ENBANC

[G.R.No.101083.July30,1993.]

JUANANTONIO,ANNAROSARIOandJOSEALFONSO,all
surnamedOPOSA,minors,andrepresentedbytheir
parentsANTONIOandRIZALINAOPOSA,ROBERTA
NICOLESADIUA,minor,representedbyherparents
CALVINandROBERTASADIUA,CARLO,AMANDASALUD
andPATRISHA,allsurnamedFLORES,minorsand
representedbytheirparentsENRICOandNIDAFLORES,
GIANINADITAR.FORTUN,minor,representedbyher
parentsSIGFRIDandDOLORESFORTUN,GEORGEIIand
MA.CONCEPCION,allsurnamedMISA,minorsand
representedbytheirparentsGEORGEandMYRAMISA,
BENJAMINALANV.PASIGAN,minor,representedbyhis
parentsANTONIOandALICEPESIGAN,JOVIEMARIE
ALFARO,minor,representedbyherparentsJOSEand
MARIAVIOLETAALFARO,MARIACONCEPCIONT.
CASTRO,minor,representedbyherparentsFREDENILand
JANECASTRO,JOHANNADESAMPARADO,minor,
representedbyherparentsJOSEandANGELA
DESAMPARADO,CARLOJOAQUINT.NARVASA,minor,
representedbyhisparentsGREGORIOIIandCRISTINE
CHARITYNARVASA,MA.MARGARITA,JESUSIGNACIO,
MA.ANGELAandMARIEGABRIELLE,allsurnamed
SAENZ,minors,representedbytheirparentsROBERTO
andAURORASAENZ,KRISTINE,MARYELLEN,MAY,
GOLDAMARTHEandDAVIDIAN,allsurnamedKING,
minors,representedbytheirparentsMARIOandHAYDEE
KING,DAVID,FRANCISCOandTHERESEVICTORIA,all
surnamedENDRIGA,minors,representedbytheirparents
BALTAZARandTERESITAENDRIGA,JOSEMA.and
REGINAMA.,allsurnamedABAYA,minors,representedby
theirparentsANTONIOandMARICAABAYA,MARILIN,
MARIO,JR.andMARIETTE,allsurnamedCARDAMA,
minors,representedbytheirparentsMARIOandLINA
CARDAMA,CLARISSA,ANNMARIE,NAGELandIMEE
LYN,allsurnamedOPOSA,minorsandrepresentedby
theirparentsRICARDOandMARISSAOPOSA,PHILIP
JOSEPH,STEPHENJOHNandISAIAHJAMES,all
surnamedQUIPIT,minors,representedbytheirparents
 JOSEMAXandVILMIQUIPIT,BUGHAWCIELO,CRISANTO,
ANNA,DANIELandFRANCISCO,allsurnamedBIBAL,
minors,representedbytheirparentsFRANCISCO,JR.and
MILAGROSBIBAL,andTHEPHILIPPINEECOLOGICAL
NETWORK,INC.,petitioners,vs.THEHONORABLE
FULGENCIOS.FACTORAN,JR.,inhiscapacityasthe
SecretaryoftheDepartmentofEnvironmentandNatural
Resources,andTHEHONORABLEERIBERTOU.
ROSARIO,PresidingJudgeoftheRTC,Makati,Branch66,
respondents.

OposaLawOfficeforpetitioners.
TheSolicitorGeneralforrespondents.

SYLLABUS

1. CONSTITUTIONALLAWDECLARATIONOFPRINCIPLESAND
STATEPOLICIESRIGHTTOABALANCEDANDHEALTHFULECOLOGY,
CONSTRUED.Thecomplaintfocusesononespecificfundamentallegal
righttherighttoabalancedandhealthfulecologywhich,forthefirsttimein
ournation'sconstitutionalhistory,issolemnlyincorporatedinthefundamental
law.Section16,ArticleIIofthe1987Constitutionexplicitlyprovides:"SEC.
16.TheStateshallprotectandadvancetherightofthepeopletoabalanced
andhealthfulecologyinaccordwiththerhythmandharmonyofnature."This
rightuniteswiththerighttohealthwhichisprovidedforinthepreceding
sectionofthesamearticle:"SEC.15.TheStateshallprotectandpromotethe
righttohealthofthepeopleandinstillhealthconsciousnessamongthem."
Whiletherighttoabalancedandhealthfulecologyistobefoundunderthe
DeclarationofPrinciplesandStatePoliciesandnotundertheBillofRights,it
doesnotfollowthatitislessimportantthananyofthecivilandpoliticalrights
enumeratedinthelatter.Sucharightbelongstoadifferentcategoryofrights
altogetherforitconcernsnothinglessthanselfpreservationandself
perpetuationaptlyandfittinglystressedbythepetitionersthe
advancementofwhichmayevenbesaidtopredateallgovernmentsand
constitutions.Asamatteroffact,thesebasicrightsneednotevenbewritten
intheConstitutionfortheyareassumedtoexistfromtheinceptionof
humankind.Iftheyarenowexplicitlymentionedinthefundamentalcharter,it
isbecauseofthewellfoundedfearofitsframersthatunlesstherightstoa
balancedandhealthfulecologyandtohealtharemandatedasstatepolicies
bytheConstitutionitself,therebyhighlightingtheircontinuingimportanceand
imposinguponthestateasolemnobligationtopreservethefirstandprotect
andadvancethesecond,thedaywouldnotbetoofarwhenallelsewouldbe
lostnotonlyforthepresentgeneration,butalsoforthosetocome
generationswhichstandtoinheritnothingbutparchedearthincapableof
sustaininglife.Therighttoabalancedandhealthfulecologycarrieswithitthe
correlativedutytorefrainfromimpairingtheenvironment.
2. ID.ID.TIMBERLICENSESNATURETHEREOFNONIMPAIRMENT
CLAUSEMAYNOTBEINVOKEDCASEATBAR.alllicensesmaythus
berevokedorrescindedbyexecutiveaction.Itisnotacontract,propertyora
propertyrightprotectedbythedueprocessclauseoftheConstitution.InTan
vs.DirectorofForestry,(125SCRA302,325[1983])ThisCourtheld:"...A
timberlicenseisaninstrumentbywhichtheStateregulatestheutilizationand
dispositionofforestresourcestotheendthatpublicwelfareispromoted.A
timberlicenseisnotacontractwithinthepurviewofthedueprocessclauseit
isonlyalicenseorprivilege,whichcanbevalidlywithdrawnwhenever
dictatedbypublicinterestorpublicwelfareasinthiscase.'Alicenseismerely
apermitorprivilegetodowhatotherwisewouldbeunlawful,andisnota
contractbetweentheauthority,federal,state,ormunicipal,grantingitandthe
persontowhomitisgrantedneitherisitpropertyorapropertyright,nordoes
itcreateavestedrightnorisittaxation'(37C.J.168).Thus,thisCourtheld
thatthegrantingoflicensedoesnotcreateirrevocablerights,neitherisit
propertyorpropertyrights(Peoplevs.OngTin,54O.G.7576)..."We
reiteratedthispronouncementinFelipeYsmael,Jr.&Co.,Inc.vs.Deputy
ExecutiveSecretary:(190SCRA673684[1990])"...Timberlicenses,
permitsandlicenseagreementsaretheprincipalinstrumentsbywhichthe
Stateregulatestheutilizationanddispositionofforestresourcestotheend
thatpublicwelfareispromoted.Anditcanhardlybegainsaidthattheymerely
evidenceaprivilegegrantedbytheStatetoqualifiedentities,anddonotvest
inthelatterapermanentorirrevocablerighttotheparticularconcessionarea
andtheforestproductstherein.Theymaybevalidlyamended,modified,
replacedorrescindedbytheChiefExecutivewhennationalinterestsso
require.Thus,theyarenotdeemedcontractswithinthepurviewofthedue
processoflawclause[SeeSections3(ee)and20ofPres.DecreeNo.705,
asamended.Also,Tanv.DirectorofForestry,G.R.No.L24548,October27,
1983,125SCRA302]."Sincetimberlicensesarenotcontracts,thenon
impairmentclause,whichreads:"SEC.10.Nolawimpairingtheobligationof
contractsshallbepassed."Inthesecondplace,evenifitistobeassumed
thatthesamearecontracts,theinstantcasedoesnotinvolvealaworeven
anexecutiveissuancedeclaringthecancellationormodificationofexisting
timberlicenses.Hence,thenonimpairmentclausecannotasyetbeinvoked.
Nevertheless,grantingfurtherthatalawhasactuallybeenpassedmandating
cancellationsormodifications,thesamecannotstillbestigmatizedasa
violationofthenonimpairmentclause.Thisisbecausebyitsverynatureand
purpose,suchalawcouldhaveonlybeenpassedintheexerciseofthepolice
powerofthestateforthepurposeofadvancingtherightofthepeopletoa
balancedandhealthfulecology,promotingtheirhealthandenhancingthe
generalwelfare.InAbevs.FosterWheelerCorp.,(110Phil.198,203[1960])
thisCourtstated:"Thefreedomofcontract,underoursystemofgovernment,
isnotmeanttobeabsolute.Thesameisunderstoodtobesubjectto
reasonablelegislativeregulationaimedatthepromotionofpublichealth,
moral,safetyandwelfare.Inotherwords,theconstitutionalguarantyofnon
impairmentofobligationsofcontractislimitedbytheexerciseofthepolice
poweroftheState,intheinterestofpublichealth,safety,moralandgeneral
welfare."ThereasonforthisisemphaticallysetforthinNebiavs.NewYork,
(291U.S.502,523,78L.ed.940947949)quotedinPhilippineAmericanLife
InsuranceCo.vs.AuditorGeneral,(22SCRA135,146147[1968])towit:
"'Underourformofgovernmenttheuseofpropertyandthemakingof
contractsarenormallymattersofprivateandnotofpublicconcern.The
generalruleisthatbothshallbefreeofgovernmentalinterference.But
neitherpropertyrightsnorcontractrightsareabsoluteforgovernmentcannot
existifthecitizenmayatwillusehispropertytothedetrimentofhisfellows,
orexercisehisfreedomofcontracttoworkthemharm.Equallyfundamental
withtheprivaterightisthatofthepublictoregulateitinthecommoninterest.'"
Incourt,thenonimpairmentclausemustyieldtothepolicepowerofthe
state.(Ongsiakovs.Gamboa,86Phil.50[1950]Abevs.FosterWheeler
Corp.,supraPhil.AmericanLifeInsuranceCo.vs.AuditorGeneral,supra
Alalyanvs.NLRC,24scra172[1968]Victorianovs.ElizaldeRopeWorkers
Union,59SCRA54[1974]Kabilingvs.NationalHousingAuthority,156
SCRA623[1987]).
3. ID.JUDICIALREVIEWNOLONGERIMPAIREDBYTHEPOLITICAL
QUESTIONDOCTRINERATIONALE.Itmust,nonetheless,be
emphasizedthatthepoliticalquestiondoctrineisnolongerthe
insurmountableobstacletotheexerciseofjudicialpowerortheimpenetrable
shieldthatprotectsexecutiveandlegislativeactionsfromjudicialinquiryor
review.Thesecondparagraphofsection1,ArticleVIIIoftheConstitution
statesthat:"Judicialpowerincludesthedutyofthecourtsofjusticetosettle
actualcontroversiesinvolvingrightswhicharelegallydemandableand
enforceable,andtodeterminewhetherornottherehasbeenagraveabuse
ofdiscretionamountingtolackorexcessofjurisdictiononthepartofany
branchorinstrumentalityoftheGovernment."Commentingonthisprovision
inhisbook,PhilippinePoliticalLaw,Mr.JusticeIsaganiA.Cruz,a
distinguishedmemberofthisCourt,says:"Thefirstpartoftheauthority
representsthetraditionalconceptofjudicialpower,involvingthesettlementof
conflictingrightsasconferredbylaw.Thesecondpartoftheauthority
representsabroadeningofjudicialpowertoenablethecourtsofjusticeto
reviewwhatwasbeforeforbiddenterritory,towit,thediscretionofthepolitical
departmentsofthegovernment.Asworded,thenewprovisionvestsinthe
judiciary,andparticularlytheSupremeCourt,thepowertoruleuponeventhe
wisdomofthedecisionsoftheexecutiveandthelegislatureandtodeclare
theiractsinvalidforlackorexcessofjurisdictionbecausetaintedwithgrave
abuseofdiscretion.Thecatch,ofcourse,isthemeaningof'graveabuseof
discretion,'whichisaveryelasticphrasethatcanexpandorcontract
accordingtothedispositionofthejudiciary."InDazavs.Singson,(180SCRA
496,501502[1989].SeealsoCosetengvs.Mitra,187SCRA377[1990]
Gonzalesvs.Macaraig,191SCRA844[1991]Bengzonvs.SenateBlue
RibbonCommittee,203SCRA767[1991])Mr.JusticeCruz,nowspeakingfor
thisCourt,noted:"Inthecasenowbeforeus,thejurisdictionalobjection
becomesevenlesstenableanddecisive.Thereasonisthat,evenifwewere
toassumethattheissuepresentedbeforeuswaspoliticalinnature,we
wouldstillnotbeprecludedfromresolvingitundertheexpandedjurisdiction
conferreduponusthatnowcovers,inpropercases,eventhepolitical
question.ArticleVII,Section1,oftheConstitutionclearlyprovides:..."

4. REMEDIALLAWPLEADINGSCAUSEOFACTION,DEFINED
CASEATBAR.therightofthepetitioners(andallthosetheyrepresent)to
abalancedandhealthfulecologyisasclearastheDENR'sdutyunderits
mandateandbyvirtueofitspowersandfunctionsunderE.O.No.192andthe
AdministrativeCodeof1987toprotectandadvancethesaidright.Adenial
orviolationofthatrightbytheotherwhohasthecorrelativedutyorobligation
torespectorprotectthesamegivesrisetoacauseofaction.Petitioners
maintainthatthegrantingoftheTLAs,whichtheyclaimwasdonewithgrave
abuseofdiscretion,violatedtheirrighttoabalancedandhealthfulecology
hence,thefullprotectionthereofrequiresthatnofurtherTLAsshouldbe
renewedorgranted.Acauseofactionisdefinedas:"...anactoromission
ofonepartyinviolationofthelegalrightorrightsoftheotherandits
essentialelementsarelegalrightoftheplaintiff,correlativeobligationofthe
defendant,andactoromissionofthedefendantinviolationofsaidlegal
right."(MaraoSugarCentralCo.vs.Barrios,79Phil.666[1947]Community
InvestmentandFinanceCorp.vs.Garcia,88Phil.215[1951]Remiterevs.
vda.deYulo,16SCRA251[1966]Caseasvs.Rosales,19SCRA462
[1967]Viratavs.Sandiganbayan,202SCRA680[1991]Madronavs.Rosal,
204SCRA1[1991].
5. ID.ID.MOTIONTODISMISSLACKOFCAUSEOFACTION,ASA
GROUNDRULECASEATBAR.Itissettledinthisjurisdictionthatina
motiontodismissbasedonthegroundthatthecomplaintfailstostatea
causeofaction,thequestionsubmittedtothecourtforresolutioninvolvesthe
sufficiencyofthefactsallegedinthecomplaintitself.Noothermattershould
beconsideredfurthermore,thetruthorfalsityofthesaidallegationsisbeside
thepointforthetruththereofisdeemedhypotheticallyadmitted.Theonly
issuetoberesolvedinsuchacaseis:admittingsuchallegedfactstobetrue,
maythecourtrenderavalidjudgmentinaccordancewiththeprayerinthe
complaint?InMilitantevs.Edrosolano,thisCourtlaiddowntherulethatthe
judiciaryshould"exercisetheutmostcareandcircumspectioninpassing
uponamotiontodismissonthegroundoftheabsencethereof[causeof
action]lest,byitsfailuretomanifestacorrectappreciationofthefactsalleged
anddeemedhypotheticallyadmitted,whatthelawgrantsorrecognizesis
effectivelynullified.Ifthathappens,thereisablotonthelegalorder.Thelaw
itselfstandsindisrepute."Afteracarefulexaminationofthepetitioners'
complaint,Wefindthestatementsundertheintroductoryaffirmative
allegations,aswellasthespecificavermentsunderthesubheadingCAUSE
OFACTION,tobeadequateenoughtoshow,primafacie,theclaimed
violationoftheirrights.Onthebasisthereof,theymaythusbegranted,wholly
orpartly,thereliefsprayedfor.
FELICIANO,J.,concurring:
1. REMEDIALLAWACTIONSLOCUSSTANDI,CONSTRUEDCASE
ATBAR.TheCourtexplicitlystatesthatpetitionershavethelocusstandi
necessarytosustainthebringingandmaintenanceofthissuit(Decision,pp.
1112).Locusstandiisnotafunctionofpetitioners'claimthattheirsuitis
properlyregardedasaclasssuit.Iunderstandlocusstanditorefertothe
legalinterestwhichaplaintiffmusthaveinthesubjectmatterofthesuit.
Becauseoftheverybroadnessoftheconceptof"class"hereinvolved
membershipinthis"class"appearstoembraceeveryonelivinginthecountry
whethernoworinthefutureitappearstomethateveryonewhomaybe
expectedtobenefitfromthecourseofactionpetitionersseektorequirepublic
respondentstotake,isvestedwiththenecessarylocusstandi.TheCourt
maybeseenthereforetoberecognizingabeneficiaries'rightofactioninthe
fieldofenvironmentalprotection,asagainstboththepublicadministrative
agencydirectlyconcernedandtheprivatepersonsorentitiesoperatinginthe
fieldorsectorofactivityinvolved.Whethersuchabeneficiaries'rightofaction
maybefoundunderanyandallcircumstances,orwhethersomefailureto
act,inthefirstinstance,onthepartofthegovernmentalagencyconcerned
mustbeshown("priorexhaustionofadministrativeremedies"),isnot
discussedinthedecisionandpresumablyisleftforfuturedeterminationinan
appropriatecase.
2. CONSTITUTIONALLAWDECLARATIONOFPRINCIPLESAND
STATEPOLICIESRIGHTTO"ABALANCEANDHEALTHFULECOLOGY"
INTERPRETATION.TheCourthasalsodeclaredthatthecomplainthas
allegedandfocusedupon"onespecificfundamentallegalrighttherightto
abalancedandhealthfulecology"(Decision,p.14).Thereisnoquestionthat
"therighttoabalancedandhealthfulecology"is"fundamental"andthat,
accordingly,ithasbeen"constitutionalized."Butalthoughitisfundamentalin
character,Isuggest,withverygreatrespect,thatitcannotbecharacterized
as"specific,"withoutdoingexcessiveviolencetolanguage.Itisinfactvery
difficulttofashionlanguagemorecomprehensiveinscopeandgeneralizedin
characterthanarightto"abalancedandhealthfulecology."Thelistof
particularclaimswhichcanbesubsumedunderthisrubricappearstobe
entirelyopenended:preventionandcontrolofemissionoftoxicfumesand
smokefromfactoriesandmotorvehiclesofdischargeofoil,chemical
effluents,garbageandrawsewageintorivers,inlandandcoastalwatersby
vessels,oilrigs,factories,minesandwholecommunitiesofdumpingof
organicandinorganicwastesonopenland,streetsandthoroughfaresfailure
torehabilitatelandafterstripminingoropenpitminingkainginorslashand
burnfarmingdestructionoffisheries,coralreefsandotherlivingsea
resourcesthroughtheuseofdynamiteorcyanideandotherchemicals
contaminationofgroundwaterresourceslossofcertainspeciesoffaunaand
floraandsoon.TheotherstatementspointedoutbytheCourt:Section3,
ExecutiveOrderNo.192dated10June1987Section1,TitleXIV,BookIVof
the1987AdministrativeCodeandP.D.No.1151,dated6June1977all
appeartobeformulationsofpolicy,asgeneralandabstractasthe
constitutionalstatementsofbasicpolicyinArticleII,Sections16("theright
toabalancedandhealthfulecology")and15("therighttohealth").Asa
matteroflogic,byfindingpetitioners'causeofactionasanchoredonalegal
rightcomprisedintheconstitutionalstatementsabovenoted,theCourtisin
effectsayingthatSection15(andSection16)ofArticleIIoftheConstitution
areselfexecutingandjudiciallyenforceableevenintheirpresentform.The
implicationsofthisdoctrinewillhavetobeexploredinfuturecasesthose
implicationsaretoolargeandfarreachinginnatureeventobehintedathere.
3. ID.RIGHTTOHEALTHSHOULDSPECIFICALLYEXISTINOUR
CORPUSOFLAW.JusticeFelicianosuggestionissimplythatpetitioners
must,beforethetrialcourt,showamorespecificlegalrightarightcastin
languageofasignificantlylowerorderofgeneralitythanArticleII(15)ofthe
Constitutionthatisormaybeviolatedbytheactions,orfailurestoact,
imputedtothepublicrespondentbypetitionerssothatthetrialcourtcan
validlyrenderjudgmentgrantingallorpartofthereliefprayedfor.Tomy
mind,theCourtshouldbeunderstoodassimplysayingthatsuchamore
specificlegalrightorrightsmaywellexistinourcorpusoflaw,considering
thegeneralpolicyprinciplesfoundintheConstitutionandtheexistenceofthe
PhilippineEnvironmentCode,andthatthetrialcourtshouldhavegiven
petitionersaneffectiveopportunitysotodemonstrate,insteadofabortingthe
proceedingsonamotiontodismiss.
4. REMEDIALLAWCIVILPROCEDURECAUSEOFACTIONLEGAL
RIGHTS,ASESSENTIALCOMPONENTSSTANDARDS.thelegalright
whichisanessentialcomponentofacauseofactionbeaspecific,operable
legalright,ratherthanaconstitutionalorstatutorypolicy,foratleasttwo(2)
reasons.Oneisthatunlessthelegalrightclaimedtohavebeenviolatedor
disregardedisgivenspecificationinoperationalterms,defendantsmaywell
beunabletodefendthemselvesintelligentlyandeffectivelyinotherwords,
therearedueprocessdimensionstothismatter.Thesecondisabroader
gaugeconsiderationwhereaspecificviolationoflaworapplicable
regulationisnotallegedorproved,petitionerscanbeexpectedtofallbackon
theexpandedconceptionofjudicialpowerinthesecondparagraphofSection
1ofArticleVIIIoftheConstitutionwhichreads:"Section1...Judicialpower
includesthedutyofthecourtsofjusticetosettleactualcontroversies
involvingrightswhicharelegallydemandableandenforceable,andto
determinewhetherornottherehasbeenagraveabuseofdiscretion
amountingtolackorexcessofjurisdictiononthepartofanybranchor
instrumentalityoftheGovernment."Whensubstantivestandardsasgeneral
as"therighttoabalancedandhealthyecology"and"therighttohealth"are
combinedwithremedialstandardsasbroadrangingas"agraveabuseof
discretionamountingtolackorexcessofjurisdiction,"theresultwillbe,itis
respectfullysubmitted,topropelcourtsintotheunchartedoceanofsocialand
economicpolicymaking.Atleastinrespectofthevastareaofenvironmental
protectionandmanagement,ourcourtshavenoclaimtospecialtechnical
competenceandexperienceandprofessionalqualifications.Whereno
specific,operablenormsandstandardsareshowntoexist,thenthepolicy
makingdepartmentsthelegislativeandexecutivedepartmentsmustbe
givenarealandeffectiveopportunitytofashionandpromulgatethosenorms
andstandards,andtoimplementthembeforethecourtsshouldintervene.

DECISION

DAVIDE,JR.,J :
p

Inabroadersense,thispetitionbearsupontherightofFilipinostoabalanced
andhealthfulecologywhichthepetitionersdramaticallyassociatewiththe
twinconceptsof"intergenerationalresponsibility"and"intergenerational
justice."Specifically,ittouchesontheissueofwhetherthesaidpetitioners
haveacauseofactionto"preventthemisappropriationorimpairment"of
Philippinerainforestsand"arresttheunabatedhemorrhageofthecountry's
vitallifesupportsystemsandcontinuedrapeofMotherEarth."

ThecontroversyhasitsgenesisinCivilCaseNo.90777whichwasfiled
beforeBranch66(Makati,MetroManila)oftheRegionalTrialCourt(RTC),
NationalCapitalJudicialRegion.Theprincipalplaintiffstherein,nowthe
principalpetitioners,areallminorsdulyrepresentedandjoinedbytheir
respectiveparents.ImpleadedasanadditionalplaintiffisthePhilippine
EcologicalNetwork,Inc.(PENI),adomestic,nonstockandnonprofit
corporationorganizedforthepurposeof,interalia,engaginginconcerted
actiongearedfortheprotectionofourenvironmentandnaturalresources.
TheoriginaldefendantwastheHonorableFulgencioS.Factoran,Jr.,then
SecretaryoftheDepartmentofEnvironmentandNaturalResources(DENR).
HissubstitutioninthispetitionbythenewSecretary,theHonorableAngelC.
Alcala,wassubsequentlyordereduponpropermotionbythepetitioners.1
Thecomplaint2wasinstitutedasataxpayers'classsuit3andallegesthatthe
plaintiffs"areallcitizensoftheRepublicofthePhilippines,taxpayers,and
entitledtothefullbenefit,useandenjoymentofthenaturalresourcetreasure
thatisthecountry'svirgintropicalrainforests."Thesamewasfiledfor
themselvesandotherswhoareequallyconcernedaboutthepreservationof
saidresourcebutare"sonumerousthatitisimpracticabletobringthemall
beforetheCourt."Theminorsfurtherasseveratethatthey"representtheir
generationaswellasgenerationsyetunborn."4Consequently,itisprayedfor
thatjudgmentberendered:
 "...orderingdefendant,hisagents,representativesandother
personsactinginhisbehalfto
(1) Cancelallexistingtimberlicenseagreementsinthecountry
(2) Ceaseanddesistfromreceiving,accepting,processing,
renewingorapprovingnewtimberlicenseagreements."
andgrantingtheplaintiffs"...suchotherreliefsjustandequitableunder
thepremises."5
ThecomplaintstartsoffwiththegeneralavermentsthatthePhilippine
archipelagoof7,100islandshasalandareaofthirtymillion(30,000,000)
hectaresandisendowedwithrich,lushandverdantrainforestsinwhich
varied,rareanduniquespeciesoffloraandfaunamaybefoundthese
rainforestscontainagenetic,biologicalandchemicalpoolwhichis
irreplaceabletheyarealsothehabitatofindigenousPhilippinecultureswhich
haveexisted,enduredandflourishedsincetimeimmemorialscientific
evidencerevealsthatinordertomaintainabalancedandhealthfulecology,
thecountry'slandareashouldbeutilizedonthebasisofaratiooffiftyfour
percent(54%)forforestcoverandfortysixpercent(46%)foragricultural,
residential,industrial,commercialandotherusesthedistortionand
disturbanceofthisbalanceasaconsequenceofdeforestationhaveresulted
inahostofenvironmentaltragedies,suchas(a)watershortagesresulting
fromthedryingupofthewatertable,otherwiseknownasthe"aquifer,"as
wellasofrivers,brooksandstreams,(b)salinizationofthewatertableasa
resultoftheintrusionthereinofsaltwater,incontrovertibleexamplesofwhich
maybefoundintheislandofCebuandtheMunicipalityofBacoor,Cavite,(c)
massiveerosionandtheconsequentiallossofsoilfertilityandagricultural
productivity,withthevolumeofsoilerodedestimatedatonebillion
(1,000,000,000)cubicmetersperannumapproximatelythesizeofthe
entireislandofCatanduanes,(d)theendangeringandextinctionofthe
country'sunique,rareandvariedfloraandfauna,(e)thedisturbanceand
dislocationofculturalcommunities,includingthedisappearanceofthe
Filipino'sindigenouscultures,(f)thesiltationofriversandseabedsand
consequentialdestructionofcoralsandotheraquaticlifeleadingtoacritical
reductioninmarineresourceproductivity,(g)recurrentspellsofdroughtasis
presentlyexperiencedbytheentirecountry,(h)increasingvelocityoftyphoon
windswhichresultfromtheabsenceofwindbreakers,(i)thefloodingof
lowlandsandagriculturalplainsarisingfromtheabsenceoftheabsorbent
mechanismofforests,(j)thesiltationandshorteningofthelifespanofmulti
billionpesodamsconstructedandoperatedforthepurposeofsupplying
waterfordomesticuses,irrigationandthegenerationofelectricpower,and
(k)thereductionoftheearth'scapacitytoprocesscarbondioxidegases
whichhasledtoperplexingandcatastrophicclimaticchangessuchasthe
phenomenonofglobalwarming,otherwiseknownasthe"greenhouseeffect."
Plaintiffsfurtherassertthattheadverseanddetrimentalconsequencesof
continueddeforestationaresocapableofunquestionabledemonstrationthat
thesamemaybesubmittedasamatterofjudicialnotice.This
notwithstanding,theyexpressedtheirintentiontopresentexpertwitnessesas
wellasdocumentary,photographicandfilmevidenceinthecourseofthetrial.
Astheircauseofaction,theyspecificallyallegethat:
"CAUSEOFACTION
7. Plaintiffsrepleadbyreferencetheforegoingallegations.
8. Twentyfive(25)yearsago,thePhilippineshadsomesixteen
(16)millionhectaresofrainforestsconstitutingroughly53%ofthe
country'slandmass.
9. Satelliteimagestakenin1987revealthatthereremainedno
morethan1.2millionhectaresofsaidrainforestsorfourpercent
(4.0%)ofthecountry'slandarea.
10. Morerecentsurveysrevealthatamere850,000hectaresof
virginoldgrowthrainforestsareleft,barely2.8%oftheentireland
massofthePhilippinearchipelagoandabout3.0millionhectaresof
immatureanduneconomicalsecondarygrowthforests.
11. Publicrecordsrevealthatdefendant'spredecessorshave
grantedtimberlicenseagreements('TLA's')tovariouscorporations
tocuttheaggregateareaof3.89millionhectaresforcommercial
loggingpurposes.
AcopyoftheTLAholdersandthecorrespondingareascoveredis
heretoattachedasAnnex'A'.
12. Atthepresentrateofdeforestation,i.e.about200,000
hectaresperannumor25hectaresperhournighttime,Saturdays,
SundaysandholidaysincludedthePhilippineswillbebereftof
forestresourcesaftertheendofthisensuingdecade,ifnotearlier.
13. Theadverseeffects,disastrousconsequences,seriousinjury
andirreparabledamageofthiscontinuedtrendofdeforestationtothe
plaintiffminors'generationandtogenerationsyetunbornareevident
andincontrovertible.Asamatteroffact,theenvironmentaldamages
enumeratedinparagraph6hereofarealreadybeingfelt,
experiencedandsufferedbythegenerationofplaintiffadults.
14. ThecontinuedallowancebydefendantofTLAholderstocut
anddeforesttheremainingforeststandswillworkgreatdamageand
irreparableinjurytoplaintiffsespeciallyplaintiffminorsandtheir
successorswhomayneversee,use,benefitfromandenjoythis
rareanduniquenaturalresourcetreasure.
Thisactofdefendantconstitutesamisappropriationand/or
impairmentofthenaturalresourcepropertyheholdsintrustforthe
benefitofplaintiffminorsandsucceedinggenerations.
15. Plaintiffshaveaclearandconstitutionalrighttoabalanced
andhealthfulecologyandareentitledtoprotectionbytheStateinits
capacityastheparenspatriae.
16. Plaintiffshaveexhaustedalladministrativeremedieswiththe
defendant'soffice.OnMarch2,1990,plaintiffsservedupon
defendantafinaldemandtocancelallloggingpermitsinthecountry.
Acopyoftheplaintiffs'letterdatedMarch1,1990isheretoattached
asAnnex'B'.
17. Defendant,however,failsandrefusestocanceltheexisting
TLA's,tothecontinuingseriousdamageandextremeprejudiceof
plaintiffs.
18. Thecontinuedfailureandrefusalbydefendanttocancelthe
TLA'sisanactviolativeoftherightsofplaintiffs,especiallyplaintiff
minorswhomaybeleftwithacountrythatisdesertified(sic),bare,
barrenanddevoidofthewonderfulflora,faunaandindigenous
cultureswhichthePhilippineshasbeenabundantlyblessedwith.
19. Defendant'srefusaltocanceltheaforementionedTLA'sis
manifestlycontrarytothepublicpolicyenunciatedinthePhilippine
EnvironmentalPolicywhich,inpertinentpart,statesthatitisthe
policyoftheState
'(a) tocreate,develop,maintainandimprove
conditionsunderwhichmanandnaturecanthrivein
productiveandenjoyableharmonywitheachother
'(b) tofulfillthesocial,economicandother
requirementsofpresentandfuturegenerationsofFilipinos
and
'(c) toensuretheattainmentofanenvironmental
qualitythatisconducivetoalifeofdignityandwellbeing'.
(P.D.1151,6June1977).
20. Furthermore,defendant'scontinuedrefusaltocancelthe
aforementionedTLA'siscontradictorytotheConstitutionalpolicyof
theStateto
a. effect'amoreequitabledistributionof
opportunities,incomeandwealth'and'makefullandefficient
useofnaturalresources(sic).'(Section1,ArticleXIIofthe
Constitution)
b. 'protectthenation'smarinewealth.'(Section2,
ibid)
c. 'conserveandpromotethenation'scultural
heritageandresources(sic).'(Section14,ArticleXIV,id.)
 d. 'protectandadvancetherightofthepeopletoa
balancedandhealthfulecologyinaccordwiththerhythmand
harmonyofnature.'(Section16,ArticleII,id.)
21. Finally,defendant'sactiscontrarytothehighestlawof
humankindthenaturallawandviolativeofplaintiffs'rightto
selfpreservationandperpetuation.
22. Thereisnootherplain,speedyandadequateremedyinlaw
otherthantheinstantactiontoarresttheunabatedhemorrhageof
thecountry'svitallifesupportsystemsandcontinuedrapeofMother
Earth."6
On22June1990,theoriginaldefendant,SecretaryFactoran,Jr.,fileda
MotiontoDismissthecomplaintbasedontwo(2)grounds,namely:(1)the
plaintiffshavenocauseofactionagainsthimand(2)theissueraisedbythe
plaintiffsisapoliticalquestionwhichproperlypertainstothelegislativeor
executivebranchesofGovernment.Intheir12July1990Oppositiontothe
Motion,thepetitionersmaintainthat(1)thecomplaintshowsaclearand
unmistakablecauseofaction,(2)themotionisdilatoryand(3)theaction
presentsajusticiablequestionasitinvolvesthedefendant'sabuseof
discretion.

On18July1991,respondentJudgeissuedanordergrantingthe
aforementionedmotiontodismiss.7Inthesaidorder,notonlywasthe
defendant'sclaimthatthecomplaintstatesnocauseofactionagainsthim
andthatitraisesapoliticalquestionsustained,therespondentJudge
furtherruledthatthegrantingofthereliefsprayedforwouldresultinthe
impairmentofcontractswhichisprohibitedbythefundamentallawofthe
land.
PlaintiffsthusfiledtheinstantspecialcivilactionforcertiorariunderRule65of
theRevisedRulesofCourtandaskthisCourttorescindandsetasidethe
dismissalorderonthegroundthattherespondentJudgegravelyabusedhis
discretionindismissingtheaction.Again,theparentsoftheplaintiffsminors
notonlyrepresenttheirchildren,buthavealsojoinedthelatterinthiscase.8
On14May1992,Weresolvedtogiveduecoursetothepetitionandrequired
thepartiestosubmittheirrespectiveMemorandaaftertheOfficeofthe
SolicitorGeneral(OSG)filedaCommentinbehalfoftherespondentsandthe
petitionersfiledareplythereto.
Petitionerscontendthatthecomplaintclearlyandunmistakablystatesa
causeofactionasitcontainssufficientallegationsconcerningtheirrighttoa
soundenvironmentbasedonArticles19,20and21oftheCivilCode(Human
Relations),Section4ofExecutiveOrder(E.O.)No.192creatingtheDENR,
Section3ofPresidentialDecree(P.D.)No.1151(PhilippineEnvironmental
Policy),Section16,ArticleIIofthe1987Constitutionrecognizingtherightof
thepeopletoabalancedandhealthfulecology,theconceptofgenerational
genocideinCriminalLawandtheconceptofman'sinalienablerighttoself
preservationandselfperpetuationembodiedinnaturallaw.Petitioners
likewiserelyontherespondent'scorrelativeobligation,perSection4ofE.O.
No.192,thesafeguardthepeople'srighttoahealthfulenvironment.
ItisfurtherclaimedthattheissueoftherespondentSecretary'sallegedgrave
abuseofdiscretioningrantingTimberLicenseAgreements(TLAs)tocover
moreareasforloggingthanwhatisavailableinvolvesajudicialquestion.
AnenttheinvocationbytherespondentJudgeoftheConstitution'snon
impairmentclause,petitionersmaintainthatthesamedoesnotapplyinthis
casebecauseTLAsarenotcontracts.TheylikewisesubmitthatevenifTLAs
maybeconsideredprotectedbythesaidclause,itiswellsettledthatthey
maystillberevokedbytheStatewhenpublicinterestsorequires.
Ontheotherhand,therespondentsaverthatthepetitionersfailedtoallegein
theircomplaintaspecificlegalrightviolatedbytherespondentSecretaryfor
whichanyreliefisprovidedbylaw.Theyseenothinginthecomplaintbut
vagueandnebulousallegationsconcerningan"environmentalright"which
supposedlyentitlesthepetitionerstothe"protectionbythestateinits
capacityasparenspatriae."Suchallegations,accordingtothem,donot
revealavalidcauseofaction.Theythenreiteratethetheorythatthequestion
ofwhetherloggingshouldbepermittedinthecountryisapoliticalquestion
whichshouldbeproperlyaddressedtotheexecutiveorlegislativebranches
ofGovernment.Theythereforeassertthatthepetitioners'recourseisnotto
fileanactionincourt,buttolobbybeforeCongressforthepassageofabill
thatwouldbanloggingtotally.
AstothematterofthecancellationoftheTLAs,respondentssubmitthatthe
samecannotbedonebytheStatewithoutdueprocessoflaw.Onceissued,a
TLAremainseffectiveforacertainperiodoftimeusuallyfortwentyfive
(25)years.Duringitseffectivity,thesamecanneitherberevisednor
cancelledunlesstheholderhasbeenfound,afterduenoticeandhearing,to
haveviolatedthetermsoftheagreementorotherforestrylawsand
regulations.Petitioners'propositiontohavealltheTLAsindiscriminately
cancelledwithouttherequisitehearingwouldbeviolativeoftherequirements
ofdueprocess.
Beforegoinganyfurther,Wemustfirstfocusonsomeproceduralmatters.
PetitionersinstitutedCivilCaseNo.90777asaclasssuit.Theoriginal
defendantandthepresentrespondentsdidnottakeissuewiththismatter.
Nevertheless,Weherebyrulethatthesaidcivilcaseisindeedaclasssuit.
Thesubjectmatterofthecomplaintisofcommonandgeneralinterestnotjust
toseveral,buttoallcitizensofthePhilippines.Consequently,sincethe
partiesaresonumerous,itbecomesimpracticable,ifnottotallyimpossible,to
bringallofthembeforethecourt.Welikewisedeclarethattheplaintiffs
thereinarenumerousandrepresentativeenoughtoensurethefullprotection
ofallconcernedinterests.Hence,alltherequisitesforthefilingofavalid
classsuitunderSection12,Rule3oftheRevisedRulesofCourtarepresent
bothinthesaidcivilcaseandintheinstantpetition,thelatterbeingbutan
incidenttotheformer.
Thiscase,however,hasaspecialandnovelelement.Petitionersminors
assertthattheyrepresenttheirgenerationaswellasgenerationsyetunborn.
Wefindnodifficultyinrulingthattheycan,forthemselves,forothersoftheir
generationandforthesucceedinggenerations,fileaclasssuit.Their
personalitytosueinbehalfofthesucceedinggenerationscanonlybebased
ontheconceptofintergenerationalresponsibilityinsofarastherighttoa
balancedandhealthfulecologyisconcerned.Sucharight,ashereinafter
expounded,considersthe"rhythmandharmonyofnature."Naturemeansthe
createdworldinitsentirety.9Suchrhythmandharmonyindispensably
include,interalia,thejudiciousdisposition,utilization,management,renewal
andconservationofthecountry'sforest,mineral,land,waters,fisheries,
wildlife,offshoreareasandothernaturalresourcestotheendthattheir
exploration,developmentandutilizationbeequitablyaccessibletothe
presentaswellasfuturegenerations.10Needlesstosay,everygeneration
hasaresponsibilitytothenexttopreservethatrhythmandharmonyforthe
fullenjoymentofabalancedandhealthfulecology.Putalittledifferently,the
minors'assertionoftheirrighttoasoundenvironmentconstitutes,atthe
sametime,theperformanceoftheirobligationtoensuretheprotectionofthat
rightforthegenerationstocome.
Thelocusstandiofthepetitionershavingthusbeenaddressed,Weshallnow
proceedtothemeritsofthepetition.
Afteracarefulperusalofthecomplaintinquestionandameticulous
considerationandevaluationoftheissuesraisedandargumentsadducedby
theparties,Wedonothesitatetofindforthepetitionersandruleagainstthe
respondentJudge'schallengedorderforhavingbeenissuedwithgrave
abuseofdiscretionamountingtolackofjurisdiction.Thepertinentportionsof
thesaidorderreadasfollows:
xxxxxxxxx
"AfteracarefulandcircumspectevaluationoftheComplaint,the
Courtcannothelpbutagreewiththedefendant.Foralthoughwe
believethatplaintiffshavebutthenoblestofallintentions,it(sic)fell
shortofalleging,withsufficientdefiniteness,aspecificlegalright
theyareseekingtoenforceandprotect,oraspecificlegalwrong
theyareseekingtopreventandredress(Sec.1,Rule2,RRC).
Furthermore,theCourtnotesthattheComplaintisrepletewithvague
assumptionsandvagueconclusionsbasedonunverifieddata.In
fine,plaintiffsfailtostateacauseofactioninitsComplaintagainst
thehereindefendant.
Furthermore,theCourtfirmlybelievesthatthematterbeforeit,being
impressedwithpoliticalcolorandinvolvingamatterofpublicpolicy,
maynotbetakencognizanceofbythisCourtwithoutdoingviolence
 tothesacredprincipleof'SeparationofPowers'ofthethree(3)co
equalbranchesoftheGovernment.
TheCourtislikewiseoftheimpressionthatitcannot,nomatterhow
westretchourjurisdiction,grantthereliefsprayedforbythe
plaintiffs,i.e.,tocancelallexistingtimberlicenseagreementsinthe
countryandtoceaseanddesistfromreceiving,accepting,
processingrenewingorapprovingnewtimberlicenseagreements.
Fortodootherwisewouldamountto'impairmentofcontracts'
abhored(sic)bythefundamentallaw."11
Wedonotagreewiththetrialcourt'sconclusionthattheplaintiffsfailedto
allegewithsufficientdefinitenessaspecificlegalrightinvolvedoraspecific
legalwrongcommitted,andthatthecomplaintisrepletewithvague
assumptionsandconclusionsbasedonunverifieddata.Areadingofthe
complaintitselfbeliestheseconclusions.
Thecomplaintfocusesononespecificfundamentallegalrighttherighttoa
balancedandhealthfulecologywhich,forthefirsttimeinournation's
constitutionalhistory,issolemnlyincorporatedinthefundamentallaw.Section
16,ArticleIIofthe1987Constitutionexplicitlyprovides:
"SEC.16. TheStateshallprotectandadvancetherightofthe
peopletoabalancedandhealthfulecologyinaccordwiththerhythm
andharmonyofnature."
This right unites with the right to health which is provided for in the
precedingsectionofthesamearticle:
"SEC.15. TheStateshallprotectandpromotetherighttohealth
ofthepeopleandinstillhealthconsciousnessamongthem."
Whiletherighttoabalancedandhealthfulecologyistobefoundunderthe
DeclarationofPrinciplesandStatePoliciesandnotundertheBillofRights,it
doesnotfollowthatitislessimportantthananyofthecivilandpoliticalrights
enumeratedinthelatter.Sucharightbelongstoadifferentcategoryofrights
altogetherforitconcernsnothinglessthanselfpreservationandself
perpetuationaptlyandfittinglystressedbythepetitionersthe
advancementofwhichmayevenbesaidtopredateallgovernmentsand
constitutions.Asamatteroffact,thesebasicrightsneednotevenbewritten
intheConstitutionfortheyareassumedtoexistfromtheinceptionof
humankind.Iftheyarenowexplicitlymentionedinthefundamentalcharter,it
isbecauseofthewellfoundedfearofitsframersthatunlesstherightstoa
balancedandhealthfulecologyandtohealtharemandatedasstatepolicies
bytheConstitutionitself,therebyhighlightingtheircontinuingimportanceand
imposinguponthestateasolemnobligationtopreservethefirstandprotect
andadvancethesecond,thedaywouldnotbetoofarwhenallelsewouldbe
lostnotonlyforthepresentgeneration,butalsoforthosetocome
generationswhichstandtoinheritnothingbutparchedearthincapableof
sustaininglife.

Therighttoabalancedandhealthfulecologycarrieswithitthecorrelative
dutytorefrainfromimpairingtheenvironment.Duringthedebatesonthis
rightinoneoftheplenarysessionsofthe1986ConstitutionalCommission,
thefollowingexchangetranspiredbetweenCommissionerWilfridoVillacorta
andCommissionerAdolfoAzcunawhosponsoredthesectioninquestion:
"MR.VILLACORTA:
DoesthissectionmandatetheStatetoprovidesanctions
againstallformsofpollutionair,waterandnoisepollution?
MR.AZCUNA:
Yes,MadamPresident.Therighttohealthful(sic)environment
necessarilycarrieswithitthecorrelativedutyofnotimpairing
thesameand,therefore,sanctionsmaybeprovidedfor
impairmentofenvironmentalbalance."12
Thesaidrightimplies,amongmanyotherthings,thejudiciousmanagement
andconservationofthecountry'sforests.Withoutsuchforests,theecological
orenvironmentalbalancewouldbeirreversiblydisrupted.
Conformablywiththeenunciatedrighttoabalancedandhealthfulecology
andtherighttohealth,aswellastheotherrelatedprovisionsofthe
Constitutionconcerningtheconservation,developmentandutilizationofthe
country'snaturalresources,13thenPresidentCorazonC.Aquino
promulgatedon10June1987E.O.No.192,14Section4ofwhichexpressly
mandatesthattheDepartmentofEnvironmentandNaturalResources"shall
betheprimarygovernmentagencyresponsiblefortheconservation,
management,developmentandproperuseofthecountry'senvironmentand
naturalresources,specificallyforestandgrazinglands,mineralresources,
includingthoseinreservationandwatershedareas,andlandsofthepublic
domain,aswellasthelicensingandregulationofallnaturalresourcesas
maybeprovidedforbylawinordertoensureequitablesharingofthebenefits
derivedtherefromforthewelfareofthepresentandfuturegenerationsof
Filipinos."Section3thereofmakesthefollowingstatementofpolicy:
"SEC.3. DeclarationofPolicy.Itisherebydeclaredthepolicy
oftheStatetoensurethesustainableuse,development,
management,renewal,andconservationofthecountry'sforest,
mineral,land,offshoreareasandothernaturalresources,including
theprotectionandenhancementofthequalityoftheenvironment,
andequitableaccessofthedifferentsegmentsofthepopulationto
thedevelopmentanduseofthecountry'snaturalresources,notonly
forthepresentgenerationbutforfuturegenerationsaswell.Itisalso
thepolicyofthestatetorecognizeandapplyatruevaluesystem
includingsocialandenvironmentalcostimplicationsrelativetotheir
utilizationdevelopmentandconservationofournaturalresources."
ThispolicydeclarationissubstantiallyrestatedinTitleXIV,BookIVofthe
AdministrativeCodeof1987,15specificallyinSection1thereofwhichreads:
"SEC.1. DeclarationofPolicy.(1)TheStateshallensure,for
thebenefitoftheFilipinopeople,thefullexplorationand
developmentaswellasthejudiciousdisposition,utilization,
management,renewalandconservationofthecountry'sforest,
mineral,land,waters,fisheries,wildlife,offshoreareasandother
naturalresources,consistentwiththenecessityofmaintaininga
soundecologicalbalanceandprotectingandenhancingthequalityof
theenvironmentandtheobjectiveofmakingtheexploration,
developmentandutilizationofsuchnaturalresourcesequitably
accessibletothedifferentsegmentsofthepresentaswellasfuture
generations.
(2) TheStateshalllikewiserecognizeandapplyatruevalue
systemthattakesintoaccountsocialandenvironmentalcost
implicationsrelativetotheutilization,developmentandconservation
ofournaturalresources."
Theaboveprovisionstresses"thenecessityofmaintainingasoundecological
balanceandprotectingandenhancingthequalityoftheenvironment."
Section2ofthesameTitle,ontheotherhand,specificallyspeaksofthe
mandateoftheDENRhowever,itmakesparticularreferencetothefactof
theagency'sbeingsubjecttolawandhigherauthority.Saidsectionprovides:
"SEC.2. Mandate.(1)TheDepartmentofEnvironmentand
NaturalResourcesshallbeprimarilyresponsibleforthe
implementationoftheforegoingpolicy.
(2) Itshall,subjecttolawandhigherauthority,beinchargeof
carryingouttheState'sconstitutionalmandatetocontroland
supervisetheexploration,development,utilization,andconservation
ofthecountry'snaturalresources."
BothE.O.No.192andtheAdministrativeCodeof1987havesetthe
objectiveswhichwillserveasthebasesforpolicyformulation,andhave
definedthepowersandfunctionsoftheDENR.
Itmay,however,berecalledthatevenbeforetheratificationofthe1987
Constitution,specificstatutesalreadypaidspecialattentiontothe
"environmentalright"ofthepresentandfuturegenerations.On6June1977,
P.D.No.1151(PhilippineEnvironmentalPolicy)andP.D.No.1152(Philippine
EnvironmentCode)wereissued.Theformer"declaredacontinuingpolicyof
theState(a)tocreate,develop,maintainandimproveconditionsunderwhich
manandnaturecanthriveinproductiveandenjoyableharmonywitheach
other,(b)tofulfillthesocial,economicandotherrequirementsofpresentand
futuregenerationsofFilipinos,and(c)toinsuretheattainmentofan
environmentalqualitythatisconducivetoalifeofdignityandwellbeing."16
Asitsgoal,itspeaksofthe"responsibilitiesofeachgenerationastrusteeand
guardianoftheenvironmentforsucceedinggenerations."17Thelatterstatute,
ontheotherhand,gavefleshtothesaidpolicy.
Thus,therightofthepetitioners(andallthosetheyrepresent)toabalanced
andhealthfulecologyisasclearastheDENR'sdutyunderitsmandate
andbyvirtueofitspowersandfunctionsunderE.O.No.192andthe
AdministrativeCodeof1987toprotectandadvancethesaidright.
Adenialorviolationofthatrightbytheotherwhohasthecorrelativedutyor
obligationtorespectorprotectthesamegivesrisetoacauseofaction.
PetitionersmaintainthatthegrantingoftheTLAs,whichtheyclaimwasdone
withgraveabuseofdiscretion,violatedtheirrighttoabalancedandhealthful
ecologyhence,thefullprotectionthereofrequiresthatnofurtherTLAsshould
berenewedorgranted.
Acauseofactionisdefinedas:
"...anactoromissionofonepartyinviolationofthelegalrightor
rightsoftheotheranditsessentialelementsarelegalrightofthe
plaintiff,correlativeobligationofthedefendant,andactoromission
ofthedefendantinviolationofsaidlegalright."18
Itissettledinthisjurisdictionthatinamotiontodismissbasedontheground
thatthecomplaintfailstostateacauseofaction,19thequestionsubmittedto
thecourtforresolutioninvolvesthesufficiencyofthefactsallegedinthe
complaintitself.Noothermattershouldbeconsideredfurthermore,thetruth
orfalsityofthesaidallegationsisbesidethepointforthetruththereofis
deemedhypotheticallyadmitted.Theonlyissuetoberesolvedinsuchacase
is:admittingsuchallegedfactstobetrue,maythecourtrenderavalid
judgmentinaccordancewiththeprayerinthecomplaint?20InMilitantevs.
Edrosolano,21thisCourtlaiddowntherulethatthejudiciaryshould"exercise
theutmostcareandcircumspectioninpassinguponamotiontodismisson
thegroundoftheabsencethereof[causeofaction]lest,byitsfailureto
manifestacorrectappreciationofthefactsallegedanddeemedhypothetically
admitted,whatthelawgrantsorrecognizesiseffectivelynullified.Ifthat
happens,thereisablotonthelegalorder.Thelawitselfstandsindisrepute."
Afteracarefulexaminationofthepetitioners'complaint,Wefindthe
statementsundertheintroductoryaffirmativeallegations,aswellasthe
specificavermentsunderthesubheadingCAUSEOFACTION,tobe
adequateenoughtoshow,primafacie,theclaimedviolationoftheirrights.On
thebasisthereof,theymaythusbegranted,whollyorpartly,thereliefs
prayedfor.Itbearsstressing,however,thatinsofarasthecancellationofthe
TLAsisconcerned,thereistheneedtoimplead,aspartydefendants,the
granteesthereoffortheyareindispensableparties.
Theforegoingconsidered,CivilCaseNo.90777cannotbesaidtoraisea
politicalquestion.Policyformulationordeterminationbytheexecutiveor
legislativebranchesofGovernmentisnotsquarelyputinissue.Whatis
principallyinvolvedistheenforcementofarightvisavispoliciesalready
formulatedandexpressedinlegislation.Itmust,nonetheless,beemphasized
thatthepoliticalquestiondoctrineisnolongertheinsurmountableobstacleto
theexerciseofjudicialpowerortheimpenetrableshieldthatprotects
executiveandlegislativeactionsfromjudicialinquiryorreview.Thesecond
paragraphofsection1,ArticleVIIIoftheConstitutionstatesthat:
"Judicialpowerincludesthedutyofthecourtsofjusticetosettle
actualcontroversiesinvolvingrightswhicharelegallydemandable
andenforceable,andtodeterminewhetherornottherehasbeena
graveabuseofdiscretionamountingtolackorexcessofjurisdiction
onthepartofanybranchorinstrumentalityoftheGovernment."

Commentingonthisprovisioninhisbook,PhilippinePoliticalLaw,22Mr.
JusticeIsaganiA.Cruz,adistinguishedmemberofthisCourt,says:
"Thefirstpartoftheauthorityrepresentsthetraditionalconceptof
judicialpower,involvingthesettlementofconflictingrightsas
conferredbylaw.Thesecondpartoftheauthorityrepresentsa
broadeningofjudicialpowertoenablethecourtsofjusticetoreview
whatwasbeforeforbiddenterritory,towit,thediscretionofthe
politicaldepartmentsofthegovernment.

Asworded,thenewprovisionvestsinthejudiciary,andparticularly
theSupremeCourt,thepowertoruleuponeventhewisdomofthe
decisionsoftheexecutiveandthelegislatureandtodeclaretheir
actsinvalidforlackorexcessofjurisdictionbecausetaintedwith
graveabuseofdiscretion.Thecatch,ofcourse,isthemeaningof
'graveabuseofdiscretion,'whichisaveryelasticphrasethatcan
expandorcontractaccordingtothedispositionofthejudiciary."

InDazavs.Singson,23Mr.JusticeCruz,nowspeakingforthisCourt,noted:
"Inthecasenowbeforeus,thejurisdictionalobjectionbecomeseven
lesstenableanddecisive.Thereasonisthat,evenifwewereto
assumethattheissuepresentedbeforeuswaspoliticalinnature,we
wouldstillnotbeprecludedfromresolvingitundertheexpanded
jurisdictionconferreduponusthatnowcovers,inpropercases,even
thepoliticalquestion.ArticleVII,Section1,oftheConstitutionclearly
provides:..."
Thelastgroundinvokedbythetrialcourtindismissingthecomplaintisthe
nonimpairmentofcontractsclausefoundintheConstitution.Thecourtaquo
declaredthat:
 "TheCourtislikewiseoftheimpressionthatitcannot,nomatterhow
westretchourjurisdiction,grantthereliefsprayedforbythe
plaintiffs,i.e.,tocancelallexistingtimberlicenseagreementsinthe
countryandtoceaseanddesistfromreceiving,accepting,
processing,renewingorapprovingnewtimberlicenseagreements.
Fortodootherwisewouldamountto'impairmentofcontracts'
abhored(sic)bythefundamentallaw."24
Wearenotpersuadedatallonthecontrary,Weareamazed,ifnotshocked,
bysuchasweepingpronouncement.Inthefirstplace,therespondent
Secretarydidnot,forobviousreasons,eveninvokeinhismotiontodismiss
thenonimpairmentclause.Ifhehaddoneso,hewouldhaveactedwith
utmostinfidelitytotheGovernmentbyprovidingundueandunwarranted
benefitsandadvantagestothetimberlicenseholdersbecausehewouldhave
foreverboundtheGovernmenttostrictlyrespectthesaidlicensesaccording
totheirtermsandconditionsregardlessofchangesinpolicyandthe
demandsofpublicinterestandwelfare.Hewasawarethatascorrectly
pointedoutbythepetitioners,intoeverytimberlicensemustbereadSection
20oftheForestryReformCode(P.D.No.705)whichprovides:
"...Provided,Thatwhenthenationalinterestsorequires,the
Presidentmayamend,modify,replaceorrescindanycontract,
concession,permit,licensesoranyotherformofprivilegegranted
herein..."
Needless to say, all licenses may thus be revoked or rescinded by
executiveaction.Itisnotacontract,propertyorapropertyrightprotected
by the due process clause of the Constitution. In Tan vs. Director of
Forestry,25thisCourtheld:
"...AtimberlicenseisaninstrumentbywhichtheStateregulates
theutilizationanddispositionofforestresourcestotheendthat
publicwelfareispromoted.Atimberlicenseisnotacontractwithin
thepurviewofthedueprocessclauseitisonlyalicenseorprivilege,
whichcanbevalidlywithdrawnwheneverdictatedbypublicinterest
orpublicwelfareasinthiscase.
'Alicenseismerelyapermitorprivilegetodowhatotherwisewould
beunlawful,andisnotacontractbetweentheauthority,federal,
state,ormunicipal,grantingitandthepersontowhomitisgranted
neitherisitpropertyorapropertyright,nordoesitcreateavested
rightnorisittaxation'(37C.J.168).Thus,thisCourtheldthatthe
grantingoflicensedoesnotcreateirrevocablerights,neitherisit
propertyorpropertyrights(Peoplevs.OngTin,54O.G.7576)..."
WereiteratedthispronouncementinFelipeYsmael,Jr.&Co.,Inc.vs.Deputy
ExecutiveSecretary:26
"...Timberlicenses,permitsandlicenseagreementsarethe
principalinstrumentsbywhichtheStateregulatestheutilizationand
dispositionofforestresourcestotheendthatpublicwelfareis
 promoted.Anditcanhardlybegainsaidthattheymerelyevidencea
privilegegrantedbytheStatetoqualifiedentities,anddonotvestin
thelatterapermanentorirrevocablerighttotheparticular
concessionareaandtheforestproductstherein.Theymaybevalidly
amended,modified,replacedorrescindedbytheChiefExecutive
whennationalinterestssorequire.Thus,theyarenotdeemed
contractswithinthepurviewofthedueprocessoflawclause[See
Sections3(ee)and20ofPres.DecreeNo.705,asamended.Also,
Tanv.DirectorofForestry,G.R.No.L24548,October27,1983,125
SCRA302]."
Sincetimberlicensesarenotcontracts,thenonimpairmentclause,which
reads:
"SEC.10. Nolawimpairingtheobligationofcontractsshallbe
passed."27
cannotbeinvoked.
Inthesecondplace,evenifitistobeassumedthatthesamearecontracts,
theinstantcasedoesnotinvolvealaworevenanexecutiveissuance
declaringthecancellationormodificationofexistingtimberlicenses.Hence,
thenonimpairmentclausecannotasyetbeinvoked.Nevertheless,granting
furtherthatalawhasactuallybeenpassedmandatingcancellationsor
modifications,thesamecannotstillbestigmatizedasaviolationofthenon
impairmentclause.Thisisbecausebyitsverynatureandpurpose,sucha
lawcouldhaveonlybeenpassedintheexerciseofthepolicepowerofthe
stateforthepurposeofadvancingtherightofthepeopletoabalancedand
healthfulecology,promotingtheirhealthandenhancingthegeneralwelfare.
InAbevs.FosterWheelerCorp.,28thisCourtstated:
"Thefreedomofcontract,underoursystemofgovernment,isnot
meanttobeabsolute.Thesameisunderstoodtobesubjectto
reasonablelegislativeregulationaimedatthepromotionofpublic
health,moral,safetyandwelfare.Inotherwords,theconstitutional
guarantyofnonimpairmentofobligationsofcontractislimitedbythe
exerciseofthepolicepoweroftheState,intheinterestofpublic
health,safety,moralandgeneralwelfare."

ThereasonforthisisemphaticallysetforthinNebiavs.NewYork,29quoted
inPhilippineAmericanLifeInsuranceCo.vs.AuditorGeneral,30towit:
"'Underourformofgovernmenttheuseofpropertyandthemaking
ofcontractsarenormallymattersofprivateandnotofpublicconcern.
Thegeneralruleisthatbothshallbefreeofgovernmental
interference.Butneitherpropertyrightsnorcontractrightsare
absoluteforgovernmentcannotexistifthecitizenmayatwillusehis
propertytothedetrimentofhisfellows,orexercisehisfreedomof
contracttoworkthemharm.Equallyfundamentalwiththeprivate
rightisthatofthepublictoregulateitinthecommoninterest.'"
Incourt,thenonimpairmentclausemustyieldtothepolicepowerofthe
state.31
Finally,itisdifficulttoimagine,asthetrialcourtdid,howthenonimpairment
clausecouldapplywithrespecttotheprayertoenjointherespondent
Secretaryfromreceiving,accepting,processing,renewingorapprovingnew
timberlicensesfor,saveincasesofrenewal,nocontractwouldhaveasofyet
existedintheotherinstances.Moreover,withrespecttorenewal,theholderis
notentitledtoitasamatterofright.
WHEREFORE,beingimpressedwithmerit,theinstantPetitionishereby
GRANTED,andthechallengedOrderofrespondentJudgeof18July1991
dismissingCivilCaseNo.90777isherebysetaside.Thepetitionersmay
thereforeamendtheircomplainttoimpleadasdefendantstheholdersor
granteesofthequestionedtimberlicenseagreements.
Nopronouncementastocosts.
SOORDERED.
Cruz,Padilla,Bidin,GrioAquino,Regalado,Romero,Nocon,Bellosillo,Melo
andQuiason,JJ.,concur.
Narvasa,C.J.,tooknopartrelatedtooneoftheparties.
Puno,J.,tooknopartinthedeliberations.
Vitug,J.,tooknopartIwasnotyetwiththeCourtwhenthecasewas
deliberatedupon.

SeparateOpinions
FELICIANO,J.,concurring:

IjoinintheresultreachedbymydistinguishedbrotherintheCourt,Davide,
Jr.,J.inthiscasewhich,tomymind,isoneofthemostimportantcases
decidedbythisCourtinthelastfewyears.Theseminalprincipleslaiddown
inthisdecisionarelikelytoinfluenceprofoundlythedirectionandcourseof
theprotectionandmanagementoftheenvironment,whichofcourse
embracestheutilizationofallthenaturalresourcesintheterritorialbaseof
ourpolity.Ihavethereforesoughttoclarify,basicallytomyself,whattheCourt
appearstobesaying.
TheCourtexplicitlystatesthatpetitionershavethelocusstandinecessaryto
sustainthebringingandmaintenanceofthissuit(Decision,pp.1112).Locus
standiisnotafunctionofpetitioners'claimthattheirsuitisproperlyregarded
asaclasssuit.Iunderstandlocusstanditorefertothelegalinterestwhicha
plaintiffmusthaveinthesubjectmatterofthesuit.Becauseofthevery
broadnessoftheconceptof"class"hereinvolvedmembershipinthis
"class"appearstoembraceeveryonelivinginthecountrywhethernoworin
thefutureitappearstomethateveryonewhomaybeexpectedtobenefit
fromthecourseofactionpetitionersseektorequirepublicrespondentsto
take,isvestedwiththenecessarylocusstandi.TheCourtmaybeseen
thereforetoberecognizingabeneficiaries'rightofactioninthefieldof
environmentalprotection,asagainstboththepublicadministrativeagency
directlyconcernedandtheprivatepersonsorentitiesoperatinginthefieldor
sectorofactivityinvolved.Whethersuchabeneficiaries'rightofactionmay
befoundunderanyandallcircumstances,orwhethersomefailuretoact,in
thefirstinstance,onthepartofthegovernmentalagencyconcernedmustbe
shown("priorexhaustionofadministrativeremedies"),isnotdiscussedinthe
decisionandpresumablyisleftforfuturedeterminationinanappropriate
case.

TheCourthasalsodeclaredthatthecomplainthasallegedandfocusedupon
"onespecificfundamentallegalrighttherighttoabalancedandhealthful
ecology"(Decision,p.14).Thereisnoquestionthat"therighttoabalanced
andhealthfulecology"is"fundamental"andthat,accordingly,ithasbeen
"constitutionalized."Butalthoughitisfundamentalincharacter,Isuggest,with
verygreatrespect,thatitcannotbecharacterizedas"specific,"withoutdoing
excessiveviolencetolanguage.Itisinfactverydifficulttofashionlanguage
morecomprehensiveinscopeandgeneralizedincharacterthanarightto"a
balancedandhealthfulecology."Thelistofparticularclaimswhichcanbe
subsumedunderthisrubricappearstobeentirelyopenended:prevention
andcontrolofemissionoftoxicfumesandsmokefromfactoriesandmotor
vehiclesofdischargeofoil,chemicaleffluents,garbageandrawsewageinto
rivers,inlandandcoastalwatersbyvessels,oilrigs,factories,minesand
wholecommunitiesofdumpingoforganicandinorganicwastesonopen
land,streetsandthoroughfaresfailuretorehabilitatelandafterstripminingor
openpitminingkainginorslashandburnfarmingdestructionoffisheries,
coralreefsandotherlivingsearesourcesthroughtheuseofdynamiteor
cyanideandotherchemicalscontaminationofgroundwaterresourcesloss
ofcertainspeciesoffaunaandfloraandsoon.Theotherstatementspointed
outbytheCourt:Section3,ExecutiveOrderNo.192dated10June1987
Section1,TitleXIV,BookIVofthe1987AdministrativeCodeandP.D.No.
1151,dated6June1977allappeartobeformulationsofpolicy,asgeneral
andabstractastheconstitutionalstatementsofbasicpolicyinArticleII,
Sections16("therighttoabalancedandhealthfulecology")and15("the
righttohealth").
P.D.No.1152,alsodated6June1977,entitled"ThePhilippineEnvironment
Code,"is,upontheotherhand,acompendiouscollectionofmore"specific
environmentmanagementpolicies"and"environmentqualitystandards"
(fourth"Whereas"clause,Preamble)relatingtoanextremelywiderangeof
topics:
 (a) airqualitymanagement
(b) waterqualitymanagement
(c) landusemanagement
(d) natural resources management and conservation
embracing:
(i) fisheriesandaquaticresources
(ii) wildlife
(iii) forestryandsoilconservation
(iv) floodcontrolandnaturalcalamities
(v) energydevelopment
(vi) conservation and utilization of surface and
groundwater
(vii) mineralresources.
Two (2) points are worth making in this connection. Firstly, neither
petitioners nor the Court has identified the particular provision or
provisions(ifany)ofthePhilippineEnvironmentCodewhichgiverisetoa
specificlegalrightwhichpetitionersareseekingtoenforce.Secondly,the
Philippine Environment Code identifies with notable care the particular
government agency charged with the formulation and implementation of
guidelines and programs dealing with each of the headings and sub
headingsmentionedabove.ThePhilippineEnvironmentCodedoesnot,in
other words, appear to contemplate action on the part of private persons
whoarebeneficiariesofimplementationofthatCode.
Asamatteroflogic,byfindingpetitioners'causeofactionasanchoredona
legalrightcomprisedintheconstitutionalstatementsabovenoted,theCourt
isineffectsayingthatSection15(andSection16)ofArticleIIofthe
Constitutionareselfexecutingandjudiciallyenforceableevenintheirpresent
form.Theimplicationsofthisdoctrinewillhavetobeexploredinfuturecases
thoseimplicationsaretoolargeandfarreachinginnatureeventobehinted
athere.
Mysuggestionissimplythatpetitionersmust,beforethetrialcourt,showa
morespecificlegalrightarightcastinlanguageofasignificantlylower
orderofgeneralitythanArticleII(15)oftheConstitutionthatisormaybe
violatedbytheactions,orfailurestoact,imputedtothepublicrespondentby
petitionerssothatthetrialcourtcanvalidlyrenderjudgmentgrantingallor
partofthereliefprayedfor.Tomymind,theCourtshouldbeunderstoodas
simplysayingthatsuchamorespecificlegalrightorrightsmaywellexistin
ourcorpusoflaw,consideringthegeneralpolicyprinciplesfoundinthe
ConstitutionandtheexistenceofthePhilippineEnvironmentCode,andthat
thetrialcourtshouldhavegivenpetitionersaneffectiveopportunitysoto
demonstrate,insteadofabortingtheproceedingsonamotiontodismiss.
Itseemstomeimportantthatthelegalrightwhichisanessentialcomponent
ofacauseofactionbeaspecific,operablelegalright,ratherthana
constitutionalorstatutorypolicy,foratleasttwo(2)reasons.Oneisthat
unlessthelegalrightclaimedtohavebeenviolatedordisregardedisgiven
specificationinoperationalterms,defendantsmaywellbeunabletodefend
themselvesintelligentlyandeffectivelyinotherwords,therearedueprocess
dimensionstothismatter.
Thesecondisabroadergaugeconsiderationwhereaspecificviolationof
laworapplicableregulationisnotallegedorproved,petitionerscanbe
expectedtofallbackontheexpandedconceptionofjudicialpowerinthe
secondparagraphofSection1ofArticleVIIIoftheConstitutionwhichreads:
"Section1. ...
Judicialpowerincludesthedutyofthecourtsofjusticetosettle
actualcontroversiesinvolvingrightswhicharelegallydemandable
andenforceable,andtodeterminewhetherornottherehasbeena
graveabuseofdiscretionamountingtolackorexcessofjurisdiction
onthepartofanybranchorinstrumentalityoftheGovernment."
(Emphasessupplied)
When substantive standards as general as "the right to a balanced and
healthy ecology" and "the right to health" are combined with remedial
standardsasbroadrangingas"agraveabuseofdiscretionamountingto
lackorexcessofjurisdiction,"theresultwillbe,itisrespectfullysubmitted,
to propel courts into the uncharted ocean of social and economic policy
making. At least in respect of the vast area of environmental protection
and management, our courts have no claim to special technical
competence and experience and professional qualifications. Where no
specific,operablenormsandstandardsareshowntoexist,thenthepolicy
makingdepartmentsthelegislativeandexecutivedepartmentsmust
begivenarealandeffectiveopportunitytofashionandpromulgatethose
norms and standards, and to implement them before the courts should
intervene.
MylearnedbrotherDavide,Jr.,J.,rightlyinsiststhatthetimbercompanies,
whoseconcessionagreementsorTLA'spetitionersdemandpublic
respondentsshouldcancel,mustbeimpleadedintheproceedingsbelow.It
mightbeaskedthat,ifpetitioners'entitlementtothereliefdemandedisnot
dependentuponproofofbreachbythetimbercompaniesofoneormoreof
thespecifictermsandconditionsoftheirconcessionagreements(andthis,
petitionersimplicitlyassume),whatwillthosecompanieslitigateabout?The
answerIsuggestisthattheymayseektodisputetheexistenceofthespecific
legalrightpetitionersshouldallege,aswellastherealityoftheclaimed
factualnexusbetweenpetitioners'specificlegalrightandtheclaimed
wrongfulactsorfailurestoactofpublicrespondentadministrativeagency.
Theymayalsocontroverttheappropriatenessoftheremedyorremedies
demandedbypetitioners,underallthecircumstanceswhichexist.
IvotetograntthePetitionforCertioraribecausetheprotectionofthe
environment,includingtheforestcoverofourterritory,isofextreme
importanceforthecountry.ThedoctrinessetoutintheCourt'sdecision
issuedtodayshould,however,besubjectedtocloserexamination.
Footnotes

1. Rollo,164186
2. Id.,6265,exclusiveofannexes.
3. UnderSection12,Rule3,RevisedRulesofCourt.
4. Rollo,67.
5. Id.,74.
6. Rollo,7073.
7. Annex"B"ofPetitionId.,4344.
8. Paragraph7,Petition,6Rollo,20.
9. Webster'sThirdNewInternationalDictionary,unabridged,1986,1508.
10. TitleXIV(EnvironmentandNaturalResources),BookIVofthe
AdministrativeCodeof1987,E.O.No.292.
11. Annex"B"ofPetitionRollo,4344.
12. RecordoftheConstitutionalCommission,vol.4,913.
13. Forinstance,thePreambleandArticleXIIontheNationalEconomy
andPatrimony.
14. TheReorganizationActoftheDepartmentofEnvironmentandNatural
Resources.
15. E.O.No.292.
16. Section1.
17. Section2.
18. MaraoSugarCentralCo.vs.Barrios,79Phil.666[1947]Community
InvestmentandFinanceCorp.vs.Garcia,88Phil.215[1951]Remiterevs.
vda.deYulo,16SCRA251[1966]Caseasvs.Rosales,19SCRA462
[1967]Viratavs.Sandiganbayan,202SCRA680[1991]Madronavs.
Rosal,204SCRA1[1991].
19. Section1(q),Rule16,RevisedRulesofCourt.
20. Adamosvs.J.M.TuasonandCo.,Inc.,25SCRA529[1968]Viratavs.
Sandiganbayan,supra.Madronavs.Rosal,supra.
21. 39SCRA473,479[1971].
22. 1991ed.,226227.
23. 180SCRA496,501502[1989].Seealso,Cosetengvs.Mitra,187
SCRA377[1990]Gonzalesvs.Macaraig,191SCRA452[1990]Llamas
vs.Orbos,202SCRA844[1991]Bengzonvs.SenateBlueRibbon
Committee,203SCRA267[1991].
24. Rollo,44.
 25. 125SCRA302,325[1983].
26. 190SCRA673,684[1990].
27. ArticleIII,1987Constitution.
28. 110Phil.198,203[1960]footnotesomitted.
29. 291U.S.502,523,78L.ed.940,947949.
30. 22SCRA135,146147[1968].
31. Ongsiakovs.Gamboa,86Phil.50[1950]Abevs.FosterWheeler
Corp.,supra.:Phil.AmericanLifeInsuranceCo.vs.AuditorGeneral,supra.
Alalayanvs.NPC,24SCRA172[1968]Victorianovs.ElizaldeRope
WorkersUnion,59SCRA54[1974]Kabilingvs.NationalHousing
Authority,156SCRA623[1987].