G.R. No. 101083
July 30, 1993
DAVIDE, JR., J.:
Facts:
This case is a class action suit seeking the cancellation and non-issuance of timber license agreements which allegedly infringed the constitutional right to a balanced and healthful ecology.
Several minors represented by their parents filed a complaint against the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) to cancel existing timber license agreements in the country and to stop the issuance of new ones. It was claimed that the resultant deforestation and damage to the environment violated their constitutional rights to a balanced and healthful ecology and to health (Sections 15 and 16, Article II of the Constitution). The petitioners asserted that they represented others of their generation as well as generations yet unborn.
Issues:
- Whether the petitioners have legal standing for them being minors
- Whether they have a cause of action against the defendant
- Whether there is a valid class suit
- Whether the issue raised by petitioners is a political question and not subject to judicial review
- Whether the obligation of contracts would be impaired by the revocation and cancellation of contracts
Held:
- Whether Petitioners have Legal standing for them being minors
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. Such a right, as hereinafter expounded, considers the “rhythm and harmony of nature.” Nature means the created world in its entirety. Such rhythm and harmony indispensably include, inter alia, the judicious disposition, utilization, management, renewal and conservation of the country’s forest, mineral, land, waters, fisheries, wildlife, off-shore areas and other natural resources to the end that their exploration, development and utilization be equitably accessible to the present as well as future generations. 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. Put a little differently, the minors’ assertion of their right to a sound environment constitutes, at the same time, the performance of their obligation to ensure the protection of that right for the generations to come.
- Whether they have a cause of action against defendant
Respondents aver that the Secretary has not violated any legal right and that the complaint is vague and nebulous allegations concerning an “environmental right” which supposedly entitles the petitioners to the “protection by the state in its capacity as parens patriae.” They therefore assert that the petitioners’ resources is not to file an action to court, but to lobby before Congress for the passage of a bill that would ban logging totally.
The Court ruled that cause of action exists. Petitioners’ cause of action as it is anchored on a legal right comprised in the constitutional statements under Section 15 (and Section 16) of Article II of the Constitution which are self-executing and judicially enforceable even in their present form. The implications of this doctrine will have to be explored in future cases.
- Whether there is a valid class suit
The court said yes, the subject matter of the complaint is of common and general interest not just to several but to all citizens of the Philippines. Consequently, because the petitioners are so numerous that it is impracticable to join all parties in the case. Hence, all the requisites for the filing of a valid class suit under Section 12, Rule 3 of the Revised Rules of Court are present both in the said civil case and in the instant petition, the latter being but an incident to the former.
- Whether the issue raised by petitioners is a political question and not subject to judicial review
Defendants suggest that the question is not ripe for the Supreme Court’s intervention. The court said no; it can no longer be an obstacle to the exercise of judicial review or an impenetrable shield that protects executive and legislative actions from judicial inquiry or review:
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.
Article VIII, Sec. 1 (2) 1987 Philippine Constitution
Thus, the court can invoke the expanded power of judicial review in which the Judicial Branch can correct grave abuses of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.
- Whether the obligation of contracts would be impaired by the revocation and cancellation of contracts
The Court ruled that TLA’s are not contracts. These are licenses and therefore privileges granted by the State and are subject to regulation. Hence, the non-impairment clause cannot as yet be invoked. Nevertheless, granting further that a law has actually been passed mandating cancellations or modifications, the same cannot still be stigmatized as a violation of the non-impairment clause. This is because by its very nature and purpose, such as law could have only been passed 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, promoting their health and enhancing the general welfare.
Conflicting matters on this case: (source)
This case has been widely-cited in jurisprudence worldwide, particularly in cases relating to forest/timber licensing. However, the approach of the Philippino Supreme Court to economic, social and cultural rights has proved somewhat inconsistent, with some judgments resulting in the enforcement of such rights (e.g., Del Rosario v Bangzon, 180 SCRA 521 (1989); Manila Prince Hotel v Government Service Insurance System, G. R. No. 122156 (3 February, 1997) but at least one instance in which the Court made a statement that economic, social and cultural rights are not real rights (see, Brigido Simon v Commission on Human Rights, G. R. No. 100150, 5 January 1994).