Nachelle Therese Baylon

LLB 1-D

Natural Law Doctrine

Self-evident Precepts of Natural Law:

1. Righteousness is the virtue of doing what is right. Man knows that “good is to be done
and pursued and evil is to be avoided” not in reference to any positive law but only
through reason.
2. Justice simply defined is giving someone what is due to them. Aristotle believed that there
is in nature a common principle of the just and the unjust that all people in some way
divine (discern) even if they have no association or commerce with each other.
3. Fairness is showing no partiality, prejudice or favoritism, hence just, upright, and honest.
4. Equality believes that despite differences in sex, age, religion, status in life, race, men are
considered equal.

Uses of Natural Law:

1. The Justificatory Use of Natural Law is used to warrant some legal innovation, or to
support some claim to authority, or simply to vindicate one’s right of an issue or personal
conviction. Natural Law is used to justify and warrant the people’s withdrawal of
governmental power whenever the government persistently and deliberately fails or
flouts the will of the people.
2. The Opposite Use of Natural Law involves refusing to obey a law contrary to the precept
of Natural Law not necessarily for the purpose of disobedience but to empathize the fact
that blind obedience to authority is not good either.
3. The Regulatory Use of Natural Law is rooted in the ancient maxim: lex iniusta non est lex
– unjust law is not law. There are two grounds advanced by those who favor the
regulatory use of natural law. The first is that no statute can violate the precepts of
Natural Law without producing an adverse reaction from the people. It is unthinkable,
for the natural law scholars, that the people would have yielded or entrusted to their
representatives the power to enact statutes which would be contrary to the precepts of
natural law.
 G.R. No. 101083
Juan Antonio Oposa vs Fulgencio Factoran Jr.
July 30, 1993

FACTS:
A taxpayer’s 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 asserted 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.

ISSUES:

1. Whether or not the plaintiffs have a cause of action.

2. Whether or not the complaint raises a political issue.
3. Whether or not the original prayer of the plaintiffs result in the impairment of contracts.
RULING:

1. First Issue: Cause of Action

Yes, the petitioners have a cause of action. 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.
The case at bar is of common interest to all Filipinos.
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 country’s 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.
2. Second Issue: Political Issue

Second paragraph, Section 1 of Article VIII of the constitution provides for the expanded
jurisdiction vested upon the Supreme Court. It allows the Court to rule upon even on the wisdom
of the decision of the Executive and Legislature and to declare their acts as invalid for lack or
excess of jurisdiction because it is tainted with grave abuse of discretion.

3. Third Issue: Violation of the non-impairment clause

The Court held that the Timber License Agreement is an instrument by which the state
regulates the utilization and disposition of forest resources to the end that public welfare is
promoted. It is not a contract within the purview of the due process clause thus, the non-
impairment clause cannot be invoked. It can be validly withdraw whenever dictated by public
interest or public welfare as in this case. The granting of license does not create irrevocable rights,
neither is it property or property rights.
Moreover, the constitutional guaranty of non-impairment of obligations of contract is
limit by the exercise by the police power of the State, in the interest of public health, safety,
moral and general welfare. In short, the non-impairment clause must yield to the police power
of the State.

The instant petition, being impressed with merit, is hereby GRANTED and the RTC decision
is SET ASIDE.
 Application of Natural Law:
Juan Antonio Oposa vs Fulgencio Factoran Jr.

Natural law is a rule of reason, whereby man can discern how he should act. The beginning
of the concept of natural law was intertwined with the notion of the law of nature in accordance
with which everything happens as they should. Justice JBL Reyes summed up the interplay of law,
conscience and justice when he wrote: “There is no other end but justice, no other matter but
law; no other guide but conscience.”
In the case at bar, the self-evident precepts of Natural Law were applied as the petitioner-
minors called out for accountability of the present generation for the well-being of future-
generations. The petitioner-minors assert that every single person has the right to experience a
livable environment thus it is only just that no one should have monopoly over the consumption
of rainforests and other natural resources. They invoked fairness and equality in the use of
natural resources due to their finite characteristics. In addition, the Uses of Natural Law were
applied in the case at bar through the refusal of the petition-minors to have the Timber License
Agreements enacted due to misappropriation and/or impairment of the natural resources.