Sie sind auf Seite 1von 8

ARTICLE I National Territory

The national territory comprises the Philippine archipelago,


with all the islands and waters embracedtherein, and all
other territories over which the Philippines has sovereignty
or jurisdiction, consisting of its terrestrial, fluvial, and aerial
domains, including its territorial sea, the seabed, the
subsoil, the insular shelves, and other submarine areas.
The waters around, between, and connecting the islands of
the archipelago, regardless of their breadth and
dimensions, form part of the internal waters of the
Philippines.
ARTICLE II Declaration of Principles and State Policies
SECTION 15. The State shall protect and promote the right
to health of the people and instill health consciousness
among them.
SECTION 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.
ARTICLE XII National Economy and Patrimony
SECTION 1. The goals of the national economy are a more
equitable distribution of opportunities, income, and wealth;
a sustained increase in the amount of goods and services
produced by the nation for the benefit of the people; and an
expanding productivity as the key to raising the quality of
life for all, especially the underprivileged.
The State shall promote industrialization and full
employment based on sound agricultural development and
agrarian reform, through industries that make full and
efficient use of human and natural resources, and which
are competitive in both domestic and foreign markets.
However, the State shall protect Filipino enterprises against
unfair foreign competition and trade practices.
In the pursuit of these goals, all sectors of the economy
and all regions of the country shall be given optimum
opportunity to develop. Private enterprises, including
corporations, cooperatives, and similar collective
organizations, shall be encouraged to broaden the base of
their ownership.
SECTION 2. All lands of the public domain, waters,
minerals, coal, petroleum, and other mineral oils, all forces
of potential energy, fisheries, forests or timber, wildlife, flora
and fauna, and other natural resources are owned by the
State. With the exception of agricultural lands, all other
natural resources shall not be alienated. The exploration,
development, and utilization of natural resources shall be

under the full control and supervision of the State. The


State may directly undertake such activities, or it may enter
into co-production, joint venture, or production-sharing
agreements with Filipino citizens, or corporations or
associations at least sixty per centum of whose capital is
owned by such citizens. Such agreements may be for a
period not exceeding twenty-five years, renewable for not
more than twenty-five years, and under such terms and
conditions as may be provided by law. In cases of water
rights for irrigation, water supply, fisheries, or industrial
uses other than the development of water power, beneficial
use may be the measure and limit of the grant.
The State shall protect the nations marine wealth in its
archipelagic waters, territorial sea, and exclusive economic
zone, and reserve its use and enjoyment exclusively to
Filipino citizens.
The Congress may, by law, allow small-scale utilization of
natural resources by Filipino citizens, as well as
cooperative fish farming, with priority to subsistence
fishermen and fishworkers in rivers, lakes, bays, and
lagoons.
The President may enter into agreements with foreignowned corporations involving either technical or financial
assistance for large-scale exploration, development, and
utilization of minerals, petroleum, and other mineral oils
according to the general terms and conditions provided by
law, based on real contributions to the economic growth
and general welfare of the country. In such agreements, the
State shall promote the development and use of local
scientific and technical resources.
The President shall notify the Congress of every contract
entered into in accordance with this provision, within thirty
days from its execution.
SECTION 3. Lands of the public domain are classified into
agricultural, forest or timber, mineral lands, and national
parks. Agricultural lands of the public domain may be
further classified by law according to the uses which they
may be devoted. Alienable lands of the public domain shall
be limited to agricultural lands. Private corporations or
associations may not hold such alienable lands of the
public domain except by lease, for a period not exceeding
twenty-five years, renewable for not more than twenty-five
years, and not to exceed one thousand hectares in area.
Citizens of the Philippines may lease not more than five
hundred hectares, or acquire not more than twelve
hectares thereof by purchase, homestead, or grant.
Taking into account the requirements of conservation,
ecology, and development, and subject to the requirements
of agrarian reform, the Congress shall determine, by law,

the size of lands of the public domain which may be


acquired, developed, held, or leased and the conditions
therefor.
SECTION 4. The Congress shall, as soon as possible,
determine by law the specific limits of forest lands and
national parks, marking clearly their boundaries on the
ground. Thereafter, such forest lands and national parks
shall be conserved and may not be increased nor
diminished, except by law. The Congress shall provide, for
such period as it may determine, measures to prohibit
logging in endangered forests and watershed areas.
SECTION 5. The State, subject to the provisions of this
Constitution and national development policies and
programs, shall protect the rights of indigenous cultural
communities to their ancestral lands to ensure their
economic, social, and cultural well-being.
The Congress may provide for the applicability of
customary laws governing property rights or relations in
determining the ownership and extent of ancestral domain.
SECTION 7. Save in cases of hereditary succession, no
private lands shall be transferred or conveyed except to
individuals, corporations, or associations qualified to
acquire or hold lands of the public domain.

Oposa vs Factoran
Natural
and
Environmental
Laws;
Constitutional
Law:
Intergenerational
Responsibility
GR No. 101083; July 30 1993
FACTS:
A taxpayers class suit was filed by
minors Juan Antonio Oposa, et al.,
representing their generation and
generations
yet
unborn,
and
represented
by
their
parents
against Fulgencio Factoran Jr.,
Secretary of DENR. They prayed
that
judgment
be
rendered
ordering the defendant, his agents,
representatives and other persons
acting in his behalf to:
1.
Cancel all existing
Timber Licensing Agreements (TLA)
in the country;
2.
Cease and desist from
receiving, accepting, processing,
renewing, or appraising new TLAs;
and granting the plaintiffs such
other reliefs just and equitable
under the premises. They alleged
that they have a clear and
constitutional right to a balanced
and healthful ecology and are
entitled to protection by the State
in its capacity as parens patriae.
Furthermore, they claim that the
act of the defendant in allowing
TLA holders to cut and deforest the
remaining forests constitutes a
misappropriation
and/or
impairment
of
the
natural
resources property he holds in trust
for the benefit of the plaintiff
minors
and
succeeding
generations.

The defendant filed a motion to


dismiss the complaint on the
following grounds:
1.
Plaintiffs have no
cause of action against him;
2.
The issues raised by
the plaintiffs is a political question
which properly pertains to the
legislative or executive branches of
the government.
ISSUE:
Do the petitioner-minors have a
cause of action in filing a class suit
to prevent the misappropriation or
impairment
of
Philippine
rainforests?
HELD:
Yes. Petitioner-minors assert that
they represent their generation as
well as generations to come. The
Supreme Court ruled that they can,
for themselves, for others of their
generation, and for the succeeding
generation, file a class suit. Their
personality to sue in behalf of
succeeding generations is based on
the concept of intergenerational
responsibility insofar as the right to
a balanced and healthful ecology is
concerned. Such a right considers
the rhythm and harmony of
nature
which
indispensably
include, inter alia, the judicious
disposition,
utilization,
management,
renewal
and
conservation of the countrys
forest,
mineral,
land,
waters,
fisheries, wildlife, offshore areas
and other natural resources to the
end
that
their
exploration,
development, and utilization be

equitably accessible to the present


as well as the 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.
Oposa v Factoran
FACTS:
Forty-four children, through their
parents, sought to make the DENR
Secretary stop issuing licenses to cut
timber, invoking their right to a
healthful environment (Secs. 16, 15
Article II, 1987 Constitution). The
petitioners further asserted that
they "represent their generation as
well as generations yet unborn." They
further claimed that the Secretary
committed grave abuse of discretion
in
granting
Timber
License
Agreements to cover more areas for
logging than what is available.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the petitioners have a
cause of action to file the case.
RULING:
Yes. the Court stated that even though
the right to a balanced and healthful
ecology is under the Declaration of
Principles and State Policies of the
Constitution and not under the Bill of
Rights, it does not follow that it is less
important than any of the rights

enumerated in the latter: [it] concerns


nothing less than self-preservation and
perpetuation, the advancement of which
even be said to predate all governments
constitutions. The right is linked to

selfmay
and

the
constitutional right to health, is
fundamental,
constitutionalised,
self-executing
and
judicially
enforceable.
It
imposes
the
correlative duty to refrain from
impairing the environment.
The court stated that the petitioners
were able to file a class suit both for
others of their generation and for
succeeding generations as 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.
Resident Marine Mammals of the Protected
Seascape Taon Strait VS. Secretary Angelo
Reyes

Resident Marine Mammals of the


Protected Seascape Taon Strait v.
Secretary Angelo Reyes, G.R. No.
180771 (April 21, 2015)
Supreme Court of the Philippines
Two sets of petitioners filed separate
cases challenging the legality of
Service Contract No. 46 (SC-46)
awarded
to
Japan
Petroleum
Exploration Co. (JAPEX). The service
contract allowed JAPEX to conduct oil
exploration in the Taon Strait during
which it performed seismic surveys
and drilled one exploration well.
The first petition was brought on
behalf of resident marine mammals in
the Taon Strait by two individuals
acting as legal guardians and stewards
of the marine mammals.

The second petition was filed by a


non-governmental
organization
representing the interests of fisherfolk,
along with individual representatives
from fishing communities impacted by
the oil exploration activities.
The petitioners filed their cases in
2007, shortly after JAPEX began
drilling in the strait. In 2008, JAPEX
and the government of the Philippines
mutually terminated the service
contract and oil exploration activities
ceased.
The
Supreme
Court
consolidated the cases for the purpose
of review.
In its decision, the Supreme Court first
addressed the important procedural
point of whether the case was moot
because the service contract had been
terminated.
The Court declared that mootness is
not a magical formula that can
automatically dissuade the courts in
resolving a case. Id., p. 12. Due to
the
alleged
grave
constitutional
violations and paramount public
interest in the case, not to mention
the fact that the actions complained of
could be repeated, the Court found it
necessary to reach the merits of the
case even though the particular
service contract had been terminated.
Id.
ISSUE: Reviewing the numerous
claims filed by the petitioners, the
Supreme Court narrowed them down
to two: 1) whether marine mammals,
through their stewards, have legal
standing to pursue the case; and
2) whether the service contract
violated the Philippine Constitution or
other domestic laws. Id., p. 11.
Ruling:
As to standing, the Court declined to
extend the principle of standing

beyond natural and juridical persons,


even though it recognized that the
current
trend
in
Philippine
jurisprudence
moves
towards
simplification
of
procedures
and
facilitating
court
access
in
environmental cases. Id., p. 15.
Instead, the Court explained, the
need to give the Resident Marine
Mammals legal standing has been
eliminated by our Rules, which allow
any Filipino citizen, as a steward of
nature, to bring a suit to enforce our
environmental laws. Id., p. 16-17.
he Court then held that while SC-46
was authorized Presidential Decree No.
87 on oil extraction, the contract did
not fulfill two additional constitutional
requirements. Section 2 Article XII of
the 1987 Constitution requires a
service contract for oil exploration and
extraction to be signed by the
president and reported to congress.
Because the JAPEX contract was
executed solely by the Energy
Secretary, and not reported to the
Philippine congress, the Court held
that it was unconstitutional. Id., pp.
24-25.
In addition, the Court also ruled that
the contract violated the National
Integrated Protected Areas System Act
of 1992 (NIPAS Act), which generally
prohibits
exploitation
of
natural
resources in protected areas. In order
to explore for resources in a protected
area,
the
exploration
must
be
performed in accordance with an
environmental
impact
assessment
(EIA). The Court noted that JAPEX
started the seismic surveys before any
EIA was performed; therefore its
activity was unlawful. Id., pp. 33-34.
Furthermore, the Tanon Strait is a
NIPAS area, and exploration and
utilization of energy resources can
only be authorized through a law
passed by the Philippine Congress.

Because Congress had not specifically


authorized the activity in Taon Strait,
the Court declared that no energy
exploration should be permitted in
that area. Id., p. 34.
Henares v LTFRB (Environmental Law)
Henares v LTFRB
GR No. 158290
October 23, 2006
FACTS:
Petitioners challenge this Court to issue a writ of
mandamus commanding respondents Land
Transportation Franchising and Regulatory
Board (LTFRB) and the Department of
Transportation and Communications (DOTC) to
require public utility vehicles (PUVs) to use
compressed natural gas (CNG) as alternative
fuel.
ISSUES:
(1) Do petitioners have legal personality to bring
this petition before us?
(2)
Should
mandamus
issue
against
respondents to compel PUVs to use CNG as
alternative fuel?
APPLICABLE LAWS:
Section 16,12 Article II of the 1987
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.
Section 414 of Republic Act No. 8749
otherwise known as the "Philippine Clean Air Act
of 1999." SEC. 4. Recognition of Rights.
Pursuant to the above-declared principles, the
following rights of citizens are hereby sought to
be recognized and the State shall seek to
guarantee their enjoyment:
a) The right to breathe clean air;
b) The right to utilize and enjoy all natural
resources according to the principle of
sustainable development;
c) The right to participate in the formulation,
planning, implementation and monitoring of
environmental policies and programs and in the
decision-making process;
d) The right to participate in the decision-making
process concerning development policies, plans

and programs, projects or activities that may


have adverse impact on the environment and
public health;
e) The right to be informed of the nature and
extent of the potential hazard of any activity,
undertaking or project and to be served timely
notice of any significant rise in the level of
pollution and the accidental or deliberate release
into the atmosphere of harmful or hazardous
substances;
f) The right of access to public records which a
citizen may need to exercise his or her rights
effectively under this Act;
g) The right to bring action in court or quasijudicial bodies to enjoin all activities in violation
of environmental laws and regulations, to
compel the rehabilitation and cleanup of affected
area, and to seek the imposition of penal
sanctions against violators of environmental
laws; and
h) The right to bring action in court for
compensation of personal damages resulting
from the adverse environmental and public
health impact of a project or activity.
RULING:
(1) YES. There is no dispute that petitioners
have standing to bring their case before this
Court. Moreover, as held previously, a party's
standing before this Court is a procedural
technicality which may, in the exercise of the
Court's discretion, be set aside in view of the
importance of the issue raised. We brush aside
this issue of technicality under the principle of
the transcendental importance to the public,
especially so if these cases demand that they be
settled promptly.
(2) NO. plain, speedy and adequate remedy
herein sought by petitioners, i.e., a writ of
mandamus commanding the respondents to
require PUVs to use CNG, is unavailing.
Mandamus is available only to compel the doing
of an act specifically enjoined by law as a duty.
Here, there is no law that mandates the
respondents LTFRB and the DOTC to order
owners of motor vehicles to use CNG.
Mandamus will not generally lie from one
branch of government to a coordinate branch,
for the obvious reason that neither is inferior to
the other.
It appears that more properly, the legislature
should provide first the specific statutory remedy
to the complex environmental problems bared

by herein petitioners before any judicial recourse


by mandamus is taken.

give sufficient time and leeway for the coequal


branches to address by themselves the
environmental problems raised in this petition.

HENARES V. LTFRB
Petitioners challenge this Court to issue a writ
of mandamus commanding respondents LTFRB
and DOTC to require PUVs to use compressed
natural gas (CNG) as alternative fuel .Asserting
their right to clean air, petitioners contend that
the bases for their petition for a writ
of mandamus to order the LTFRB to require
PUVs to use CNG as an alternative fuel, lie in
Section 16, Article II of the 1987 Constitution,
our ruling in Oposa v. Factoran, Jr.,and Section
4 of Republic Act No. 8749otherwise known
asthe "Philippine Clean Air Act of 1999."
Issue: WON LTFRB CAN BE COMPELLED
TOREQUIREPUVs TO USE CNG THROUGH A
WRIT OFMANDAMUS?
Held: NO. Petitioners invoke the provisions of
the Constitution and the Clean Air Act in their
prayer for issuance of a writ of mandamus
commanding the respondents to require PUVs
to use CNG as an alternative fuel. Although both
are general mandates that do not specifically
enjoin the use of any kind of fuel, particularly the
use of CNG, there is an executive order
implementing a program on the use of CNG by
public vehicles. Executive Order No. 290,
entitled implementing the Natural Gas Vehicle
Program for Public Transport (NGVPPT),
took effect on February 24, 2004. A thorough
reading of the executive order assures us that
implementation for a cleaner environment is
being addressed. To a certain extent, the instant
petition had been mooted by the issuance of
E.O. No. 290.
Regrettably, however, a writ of mandamus is
unavailing. Mandamus is available only to
compel the doing of an acts pecifically enjoined
by law as a duty. Here, there is no law that
mandates the respondents LTFRB and the
DOTC to order owners of motor vehicles to use
CNG. Further, mandamus will not generally lie
from one branch of government to a coordinate
branch, for the obvious reason that neither is
inferior to the other. The need for future changes
in both legislation and its implementation
cannot be pre-empted by orders from this Court,
especially when what is prayed for is
procedurally infirm. Besides, comity with and
courtesy to a coequal branch dictate that we

In the same manner that we have associated the


fundamental right to a balanced and healthful
ecology with the twin concepts of "intergenerational
responsibility"
and
"intergenerational justice" in Oposa, where we
upheld the right of future Filipinos to prevent the
destruction of the rainforests, so do we
recognize, in this petition, the right of petitioners
and the future generation to clean air. In Oposa
we said that if the right to a balanced and
healthful ecology is now explicitly found in the
Constitution even if the right is "assumed to exist
from the inception of humankind, it is because of
the well-founded fear of its framers [of the
Constitution] that unless the rights to a balanced
and healthful ecology and to health are
mandated as state policies by the Constitution
itself, thereby highlighting their continuing
importance and imposing upon the state a
solemn obligation to preserve the first and
protect and advance 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 come.
"It is the firm belief of this Court that in this case,
it is timely to reaffirm the premium we have
placed on the protection of the environment in
the landmark case of Oposa. Yet, as serious as
the statistics are on air pollution, with the
present fuels deemed toxic as they are to the
environment, as fatal as these pollutants are to
the health of the citizens, and urgently requiring
resort to drastic measures to reduce air
pollutants emitted by motor vehicles, we must
admit in particular that petitioners are unable to
pinpoint the law that imposes an indubitable
legal duty on respondents that will justify a grant
of the writ of mandamus compelling the use of
CNG for public utility vehicles. It appears to us
that more properly, the legislature should provide
first the specific statutory remedy to the complex
environmental problems bared by herein
petitioners before any judicial recourse by
mandamus is taken

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen