Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. 101083 July 30, 1993
Oposa Law Office for petitioners.
The Solicitor General for respondents.

DAVIDE, JR., J.:
In a broader sense, this petition bears upon the right of Filipinos to a balanced and healthful ecology
which the petitioners draatically associate with the twin concepts of !inter"generational
responsibility! and !inter"generational #ustice$! %pecifically, it touches on the issue of whether the
said petitioners ha&e a cause of action to !pre&ent the isappropriation or ipairent! of Philippine
rainforests and !arrest the unabated heorrhage of the country's &ital life support systes and
continued rape of Mother Earth$!
(he contro&ersy has its genesis in Ci&il Case No$ )*"++ which was filed before Branch ,, -Ma.ati,
Metro Manila/ of the Regional (rial Court -R(C/, National Capital 0udicial Region$ (he principal
plaintiffs therein, now the principal petitioners, are all inors duly represented and #oined by their
respecti&e parents$ Ipleaded as an additional plaintiff is the Philippine Ecological Networ., Inc$
-PENI/, a doestic, non"stoc. and non"profit corporation organi1ed for the purpose of, inter alia,
engaging in concerted action geared for the protection of our en&ironent and natural resources$
(he original defendant was the 2onorable Fulgencio %$ Factoran, 0r$, then %ecretary of the
3epartent of En&ironent and Natural Resources -3ENR/$ 2is substitution in this petition by the
new %ecretary, the 2onorable Angel C$ Alcala, was subse4uently ordered upon proper otion by the
petitioners$
1
(he coplaint
2
was instituted as a ta5payers' class suit
3
and alleges that the plaintiffs !are all
citi1ens of the Republic of the Philippines, ta5payers, and entitled to the full benefit, use and en#oyent of
the natural resource treasure that is the country's &irgin tropical forests$! (he sae was filed for
thesel&es and others who are e4ually concerned about the preser&ation of said resource but are !so
nuerous that it is ipracticable to bring the all before the Court$! (he inors further asse&erate that
they !represent their generation as well as generations yet unborn$!
4
Conse4uently, it is prayed for that
#udgent be rendered6
$ $ $ ordering defendant, his agents, representati&es and other persons acting in his
behalf to 7
-8/ Cancel all e5isting tiber license agreeents in the country9
-:/ Cease and desist fro recei&ing, accepting, processing, renewing or appro&ing
new tiber license agreeents$
and granting the plaintiffs !$ $ $ such other reliefs #ust and e4uitable under the preises$!
5
(he coplaint starts off with the general a&erents that the Philippine archipelago of +,8** islands
has a land area of thirty illion -;*,***,***/ hectares and is endowed with rich, lush and &erdant
rainforests in which &aried, rare and uni4ue species of flora and fauna ay be found9 these
rainforests contain a genetic, biological and cheical pool which is irreplaceable9 they are also the
habitat of indigenous Philippine cultures which ha&e e5isted, endured and flourished since tie
ieorial9 scientific e&idence re&eals that in order to aintain a balanced and healthful ecology,
the country's land area should be utili1ed on the basis of a ratio of fifty"four per cent -<=>/ for forest
co&er and forty"si5 per cent -=,>/ for agricultural, residential, industrial, coercial and other uses9
the distortion and disturbance of this balance as a conse4uence of deforestation ha&e resulted in a
host of en&ironental tragedies, such as -a/ water shortages resulting fro drying up of the water
table, otherwise .nown as the !a4uifer,! as well as of ri&ers, broo.s and streas, -b/ salini1ation of
the water table as a result of the intrusion therein of salt water, incontro&ertible e5aples of which
ay be found in the island of Cebu and the Municipality of Bacoor, Ca&ite, -c/ assi&e erosion and
the conse4uential loss of soil fertility and agricultural producti&ity, with the &olue of soil eroded
estiated at one billion -8,***,***,***/ cubic eters per annu 7 appro5iately the si1e of the
entire island of Catanduanes, -d/ the endangering and e5tinction of the country's uni4ue, rare and
&aried flora and fauna, -e/ the disturbance and dislocation of cultural counities, including the
disappearance of the Filipino's indigenous cultures, -f/ the siltation of ri&ers and seabeds and
conse4uential destruction of corals and other a4uatic life leading to a critical reduction in arine
resource producti&ity, -g/ recurrent spells of drought as is presently e5perienced by the entire
country, -h/ increasing &elocity of typhoon winds which result fro the absence of windbrea.ers, -i/
the floodings of lowlands and agricultural plains arising fro the absence of the absorbent
echanis of forests, -#/ the siltation and shortening of the lifespan of ulti"billion peso das
constructed and operated for the purpose of supplying water for doestic uses, irrigation and the
generation of electric power, and -./ the reduction of the earth's capacity to process carbon dio5ide
gases which has led to perple5ing and catastrophic cliatic changes such as the phenoenon of
global waring, otherwise .nown as the !greenhouse effect$!
Plaintiffs further assert that the ad&erse and detriental conse4uences of continued and
deforestation are so capable of un4uestionable deonstration that the sae ay be subitted as a
atter of #udicial notice$ (his notwithstanding, they e5pressed their intention to present e5pert
witnesses as well as docuentary, photographic and fil e&idence in the course of the trial$
As their cause of action, they specifically allege that6
CAUSE OF ACTION
+$ Plaintiffs replead by reference the foregoing allegations$
?$ (wenty"fi&e -:</ years ago, the Philippines had soe si5teen -8,/ illion hectares
of rainforests constituting roughly <;> of the country's land ass$
)$ %atellite iages ta.en in 8)?+ re&eal that there reained no ore than 8$: illion
hectares of said rainforests or four per cent -=$*>/ of the country's land area$
8*$ More recent sur&eys re&eal that a ere ?<*,*** hectares of &irgin old"growth
rainforests are left, barely :$?> of the entire land ass of the Philippine archipelago
and about ;$* illion hectares of iature and uneconoical secondary growth
forests$
88$ Public records re&eal that the defendant's, predecessors ha&e granted tiber
license agreeents -'(@A's'/ to &arious corporations to cut the aggregate area of
;$?) illion hectares for coercial logging purposes$
A copy of the (@A holders and the corresponding areas co&ered is hereto attached
as Anne5 !A!$
8:$ At the present rate of deforestation, i.e. about :**,*** hectares per annu or :<
hectares per hour 7 nighttie, %aturdays, %undays and holidays included 7 the
Philippines will be bereft of forest resources after the end of this ensuing decade, if
not earlier$
8;$ (he ad&erse effects, disastrous conse4uences, serious in#ury and irreparable
daage of this continued trend of deforestation to the plaintiff inor's generation and
to generations yet unborn are e&ident and incontro&ertible$ As a atter of fact, the
en&ironental daages enuerated in paragraph , hereof are already being felt,
e5perienced and suffered by the generation of plaintiff adults$
8=$ (he continued allowance by defendant of (@A holders to cut and deforest the
reaining forest stands will wor. great daage and irreparable in#ury to plaintiffs 7
especially plaintiff inors and their successors 7 who ay ne&er see, use, benefit
fro and en#oy this rare and uni4ue natural resource treasure$
(his act of defendant constitutes a isappropriation andAor ipairent of the natural
resource property he holds in trust for the benefit of plaintiff inors and succeeding
generations$
8<$ Plaintiffs ha&e a clear and constitutional right to a balanced and healthful ecology
and are entitled to protection by the %tate in its capacity as the parens patriae$
8,$ Plaintiff ha&e e5hausted all adinistrati&e reedies with the defendant's office$
Bn March :, 8))*, plaintiffs ser&ed upon defendant a final deand to cancel all
logging perits in the country$
A copy of the plaintiffs' letter dated March 8, 8))* is hereto attached as Anne5 !B!$
8+$ 3efendant, howe&er, fails and refuses to cancel the e5isting (@A's to the
continuing serious daage and e5tree pre#udice of plaintiffs$
8?$ (he continued failure and refusal by defendant to cancel the (@A's is an act
&iolati&e of the rights of plaintiffs, especially plaintiff inors who ay be left with a
country that is desertified -sic/, bare, barren and de&oid of the wonderful flora, fauna
and indigenous cultures which the Philippines had been abundantly blessed with$
8)$ 3efendant's refusal to cancel the aforeentioned (@A's is anifestly contrary to
the public policy enunciated in the Philippine En&ironental Policy which, in pertinent
part, states that it is the policy of the %tate 7
-a/ to create, de&elop, aintain and ipro&e conditions under which an and nature
can thri&e in producti&e and en#oyable harony with each other9
-b/ to fulfill the social, econoic and other re4uireents of present and future
generations of Filipinos and9
-c/ to ensure the attainent of an en&ironental 4uality that is conducti&e to a life of
dignity and well"being$ -P$3$ 88<8, , 0une 8)++/
:*$ Furtherore, defendant's continued refusal to cancel the aforeentioned (@A's
is contradictory to the Constitutional policy of the %tate to 7
a$ effect !a ore e4uitable distribution of opportunities, incoe and wealth! and
!a.e full and efficient use of natural resources -sic/$! -%ection 8, Article CII of the
Constitution/9
b$ !protect the nation's arine wealth$! -%ection :, ibid/9
c$ !conser&e and proote the nation's cultural heritage and resources -sic/! -%ection
8=, Article CID,id$/9
d$ !protect and ad&ance the right of the people to a balanced and healthful ecology in
accord with the rhyth and harony of nature$! -%ection 8,, Article II, id$/
:8$ Finally, defendant's act is contrary to the highest law of huan.ind 7 the natural
law 7 and &iolati&e of plaintiffs' right to self"preser&ation and perpetuation$
::$ (here is no other plain, speedy and ade4uate reedy in law other than the
instant action to arrest the unabated heorrhage of the country's &ital life support
systes and continued rape of Mother Earth$

Bn :: 0une 8))*, the original defendant, %ecretary Factoran, 0r$, filed a Motion to 3isiss the
coplaint based on two -:/ grounds, naely6 -8/ the plaintiffs ha&e no cause of action against hi
and -:/ the issue raised by the plaintiffs is a political 4uestion which properly pertains to the
legislati&e or e5ecuti&e branches of Eo&ernent$ In their 8: 0uly 8))* Bpposition to the Motion, the
petitioners aintain that -8/ the coplaint shows a clear and unista.able cause of action, -:/ the
otion is dilatory and -;/ the action presents a #usticiable 4uestion as it in&ol&es the defendant's
abuse of discretion$
Bn 8? 0uly 8))8, respondent 0udge issued an order granting the aforeentioned otion to
disiss$
!
In the said order, not only was the defendant's clai 7 that the coplaint states no cause of
action against hi and that it raises a political 4uestion 7 sustained, the respondent 0udge further ruled
that the granting of the relief prayed for would result in the ipairent of contracts which is prohibited by
the fundaental law of the land$
Plaintiffs thus filed the instant special ci&il action for certiorari under Rule ,< of the Re&ised Rules of
Court and as. this Court to rescind and set aside the disissal order on the ground that the
respondent 0udge gra&ely abused his discretion in disissing the action$ Again, the parents of the
plaintiffs"inors not only represent their children, but ha&e also #oined the latter in this case$
8
Bn 8= May 8)):, Fe resol&ed to gi&e due course to the petition and re4uired the parties to subit
their respecti&e Meoranda after the Bffice of the %olicitor Eeneral -B%E/ filed a Coent in behalf
of the respondents and the petitioners filed a reply thereto$
Petitioners contend that the coplaint clearly and unista.ably states a cause of action as it
contains sufficient allegations concerning their right to a sound en&ironent based on Articles 8), :*
and :8 of the Ci&il Code -2uan Relations/, %ection = of E5ecuti&e Brder -E$B$/ No$ 8): creating
the 3ENR, %ection ; of Presidential 3ecree -P$3$/ No$ 88<8 -Philippine En&ironental Policy/,
%ection 8,, Article II of the 8)?+ Constitution recogni1ing the right of the people to a balanced and
healthful ecology, the concept of generational genocide in Criinal @aw and the concept of an's
inalienable right to self"preser&ation and self"perpetuation ebodied in natural law$ Petitioners
li.ewise rely on the respondent's correlati&e obligation per %ection = of E$B$ No$ 8):, to safeguard
the people's right to a healthful en&ironent$
It is further claied that the issue of the respondent %ecretary's alleged gra&e abuse of discretion in
granting (iber @icense Agreeents -(@As/ to co&er ore areas for logging than what is a&ailable
in&ol&es a #udicial 4uestion$
Anent the in&ocation by the respondent 0udge of the Constitution's non"ipairent clause,
petitioners aintain that the sae does not apply in this case because (@As are not contracts$ (hey
li.ewise subit that e&en if (@As ay be considered protected by the said clause, it is well settled
that they ay still be re&o.ed by the %tate when the public interest so re4uires$
Bn the other hand, the respondents a&er that the petitioners failed to allege in their coplaint a
specific legal right &iolated by the respondent %ecretary for which any relief is pro&ided by law$ (hey
see nothing in the coplaint but &ague and nebulous allegations concerning an !en&ironental right!
which supposedly entitles the petitioners to the !protection by the state in its capacity as parens
patriae.! %uch allegations, according to the, do not re&eal a &alid cause of action$ (hey then
reiterate the theory that the 4uestion of whether logging should be peritted in the country is a
political 4uestion which should be properly addressed to the e5ecuti&e or legislati&e branches of
Eo&ernent$ (hey 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$
As to the atter of the cancellation of the (@As, respondents subit that the sae cannot be done
by the %tate without due process of law$ Bnce issued, a (@A reains effecti&e for a certain period of
tie 7 usually for twenty"fi&e -:</ years$ 3uring its effecti&ity, the sae can neither be re&ised nor
cancelled unless the holder has been found, after due notice and hearing, to ha&e &iolated the ters
of the agreeent or other forestry laws and regulations$ Petitioners' proposition to ha&e all the (@As
indiscriinately cancelled without the re4uisite hearing would be &iolati&e of the re4uireents of due
process$
Before going any further, Fe ust first focus on soe procedural atters$ Petitioners instituted Ci&il
Case No$ )*"+++ as a class suit$ (he original defendant and the present respondents did not ta.e
issue with this atter$ Ne&ertheless, Fe hereby rule that the said ci&il case is indeed a class suit$
(he sub#ect atter of the coplaint is of coon and general interest not #ust to se&eral, but to all
citi1ens of the Philippines$ Conse4uently, since the parties are so nuerous, it, becoes
ipracticable, if not totally ipossible, to bring all of the before the court$ Fe li.ewise declare that
the plaintiffs therein are nuerous and representati&e enough to ensure the full protection of all
concerned interests$ 2ence, all the re4uisites for the filing of a &alid class suit under %ection 8:, Rule
; of the Re&ised Rules of Court are present both in the said ci&il case and in the instant petition, the
latter being but an incident to the forer$
(his case, howe&er, has a special and no&el eleent$ Petitioners inors assert that they represent
their generation as well as generations yet unborn$ Fe find no difficulty in ruling that they can, for
thesel&es, for others of their generation and for the succeeding generations, file a class suit$ (heir
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$
%uch a right, as hereinafter e5pounded, considers
the !rhyth and harony of nature$! Nature eans the created world in its entirety$
9
%uch rhyth and
harony indispensably include, inter alia, the #udicious disposition, utili1ation, anageent, renewal and
conser&ation of the country's forest, ineral, land, waters, fisheries, wildlife, off"shore areas and other
natural resources to the end that their e5ploration, de&elopent and utili1ation be e4uitably accessible to
the present as well as future generations$
10
Needless to say, e&ery generation has a responsibility to the
ne5t to preser&e that rhyth and harony for the full en#oyent of a balanced and healthful ecology$ Put
a little differently, the inors' assertion of their right to a sound en&ironent constitutes, at the sae tie,
the perforance of their obligation to ensure the protection of that right for the generations to coe$
(he locus standi of the petitioners ha&ing thus been addressed, Fe shall now proceed to the erits
of the petition$
After a careful perusal of the coplaint in 4uestion and a eticulous consideration and e&aluation of
the issues raised and arguents adduced by the parties, Fe do not hesitate to find for the
petitioners and rule against the respondent 0udge's challenged order for ha&ing been issued with
gra&e abuse of discretion aounting to lac. of #urisdiction$ (he pertinent portions of the said order
reads as follows6
555 555 555
After a careful and circuspect e&aluation of the Coplaint, the Court cannot help
but agree with the defendant$ For although we belie&e that plaintiffs ha&e but the
noblest of all intentions, it -sic/ fell short of alleging, with sufficient definiteness, a
specific legal right they are see.ing to enforce and protect, or a specific legal wrong
they are see.ing to pre&ent and redress -%ec$ 8, Rule :, RRC/$ Furtherore, the
Court notes that the Coplaint is replete with &ague assuptions and &ague
conclusions based on un&erified data$ In fine, plaintiffs fail to state a cause of action
in its Coplaint against the herein defendant$
Furtherore, the Court firly belie&es that the atter before it, being ipressed with
political color and in&ol&ing a atter of public policy, ay not be ta.en cogni1ance of
by this Court without doing &iolence to the sacred principle of !%eparation of Powers!
of the three -;/ co"e4ual branches of the Eo&ernent$
(he Court is li.ewise of the ipression that it cannot, no atter how we stretch our
#urisdiction, grant the reliefs prayed for by the plaintiffs, i.e., to cancel all e5isting
tiber license agreeents in the country and to cease and desist fro recei&ing,
accepting, processing, renewing or appro&ing new tiber license agreeents$ For to
do otherwise would aount to !ipairent of contracts! abhored -sic/ by the
fundaental law$
11
Fe do not agree with the trial court's conclusions that the plaintiffs failed to allege with sufficient
definiteness a specific legal right in&ol&ed or a specific legal wrong coitted, and that the
coplaint is replete with &ague assuptions and conclusions based on un&erified data$ A reading of
the coplaint itself belies these conclusions$
(he coplaint focuses on one specific fundaental legal right 7 the right to a balanced and
healthful ecology which, for the first tie in our nation's constitutional history, is solenly
incorporated in the fundaental law$ %ection 8,, Article II of the 8)?+ Constitution e5plicitly pro&ides6
%ec$ 8,$ (he %tate shall protect and ad&ance the right of the people to a balanced
and healthful ecology in accord with the rhyth and harony of nature$
(his right unites with the right to health which is pro&ided for in the preceding section
of the sae article6
%ec$ 8<$ (he %tate shall protect and proote the right to health of the people and
instill health consciousness aong the$
Fhile the right to a balanced and healthful ecology is to be found under the 3eclaration of Principles
and %tate Policies and not under the Bill of Rights, it does not follow that it is less iportant than any
of the ci&il and political rights enuerated in the latter$ %uch a right belongs to a different category of
rights altogether for it concerns nothing less than self"preser&ation and self"perpetuation 7 aptly and
fittingly stressed by the petitioners 7 the ad&anceent of which ay e&en be said to predate all
go&ernents and constitutions$ As a atter of fact, these basic rights need not e&en be written in the
Constitution for they are assued to e5ist fro the inception of huan.ind$ If they are now e5plicitly
entioned in the fundaental charter, it is because of the well"founded fear of its fraers that unless
the rights to a balanced and healthful ecology and to health are andated as state policies by the
Constitution itself, thereby highlighting their continuing iportance and iposing upon the state a
solen obligation to preser&e the first and protect and ad&ance the second, the day would not be too
far when all else would be lost not only for the present generation, but also for those to coe 7
generations which stand to inherit nothing but parched earth incapable of sustaining life$
(he right to a balanced and healthful ecology carries with it the correlati&e duty to refrain fro
ipairing the en&ironent$ 3uring the debates on this right in one of the plenary sessions of the
8)?, Constitutional Coission, the following e5change transpired between Coissioner Filfrido
Dillacorta and Coissioner Adolfo A1cuna who sponsored the section in 4uestion6
MR$ DI@@ACBR(A6
3oes this section andate the %tate to pro&ide sanctions against all
fors of pollution 7 air, water and noise pollutionG
MR$ AHCINA6
Jes, Mada President$ (he right to healthful -sic/ en&ironent
necessarily carries with it the correlati&e duty of not ipairing the
sae and, therefore, sanctions ay be pro&ided for ipairent of
en&ironental balance$
12
(he said right iplies, aong any other things, the #udicious anageent and conser&ation of the
country's forests$
Fithout such forests, the ecological or en&ironental balance would be irre&ersiby disrupted$
Conforably with the enunciated right to a balanced and healthful ecology and the right to health, as
well as the other related pro&isions of the Constitution concerning the conser&ation, de&elopent
and utili1ation of the country's natural resources,
13
then President Cora1on C$ A4uino proulgated on
8* 0une 8)?+ E$B$ No$ 8):,
14
%ection = of which e5pressly andates that the 3epartent of
En&ironent and Natural Resources !shall be the priary go&ernent agency responsible for the
conser&ation, anageent, de&elopent and proper use of the country's en&ironent and natural
resources, specifically forest and gra1ing lands, ineral, resources, including those in reser&ation and
watershed areas, and lands of the public doain, as well as the licensing and regulation of all natural
resources as ay be pro&ided for by law in order to ensure e4uitable sharing of the benefits deri&ed
therefro for the welfare of the present and future generations of Filipinos$! %ection ; thereof a.es the
following stateent of policy6
%ec$ ;$ eclaration of !olic"$ 7 It is hereby declared the policy of the %tate to ensure
the sustainable use, de&elopent, anageent, renewal, and conser&ation of the
country's forest, ineral, land, off"shore areas and other natural resources, including
the protection and enhanceent of the 4uality of the en&ironent, and e4uitable
access of the different segents of the population to the de&elopent and the use of
the country's natural resources, not only for the present generation but for future
generations as well$ It is also the policy of the state to recogni1e and apply a true
&alue syste including social and en&ironental cost iplications relati&e to their
utili1ation, de&elopent and conser&ation of our natural resources$
(his policy declaration is substantially re"stated it (itle CID, Boo. ID of the Adinistrati&e Code of
8)?+,
15
specifically in %ection 8 thereof which reads6
%ec$ 8$ eclaration of !olic"$ 7 -8/ (he %tate shall ensure, for the benefit of the
Filipino people, the full e5ploration and de&elopent as well as the #udicious
disposition, utili1ation, anageent, renewal and conser&ation of the country's
forest, ineral, land, waters, fisheries, wildlife, off"shore areas and other natural
resources, consistent with the necessity of aintaining a sound ecological balance
and protecting and enhancing the 4uality of the en&ironent and the ob#ecti&e of
a.ing the e5ploration, de&elopent and utili1ation of such natural resources
e4uitably accessible to the different segents of the present as well as future
generations$
-:/ (he %tate shall li.ewise recogni1e and apply a true &alue syste that ta.es into
account social and en&ironental cost iplications relati&e to the utili1ation,
de&elopent and conser&ation of our natural resources$
(he abo&e pro&ision stresses !the necessity of aintaining a sound ecological balance and
protecting and enhancing the 4uality of the en&ironent$! %ection : of the sae (itle, on the other
hand, specifically spea.s of the andate of the 3ENR9 howe&er, it a.es particular reference to the
fact of the agency's being sub#ect to law and higher authority$ %aid section pro&ides6
%ec$ :$ #andate$ 7 -8/ (he 3epartent of En&ironent and Natural Resources shall
be priarily responsible for the ipleentation of the foregoing policy$
-:/ It shall, sub#ect to law and higher authority, be in charge of carrying out the %tate's
constitutional andate to control and super&ise the e5ploration, de&elopent,
utili1ation, and conser&ation of the country's natural resources$
Both E$B$ NB$ 8): and the Adinistrati&e Code of 8)?+ ha&e set the ob#ecti&es which will ser&e as
the bases for policy forulation, and ha&e defined the powers and functions of the 3ENR$
It ay, howe&er, be recalled that e&en before the ratification of the 8)?+ Constitution, specific
statutes already paid special attention to the !en&ironental right! of the present and future
generations$ Bn , 0une 8)++, P$3$ No$ 88<8 -Philippine En&ironental Policy/ and P$3$ No$ 88<:
-Philippine En&ironent Code/ were issued$ (he forer !declared a continuing policy of the %tate -a/
to create, de&elop, aintain and ipro&e conditions under which an and nature can thri&e in
producti&e and en#oyable harony with each other, -b/ to fulfill the social, econoic and other
re4uireents of present and future generations of Filipinos, and -c/ to insure the attainent of an
en&ironental 4uality that is conduci&e to a life of dignity and well"being$!
1
As its goal, it spea.s of
the !responsibilities of each generation as trustee and guardian of the en&ironent for succeeding
generations$!
1!
(he latter statute, on the other hand, ga&e flesh to the said policy$
(hus, the right of the petitioners -and all those they represent/ to a balanced and healthful ecology is
as clear as the 3ENR's duty 7 under its andate and by &irtue of its powers and functions under
E$B$ No$ 8): and the Adinistrati&e Code of 8)?+ 7 to protect and ad&ance the said right$
A denial or &iolation of that right by the other who has the corelati&e duty or obligation to respect or
protect the sae gi&es rise to a cause of action$ Petitioners aintain that the granting of the (@As,
which they clai was done with gra&e abuse of discretion, &iolated their right to a balanced and
healthful ecology9 hence, the full protection thereof re4uires that no further (@As should be renewed
or granted$
A cause of action is defined as6
$ $ $ an act or oission of one party in &iolation of the legal right or rights of the other9
and its essential eleents are legal right of the plaintiff, correlati&e obligation of the
defendant, and act or oission of the defendant in &iolation of said legal right$
18
It is settled in this #urisdiction that in a otion to disiss based on the ground that the coplaint fails
to state a cause of action,
19
the 4uestion subitted to the court for resolution in&ol&es the sufficiency of
the facts alleged in the coplaint itself$ No other atter should be considered9 furtherore, the truth of
falsity of the said allegations is beside the point for the truth thereof is deeed hypothetically aditted$
(he only issue to be resol&ed in such a case is6 aditting such alleged facts to be true, ay the court
render a &alid #udgent in accordance with the prayer in the coplaintG
20
In #ilitante $s.
Edrosolano,
21
this Court laid down the rule that the #udiciary should !e5ercise the utost care and
circuspection in passing upon a otion to disiss on the ground of the absence thereof Kcause of
actionL lest, by its failure to anifest a correct appreciation of the facts alleged and deeed hypothetically
aditted, what the law grants or recogni1es is effecti&ely nullified$ If that happens, there is a blot on the
legal order$ (he law itself stands in disrepute$!
After careful e5aination of the petitioners' coplaint, Fe find the stateents under the introductory
affirati&e allegations, as well as the specific a&erents under the sub"heading CAI%E BF
AC(IBN, to be ade4uate enough to show, pri%a facie, the claied &iolation of their rights$ Bn the
basis thereof, they ay thus be granted, wholly or partly, the reliefs prayed for$ It bears stressing,
howe&er, that insofar as the cancellation of the (@As is concerned, there is the need to iplead, as
party defendants, the grantees thereof for they are indispensable parties$
(he foregoing considered, Ci&il Case No$ )*"+++ be said to raise a political 4uestion$ Policy
forulation or deterination by the e5ecuti&e or legislati&e branches of Eo&ernent is not s4uarely
put in issue$ Fhat is principally in&ol&ed is the enforceent of a right $is&a&$is policies already
forulated and e5pressed in legislation$ It ust, nonetheless, be ephasi1ed that the political
4uestion doctrine is no longer, the insurountable obstacle to the e5ercise of #udicial power or the
ipenetrable shield that protects e5ecuti&e and legislati&e actions fro #udicial in4uiry or re&iew$ (he
second paragraph of section 8, Article DIII of the Constitution states that6
0udicial power includes the duty of the courts of #ustice to settle actual contro&ersies
in&ol&ing rights which are legally deandable and enforceable, and to deterine
whether or not there has been a gra&e abuse of discretion aounting to lac. or
e5cess of #urisdiction on the part of any branch or instruentality of the Eo&ernent$
Coenting on this pro&ision in his boo., !hilippine !olitical Law,
22
Mr$ 0ustice Isagani A$ Cru1, a
distinguished eber of this Court, says6
(he first part of the authority represents the traditional concept of #udicial power,
in&ol&ing the settleent of conflicting rights as conferred as law$ (he second part of
the authority represents a broadening of #udicial power to enable the courts of #ustice
to re&iew what was before forbidden territory, to wit, the discretion of the political
departents of the go&ernent$
As worded, the new pro&ision &ests in the #udiciary, and particularly the %upree
Court, the power to rule upon e&en the wisdo of the decisions of the e5ecuti&e and
the legislature and to declare their acts in&alid for lac. or e5cess of #urisdiction
because tainted with gra&e abuse of discretion$ (he catch, of course, is the eaning
of !gra&e abuse of discretion,! which is a &ery elastic phrase that can e5pand or
contract according to the disposition of the #udiciary$
In a'a $s. Sin(son,
23
Mr$ 0ustice Cru1, now spea.ing for this Court, noted6
In the case now before us, the #urisdictional ob#ection becoes e&en less tenable
and decisi&e$ (he reason is that, e&en if we were to assue that the issue presented
before us was political in nature, we would still not be precluded fro re&ol&ing it
under the e5panded #urisdiction conferred upon us that now co&ers, in proper cases,
e&en the political 4uestion$ Article DII, %ection 8, of the Constitution clearly pro&ides6 $
$ $
(he last ground in&o.ed by the trial court in disissing the coplaint is the non"ipairent of
contracts clause found in the Constitution$ (he court a )uo declared that6
(he Court is li.ewise of the ipression that it cannot, no atter how we stretch our
#urisdiction, grant the reliefs prayed for by the plaintiffs, i$e$, to cancel all e5isting
tiber license agreeents in the country and to cease and desist fro recei&ing,
accepting, processing, renewing or appro&ing new tiber license agreeents$ For to
do otherwise would aount to !ipairent of contracts! abhored -sic/ by the
fundaental law$
24
Fe are not persuaded at all9 on the contrary, Fe are aa1ed, if not shoc.ed, by such a sweeping
pronounceent$ In the first place, the respondent %ecretary did not, for ob&ious reasons, e&en
in&o.e in his otion to disiss the non"ipairent clause$ If he had done so, he would ha&e acted
with utost infidelity to the Eo&ernent by pro&iding undue and unwarranted benefits and
ad&antages to the tiber license holders because he would ha&e fore&er bound the Eo&ernent to
strictly respect the said licenses according to their ters and conditions regardless of changes in
policy and the deands of public interest and welfare$ 2e was aware that as correctly pointed out by
the petitioners, into e&ery tiber license ust be read %ection :* of the Forestry Refor Code -P$3$
No$ +*</ which pro&ides6
$ $ $ !ro$ided, (hat when the national interest so re4uires, the President ay aend,
odify, replace or rescind any contract, concession, perit, licenses or any other
for of pri&ilege granted herein $ $ $
Needless to say, all licenses ay thus be re&o.ed or rescinded by e5ecuti&e action$ It is not
a contract, property or a property right protested by the due process clause of the
Constitution$ In Tan $s. irector of Forestr",
25
this Court held6
$ $ $ A tiber license is an instruent by which the %tate regulates the utili1ation and
disposition of forest resources to the end that public welfare is prooted$ A tiber
license is not a contract within the pur&iew of the due process clause9 it is only a
license or pri&ilege, which can be &alidly withdrawn whene&er dictated by public
interest or public welfare as in this case$
A license is erely a perit or pri&ilege to do what otherwise would be unlawful, and
is not a contract between the authority, federal, state, or unicipal, granting it and the
person to who it is granted9 neither is it property or a property right, nor does it
create a &ested right9 nor is it ta5ation -;+ C$0$ 8,?/$ (hus, this Court held that the
granting of license does not create irre&ocable rights, neither is it property or property
rights -People &s$ Bng (in, <= B$E$ +<+,/$
Fe reiterated this pronounceent in Felipe *s%ael+ ,r. - Co.+ Inc. $s. eput" E.ecuti$e Secretar"6
2
$ $ $ (iber licenses, perits and license agreeents are the principal instruents by
which the %tate regulates the utili1ation and disposition of forest resources to the end
that public welfare is prooted$ And it can hardly be gainsaid that they erely
e&idence a pri&ilege granted by the %tate to 4ualified entities, and do not &est in the
latter a peranent or irre&ocable right to the particular concession area and the
forest products therein$ (hey ay be &alidly aended, odified, replaced or
rescinded by the Chief E5ecuti&e when national interests so re4uire$ (hus, they are
not deeed contracts within the pur&iew of the due process of law clause
KSee %ections ;-ee/ and :* of Pres$ 3ecree No$ +*<, as aended$ Also, (an &$
3irector of Forestry, E$R$ No$ @":=<=?, Bctober :+, 8)?;, 8:< %CRA ;*:L$
%ince tiber licenses are not contracts, the non"ipairent clause, which reads6
%ec$ 8*$ No law ipairing, the obligation of contracts shall be passed$
2!
cannot be in&o.ed$
In the second place, e&en if it is to be assued that the sae are contracts, the instant case does
not in&ol&e a law or e&en an e5ecuti&e issuance declaring the cancellation or odification of e5isting
tiber licenses$ 2ence, the non"ipairent clause cannot as yet be in&o.ed$ Ne&ertheless, granting
further that a law has actually been passed andating cancellations or odifications, the sae
cannot still be stigati1ed as a &iolation of the non"ipairent clause$ (his is because by its &ery
nature and purpose, such as law could ha&e only been passed in the e5ercise of the police power of
the state for the purpose of ad&ancing the right of the people to a balanced and healthful ecology,
prooting their health and enhancing the general welfare$ In Abe $s. Foster /heeler
Corp$
28
this Court stated6
(he freedo of contract, under our syste of go&ernent, is not eant to be
absolute$ (he sae is understood to be sub#ect to reasonable legislati&e regulation
aied at the prootion of public health, oral, safety and welfare$ In other words,
the constitutional guaranty of non"ipairent of obligations of contract is liited by
the e5ercise of the police power of the %tate, in the interest of public health, safety,
oral and general welfare$
(he reason for this is ephatically set forth in Nebia $s. New *or0,
29
4uoted in !hilippine A%erican
Life Insurance Co. $s. Auditor General,
30
to wit6
Inder our for of go&ernent the use of property and the a.ing of contracts are
norally atters of pri&ate and not of public concern$ (he general rule is that both
shall be free of go&ernental interference$ But neither property rights nor contract
rights are absolute9 for go&ernent cannot e5ist if the citi1en ay at will use his
property to the detrient of his fellows, or e5ercise his freedo of contract to wor.
the har$ E4ually fundaental with the pri&ate right is that of the public to regulate
it in the coon interest$
In short, the non"ipairent clause ust yield to the police power of the state$
31
Finally, it is difficult to iagine, as the trial court did, how the non"ipairent clause could apply with
respect to the prayer to en#oin the respondent %ecretary fro recei&ing, accepting, processing,
renewing or appro&ing new tiber licenses for, sa&e in cases of renewal, no contract would ha&e as
of yet e5isted in the other instances$ Moreo&er, with respect to renewal, the holder is not entitled to it
as a atter of right$
F2EREFBRE, being ipressed with erit, the instant Petition is hereby ERAN(E3, and the
challenged Brder of respondent 0udge of 8? 0uly 8))8 disissing Ci&il Case No$ )*"+++ is hereby
set aside$ (he petitioners ay therefore aend their coplaint to iplead as defendants the holders
or grantees of the 4uestioned tiber license agreeents$
No pronounceent as to costs$
%B BR3ERE3$
Cru'+ !adilla+ 1idin+ Gri2o&A)uino+ 3e(alado+ 3o%ero+ Nocon+ 1ellosillo+ #elo and 4uiason+ ,,.+
concur.
Nar$asa+ C.,.+ !uno and 5itu(+ ,,.+ too0 no part.