggest, with very great respect, that it cannot be
(iv) flood control and natural calamities;
characterized as "specific," without doing excessive violence to language.
It is in fact very difficult to fashion language more comprehensive in
scope and generalized in character than a right to "a balanced and (v) energy development;
healthful ecology." The list of particular claims which can be subsumed
under this rubic appears to be entirely open-ended: prevention and (vi) conservation and utilization of surface and ground
control of emission of toxic fumes and smoke from factories and motor water
vehicles; of discharge of oil, chemical effluents, garbage and raw sewage
into rivers, inland and coastal waters by vessels, oil rigs, factories, mines (vii) mineral resources
and whole communities; of dumping of organic and inorganic wastes on
open land, streets and thoroughfares; failure to rehabilitate land after Two (2) points are worth making in this connection. Firstly, neither
strip-mining or open-pit mining; kaingin or slash-and-burn farming; petitioners nor the Court has identified the particular provision or
destruction of fisheries, coral reefs and other living sea resources through provisions (if any) of the Philippine Environment Code which give rise to
the use of dynamite or cyanide and other chemicals; contamination of a specific legal right which petitioners are seeking to enforce. Secondly,
ground water resources; loss of certain species of fauna and flora; and so the Philippine Environment Code identifies with notable care the
on. The other statements pointed out by the Court: Section 3, Executive particular government agency charged with the formulation and
Order No. 192 dated 10 June 1987; Section 1, Title XIV, Book IV of the implementation of guidelines and programs dealing with each of the
1987 Administrative Code; and P.D. No. 1151, dated 6 June 1977 — all headings and sub-headings mentioned above. The Philippine
appear to be formulations of policy, as general and abstract as the Environment Code does not, in other words, appear to contemplate
constitutional statements of basic policy in Article II, Section 16 ("the right action on the part of private persons who are beneficiaries of
— to a balanced and healthful ecology") and 15 ("the right to health"). implementation of that Code.

P.D. No. 1152, also dated 6 June 1977, entitled "The Philippine As a matter of logic, by finding petitioners' cause of action as anchored
Environment Code," is, upon the other hand, a compendious collection of on a legal right comprised in the constitutional statements above noted,
more "specific environment management policies" and "environment the Court is in effect saying that Section 15 (and Section 16) of Article II
quality standards" (fourth "Whereas" clause, Preamble) relating to an of the Constitution are self-executing and judicially enforceable even in
extremely wide range of topics: their present form. The implications of this doctrine will have to be
explored in future cases; those implications are too large and far-
(a) air quality management; reaching in nature even to be hinted at here.

(b) water quality management; My suggestion is simply that petitioners must, before the trial court, show
a more specific legal right — a right cast in language of a significantly
(c) land use management; lower order of generality than Article II (15) of the Constitution — that is
or may be violated by the actions, or failures to act, imputed to the public
respondent by petitioners so that the trial court can validly render
judgment granting all or part of the relief prayed for. To my mind, the executive departments — must be given a real and effective
Court should be understood as simply saying that such a more specific opportunity to fashion and promulgate those norms and
legal right or rights may well exist in our corpus of law, considering the standards, and to implement them before the courts should
general policy principles found in the Constitution and the existence of intervene.
the Philippine Environment Code, and that the trial court should have
given petitioners an effective opportunity so to demonstrate, instead of My learned brother Davide, Jr., J., rightly insists that the timber
aborting the proceedings on a motion to dismiss. companies, whose concession agreements or TLA's petitioners demand
public respondents should cancel, must be impleaded in the proceedings
It seems to me important that the legal right which is an essential below. It might be asked that, if petitioners' entitlement to the relief
component of a cause of action be a specific, operable legal right, rather demanded is not dependent upon proof of breach by the timber
than a constitutional or statutory policy, for at least two (2) reasons. One companies of one or more of the specific terms and conditions of their
is that unless the legal right claimed to have been violated or disregarded concession agreements (and this, petitioners implicitly assume), what will
is given specification in operational terms, defendants may well be those companies litigate about? The answer I suggest is that they may
unable to defend themselves intelligently and effectively; in other words, seek to dispute the existence of the specific legal right petitioners should
there are due process dimensions to this matter. allege, as well as the reality of the claimed factual nexus between
petitioners' specific legal rights and the claimed wrongful acts or failures
The second is a broader-gauge consideration — where a specific to act of public respondent administrative agency. They may also
violation of law or applicable regulation is not alleged or proved, controvert the appropriateness of the remedy or remedies demanded by
petitioners can be expected to fall back on the expanded conception of petitioners, under all the circumstances which exist.
judicial power in the second paragraph of Section 1 of Article VIII of the
Constitution which reads: I vote to grant the Petition for Certiorari because the protection of the
environment, including the forest cover of our territory, is of extreme
Section 1. . . . importance for the country. The doctrines set out in the Court's decision
issued today should, however, be subjected to closer examination.
Judicial power includes the duty of the courts of justice to
settle actual controversies involving rights which are  # Separate Opinions
legally demandable and enforceable, and to determine
whether or not there has been a grave abuse of FELICIANO, J., concurring
discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on
the part of any branch or instrumentality of the I join in the result reached by my distinguished brother in the Court,
Government. (Emphasis supplied) Davide, Jr., J., in this case which, to my mind, is one of the most
important cases decided by this Court in the last few years. The seminal
When substantive standards as general as "the right to a principles laid down in this decision are likely to influence profoundly the
balanced and healthy ecology" and "the right to health" are direction and course of the protection and management of the
combined with remedial standards as broad ranging as "a grave environment, which of course embraces the utilization of all the natural
abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction," resources in the territorial base of our polity. I have therefore sought to
the result will be, it is respectfully submitted, to propel courts into clarify, basically to myself, what the Court appears to be saying.
the uncharted ocean of social and economic policy making. At
least in respect of the vast area of environmental protection and The Court explicitly states that petitioners have the locus
management, our courts have no claim to special technical standi necessary to sustain the bringing and, maintenance of this suit
competence and experience and professional qualification. (Decision, pp. 11-12). Locus standi is not a function of petitioners' claim
Where no specific, operable norms and standards are shown to that their suit is properly regarded as a class suit. I understand locus
exist, then the policy making departments — the legislative and standi to refer to the legal interest which a plaintiff must have in the
subject matter of the suit. Because of the very broadness of the concept P.D. No. 1152, also dated 6 June 1977, entitled "The Philippine
of "class" here involved — membership in this "class" appears to Environment Code," is, upon the other hand, a compendious collection of
embrace everyone living in the country whether now or in the more "specific environment management policies" and "environment
future — it appears to me that everyone who may be expected to benefit quality standards" (fourth "Whereas" clause, Preamble) relating to an
from the course of action petitioners seek to require public respondents extremely wide range of topics:
to take, is vested with the necessary locus standi. The Court may be
seen therefore to be recognizing a beneficiaries' right of action in the field (a) air quality management;
of environmental protection, as against both the public administrative
agency directly concerned and the private persons or entities operating in (b) water quality management;
the field or sector of activity involved. Whether such beneficiaries' right of
action may be found under any and all circumstances, or whether some
(c) land use management;
failure to act, in the first instance, on the part of the governmental agency
concerned must be shown ("prior exhaustion of administrative
remedies"), is not discussed in the decision and presumably is left for (d) natural resources management and conservation
future determination in an appropriate case. embracing:

The Court has also declared that the complaint has alleged and focused (i) fisheries and aquatic resources;
upon "one specific fundamental legal right — the right to a balanced and
healthful ecology" (Decision, p. 14). There is no question that "the right to (ii) wild life;
a balanced and healthful ecology" is "fundamental" and that, accordingly,
it has been "constitutionalized." But although it is fundamental in (iii) forestry and soil conservation;
character, I suggest, with very great respect, that it cannot be
characterized as "specific," without doing excessive violence to language. (iv) flood control and natural calamities;
It is in fact very difficult to fashion language more comprehensive in
scope and generalized in character than a right to "a balanced and (v) energy development;
healthful ecology." The list of particular claims which can be subsumed
under this rubic appears to be entirely open-ended: prevention and (vi) conservation and utilization of surface and ground
control of emission of toxic fumes and smoke from factories and motor water
vehicles; of discharge of oil, chemical effluents, garbage and raw sewage
into rivers, inland and coastal waters by vessels, oil rigs, factories, mines
and whole communities; of dumping of organic and inorganic wastes on (vii) mineral resources
open land, streets and thoroughfares; failure to rehabilitate land after
strip-mining or open-pit mining; kaingin or slash-and-burn farming; Two (2) points are worth making in this connection. Firstly, neither
destruction of fisheries, coral reefs and other living sea resources through petitioners nor the Court has identified the particular provision or
the use of dynamite or cyanide and other chemicals; contamination of provisions (if any) of the Philippine Environment Code which give rise to
ground water resources; loss of certain species of fauna and flora; and so a specific legal right which petitioners are seeking to enforce. Secondly,
on. The other statements pointed out by the Court: Section 3, Executive the Philippine Environment Code identifies with notable care the
Order No. 192 dated 10 June 1987; Section 1, Title XIV, Book IV of the particular government agency charged with the formulation and
1987 Administrative Code; and P.D. No. 1151, dated 6 June 1977 — all implementation of guidelines and programs dealing with each of the
appear to be formulations of policy, as general and abstract as the headings and sub-headings mentioned above. The Philippine
constitutional statements of basic policy in Article II, Section 16 ("the right Environment Code does not, in other words, appear to contemplate
— to a balanced and healthful ecology") and 15 ("the right to health"). action on the part of private persons who are beneficiaries of
implementation of that Code.
As a matter of logic, by finding petitioners' cause of action as anchored the part of any branch or instrumentality of the
on a legal right comprised in the constitutional statements above noted, Government. (Emphasis supplied)
the Court is in effect saying that Section 15 (and Section 16) of Article II
of the Constitution are self-executing and judicially enforceable even in When substantive standards as general as "the right to a
their present form. The implications of this doctrine will have to be balanced and healthy ecology" and "the right to health" are
explored in future cases; those implications are too large and far- combined with remedial standards as broad ranging as "a grave
reaching in nature even to be hinted at here. abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction,"
the result will be, it is respectfully submitted, to propel courts into
My suggestion is simply that petitioners must, before the trial court, show the uncharted ocean of social and economic policy making. At
a more specific legal right — a right cast in language of a significantly least in respect of the vast area of environmental protection and
lower order of generality than Article II (15) of the Constitution — that is management, our courts have no claim to special technical
or may be violated by the actions, or failures to act, imputed to the public competence and experience and professional qualification.
respondent by petitioners so that the trial court can validly render Where no specific, operable norms and standards are shown to
judgment granting all or part of the relief prayed for. To my mind, the exist, then the policy making departments — the legislative and
Court should be understood as simply saying that such a more specific executive departments — must be given a real and effective
legal right or rights may well exist in our corpus of law, considering the opportunity to fashion and promulgate those norms and
general policy principles found in the Constitution and the existence of standards, and to implement them before the courts should
the Philippine Environment Code, and that the trial court should have intervene.
given petitioners an effective opportunity so to demonstrate, instead of
aborting the proceedings on a motion to dismiss. My learned brother Davide, Jr., J., rightly insists that the timber
companies, whose concession agreements or TLA's petitioners demand
It seems to me important that the legal right which is an essential public respondents should cancel, must be impleaded in the proceedings
component of a cause of action be a specific, operable legal right, rather below. It might be asked that, if petitioners' entitlement to the relief
than a constitutional or statutory policy, for at least two (2) reasons. One demanded is not dependent upon proof of breach by the timber
is that unless the legal right claimed to have been violated or disregarded companies of one or more of the specific terms and conditions of their
is given specification in operational terms, defendants may well be concession agreements (and this, petitioners implicitly assume), what will
unable to defend themselves intelligently and effectively; in other words, those companies litigate about? The answer I suggest is that they may
there are due process dimensions to this matter. seek to dispute the existence of the specific legal right petitioners should
allege, as well as the reality of the claimed factual nexus between
The second is a broader-gauge consideration — where a specific petitioners' specific legal rights and the claimed wrongful acts or failures
violation of law or applicable regulation is not alleged or proved, to act of public respondent administrative agency. They may also
petitioners can be expected to fall back on the expanded conception of controvert the appropriateness of the remedy or remedies demanded by
judicial power in the second paragraph of Section 1 of Article VIII of the petitioners, under all the circumstances which exist.
Constitution which reads:
I vote to grant the Petition for Certiorari because the protection of the
Section 1. . . . environment, including the forest cover of our territory, is of extreme
importance for the country. The doctrines set out in the Court's decision
Judicial power includes the duty of the courts of justice to issued today should, however, be subjected to closer examination.
settle actual controversies involving rights which are
legally demandable and enforceable, and to determine # Footnotes
whether or not there has been a grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on 1 Rollo, 164; 186.
2 Id., 62-65, exclusive of annexes. 19 Section 1(q), Rule 16, Revised Rules of Court.

3 Under Section 12, Rule 3, Revised Rules of Court. 20 Adamos vs. J.M. Tuason and Co., Inc. 25 SCRA 529
[1968]; Virata vs. Sandiganbayn, supra; Madrona vs.
4 Rollo, 67. Rosal, supra.

5 Id., 74. 21 39 SCRA 473, 479 [1971].

6 Rollo, 70-73. 22 1991 ed., 226-227.

7 Annex "B" of Petitions; Id., 43-44. 23 180 SCRA 496, 501-502 [1989]. See also, Coseteng
vs. Mitra, 187 SCRA 377 [1990]; Gonzales vs. Macaraig,
8 Paragraph 7, Petition, 6; Rollo, 20. 191 SCRA 452 [1990]; Llamas vs. Orbos, 202 SCRA 844
[1991]; Bengzon vs. Senate Blue Ribbon Committee, 203
SCRA 767 [1991].
9 Webster's Third New International Dictionary,
unabridged, 1986, 1508.
24 Rollo, 44.
10 Title XIV (Environment and Natural Resources), Book
IV of the Administrative Code of 1987, E.O. No. 292. 25 125 SCRA 302, 325 [1983].

11 Annex "B" of Petition; Rollo, 43-44. 26 190 SCRA 673, 684 [1990].

12 Record of the Constitutional Commission, vol. 4, 913. 27 Article III, 1987 Constitution.

13 For instance, the Preamble and Article XII on the 28 110 Phil. 198, 203 [1960]; footnotes omitted.
National Economy and Patrimony.
29 291 U.S. 502, 523, 78 L. ed. 940, 947-949.
14 The Reorganization Act of the Department of
Environment and Natural Resources. 30 22 SCRA 135, 146-147 [1968].

15 E.O. No. 292. 31 Ongsiako vs. Gamboa, 86 Phil. 50 [1950]; Abe vs.
Foster Wheeler Corp. supra.; Phil. American Life
16 Section 1. Insurance Co. vs. Auditor General, supra.; Alalayan vs.
NPC, 24 SCRA 172[1968]; Victoriano vs. Elizalde Rope
Workers' Union, 59 SCRA 54 [1974]; Kabiling vs. National
17 Section 2.
Housing Authority, 156 SCRA 623 [1987].
18 Ma-ao Sugar Central Co. vs. Barrios, 79 Phil. 666
[1947]; Community Investment and Finance Corp. vs. The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation
Garcia, 88 Phil. 215 [1951]; Remitere vs. Vda. de Yulo, 16
SCRA 251 [1966]; Caseñas vs. Rosales, 19 SCRA 462
[1967]; Virata vs. Sandiganbayan, 202 SCRA 680 [1991];
Madrona vs. Rosal, 204 SCRA 1 [1991].