I.

Oposa Case ( The Constitution and Environmental Law: The Relevance of the Malcolm Activist Approach ) Arguments of the Respondents : 1. No Cause of Action1 Issue: Whether or not said petitioners have a cause of action to prevent the misappropriation or impairment of Philippine rainforests and arrest the unbated hemorrhage of the countrys vital life-support system and continued rape of mother earth? Held: Court cited: Sec. 16. The State shall protect and advance the right of the people to a balanced and healthful ecology in accord with the rhythm and harmony of nature. This right unites with the right to health, which is provided for in the preceding section of the same article: Sec. 15. The State shall protect and promote the right to health of the people and instill health consciousness among them. Petition bears upon the right of Filipinos to a balanced and healthful ecology, which the petitioners associate with the twin concepts of intergenerational responsibility and intergenerational justice. 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. A denial or violation of that right by the other who has the correlative duty or obligation to respect or protect the same gives rise to a cause of action. Petitioners maintain that the granting of the TLAs, which they claim was done with grave abuse of discretion, violated their right to a balanced and healthful ecology; hence, the full protection thereof requires that no further TLAs should be renewed or granted.

act or omission by which a party violates a right of another.

2. Class Suit2 Held: We find no difficulty in ruling that they can, for themselves, for others of their generation and for the succeeding generations, file a class suit. 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. Intergenerational Responsibility - Petitioners minors assert that they represent their generation as well as generations yet unborn - The right of the Filipinos to a balanced and healthful ecology. 3. The case involves a political question Held: Court cites the second paragraph of Section 1, Article VIII of the Constitution 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. Court then explains: The second part of the authority represents a broadening of judicial power to enable the courts of justice to review what was before forbidden territory, to with, the discretion of the political departments of the government. 4. Violation of the non-impairment clause Held: Court explained that timber license granted by the DENR is not a contract, property or a property right protested by the due process clause of the Constitution. Court further clarified that a timber license
controversy is one of the common or general interest to many persons so numerous that it is impracticable to join all as parties, a number of them which the court finds to be sufficiently numerous and representative as to fully protect the interests of all concerned may sue or defend for the benefit of all. Any party in interest shall have the right to intervene to protect his individual interest.
2

= is an instrument by which the State regulates the utilization and disposition of forest resources to the end that public welfare is promoted. A timber license is = not a contract within the purview of the due process clause; = it is only a license or privilege, which can be validly withdrawn whenever dictated by public interest or public welfare as in this case. = 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 II. Judicial/Institutional Activism/Restraint 1. Judicial Interpretivism [Ely] indicative of judges deciding constitutional issues (confining) themselves to enforcing values or norms that are stated or very clearly implicit in the written constitution. The constitution is a legal document to be interpreted like other legal documents, in accord with its language and purpose. Insistence that the work of the political branches is to be invalidated only in accord with inference whose starting point, whose underlying premises, is fairly discoverable in the constitution.

2. Judicial Non-interpretivism courts should go beyond that set of references and enforce values or norms that cannot be discovered within the four corners of the document.

3. Policy Activism the judiciary was vested with jurisdiction, he could, within the permissible bounds of judicial power, give full expression to values he hold dear.

4. Policy Restraint The court not being a democratic institution or one which is elected by the people opts to limit its use of judicial review. The Court hesitates to exercise of power.

5. Judicial Activism

refer to a judges readiness to use his court, his judicial decision, or to use in a more precise legal term, the power of judicial review to advance substantive social or political causes.

III. Rules and Objectives of the PHILJA 1. To strengthen the capacity of our judges to effectively adjudicate and manage the environmental cases before them. 2. To update them on developments in law, rules and jurisprudence. 3. To pave the way for an improved and informed decision-making on environmental issues. 4. To increase their sensitivity levels in the resolution of environmental disputes. IV. Definitions 1. Climate Change - means a change of climate which is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and which is in addition to natural climate variability observed over comparable time periods. (UN Framework Convention on Climate Change) - change in vapor or weather patterns in certain areas in substantial periods of time - a by-product of Global Warming - human activities (since the Industrial Revolution) resulted in greenhouse concentrations, primarily from fossil fuel, deforestation, land use change and agriculture. - Greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydroflurocarbons and sulfur hexaflupride produced by human activities cause the thinning of the ozone layer which protects us from ultraviolet and the cosmic rays of outer space. - CFCs and other gasses which were eventually carried by the wind currents into the ozone layer reacted with the ozone molecules and broke down the gaseous umbrella at a rate faster they could be replenished, thus creating holes in the Antartica, Europe, and the Artic, thus leading to global warming and global climate change. 2. Global Warming - increase in temperatures in varying areas or more specifically in the atmosphere or near the surface of the earth. V. Two justifications of State involvement 1. Article II Sec. 16 of the Constitution

The State shall protect and advance the right of the people to a balanced and healthful ecology in accord with the rhythm and harmony of nature.

2. Public Trust Doctrine - All public lands of the nation are held in trust by the government by the people for the people of the whole country, with the government having the duty under the doctrine to protect and preserve the lands for the publics common heritage.