Facts

This case is unique in that it is a class suit brought by 44children, through their parents, claiming that they bring the case in the name of “their generation as well as those generations yet unborn.” Aiming to stop deforestation, it was filed against the Secretary of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources, seeking to have him cancel all the timber license agreements (TLAs) in the country and to cease and desist from accepting and approving more timber license agreements. The children invoked their right to a balanced and healthful ecology and to protection by the State in its capacity as parens patriae. The petitioners claimed that the DENR Secretary's refusal to cancel the TLAs and to stop issuing them was "contrary to the highest law of humankind-- the natural law—and violative of plaintiffs' right to self-preservation and perpetuation." The case was dismissed in the lower court, invoking the law on non-impairment of contracts, so it was brought to the Supreme Court on certiorari.

Issue

Did the children have the legal standing to file the case?

Ruling

Yes. The Supreme Court in granting the petition ruled that the children had the legal standing to file the case based on the concept of “intergenerationalresponsibility”. Their right to a healthy environment carried with it an obligation to preserve that environment for the succeeding generations. In this, the Court recognized legal standing to sue on behalf of future generations. Also, the Court said, the law on non-impairment of contracts must give way to the exercise of the police power of the state in the interest of public welfare.

Relevance The case of Oposa vs. Factoran has been widely cited worldwide for its concept of intergenerational responsibility, particularly in cases related to ecology and the environment. For example:

•Oposa vs. Factoran's concept of "intergenerational responsibility" was cited in a case in Bangladesh.

[1]The United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP) considers Oposa vs. Factoran a landmark case in judicial thinking for environmental governance.

[2]In the book Public Health Law and Ethics by Larry O. Gostin, Oposa vs. Factoran is cited as a significant example of the justiciability of the right to health.

[3] In the book The Law of Energy for Sustainable Development by the IUCN Academy of Environmental Law Research Studies, a study cites Oposa vs. Factoran as basis for asserting that the right to breathe is part of the right to life as an acknowledged human right.

[4] Oposa et al. v. Fulgencio S. Factoran, Jr. et al (G.R.No. 101083) Nature of the case

Class action seeking the cancellation and non-issuance of timber licence agreements which allegedly infringed the constitutional right to a balanced and healthful ecology (Section 16); non-impairment of contracts; Environmental law; judicial review and the political question doctrine; inter-generational responsibility; Remedial law: cause of action and standing; Directive principles; Negative obligation on State

Summary

An action was filed by several minors represented b ytheir parents against the Department of Environment and Natural Resources to cancel existing timber license agreements in the country and to stop issuance of new ones. It was claimed

that the resultant deforestation and damage to the environment violated their constitutional rights to a balanced and healthful ecology and to health(Sections 16 and 15, Article II of the Constitution). The petitioners asserted that they represented others of their generation as well as generations yet unborn. Finding for the petitioners, the Court stated that even though the right to a balanced and healthful ecology isunder the Declaration of Principles and State Policies of the Constitution and not under the Bill of Rights, it doesnot follow that it is less important than any of the rights enumerated in the latter:

“[it] concerns nothing less than self-preservation and self-perpetuation, the advancement of which may even be said to predate all governments and constitutions”.

The right is linked to 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.”

Significance of the case

This case has been widely-cited in jurisprudence worldwide, particularly in cases relating to forest/timber licensing. However, the approach of the Philippino Supreme Court to economic, social and cultural rights has proved somewhat inconsistent, with some judgments resulting in the enforcement of such rights (e.g., Del Rosario v Bangzon, 180 SCRA 521 (1989);

Manila Prince Hotel v Government Service Insurance System

, G. R. No.122156 (3 February, 1997) but at least one instance in which the Court made a statement that economic, social and cultural rights are not real rights (see, Brigido Simon v Commission on Human Rights ,G. R. No. 100150, 5 January 1994).

G.R. No.s 171947-48 Case Digest

G.R. No.s 171947-48, December 18, 2008

Concerned Citizens

vs MMDA

Ponente: Velasco

Facts:

January 29, 1999, concerned residents of Manila Bay filed a complaint before the RTC Imus, Cavite against several government agencies for the clean-up, rehabilitation and protection of the Manila Bay/ The complaint alleged that the water quality of Manila Bay is no longer within the allowable standards set by law (esp. PD 1152, Philippine environment Code).

DENR testified for the petitioners and reported that the samples collected from the beaches around Manila Bay is beyond the safe level for bathing standard of the DENR. MWSS testified also about MWSS efforts to reduce pollution along the bay. Philippine Ports Authority presented as evidence its Memorandum Circulars on the study on ship-generated waste treatment and disposal as its Linis Dagat project.

RTC ordered petitioners to Clean up and rehabilitate Manila Bay.

The petitioners appealed arguing that the Environment Code relate only to the cleaning of the specific pollution incidents and do not cover cleaning in general. Raising the concerns of lack of funds appropriated for cleaning, and asserting that the cleaning of the bay is not a ministerial act which can be compelled by mandamus.

CA sustained the RTC stressing that RTC did not require the agencies to do tasks outside of their usual basic functions.

Issue:

(1) Whether PD 1152 relate only to the cleaning of specific pollution incidents.

(2) Whether the cleaning or rehabilitation of the Manila Bay is not ministerial act of petitioners that can be compelled by mandamus.

Held:

(1) The cleaning of the Manila bay can be compelled by mandamus.

Petitioners’ obligation to perform their duties as defined by law, on one hand, and how they are to carry out such duties, on the other, are two different concepts. While the implementation of the MMDA’s mandated tasks may entail a decision-making process, the enforcement of the law or the very act of doing what the law exacts to be done is ministerial in nature and may be compelled by mandamus.

The MMDA’s duty in the area of solid waste disposal, as may be noted, is set forth not only in the Environment Code (PD 1152) and RA 9003, but in its charter as well. This duty of putting up a proper waste disposal system cannot be characterized as discretionary, for, as earlier stated; discretion presupposes the power or right given by law to public functionaries to act officially according to their judgment or conscience.

(2) Secs. 17 and 20 of the Environment Code

Include Cleaning in General

The disputed sections are quoted as follows:

Section 17. Upgrading of Water Quality.––Where the quality of water has deteriorated to a degree where its state will adversely affect its best usage, the government agencies concerned shall take such measures as may be necessary to upgrade the quality of such water to meet the prescribed water quality standards.

Section 20. Clean-up Operations.––It shall be the responsibility of the polluter to contain, remove and clean-up water pollution incidents at his own expense. In case of his failure to do so, the government agencies concerned shall undertake containment, removal and clean-up operations and expenses incurred in said operations shall be charged against the persons and/or entities responsible for such pollution.

Sec. 17 does not in any way state that the government agencies concerned ought to confine themselves to the containment, removal, and cleaning operations when a specific pollution incident occurs. On the contrary, Sec. 17 requires them to act even in the absence of a specific pollution incident, as long as water quality “has deteriorated to a

degree where its state will adversely affect its best usage.” This section, to stress, commands concerned government agencies, when appropriate, “to take such measures as may be necessary to meet the prescribed water quality standards.” In fine, the underlying duty to upgrade the quality of water is not conditional on the occurrence of any pollution incident.

Note:

- The writ of mandamus lies to require the execution of a ministerial duty. Ministerial duty is one that requires neither official discretion nor judgment.

Cruz vs DENR, G.R. No. 135385, December 6, 2000Isagani Cruz v. Dept. of Energy and Natural Resources, G.R. No. 135385, December 6, 2000

FACTS: Cruz, a noted constitutionalist, assailed the validity of the RA 8371 or the Indigenous People’s Rights Act on the ground that the law amount to an unlawful deprivation of the State’s ownership over lands of the public domain as well as minerals and other natural resources therein, in violation of the regalian doctrine embodied in Section 2, Article XII of the Constitution. The IPRA law basically enumerates the rights of the indigenous peoples over ancestral domains which may include natural resources. Cruz et al content that, by providing for an all-encompassing definition of “ancestral domains” and “ancestral lands” which might even include private lands found within said areas, Sections 3(a) and 3(b) of said law violate the rights of private landowners.

ISSUE: Whether or not the IPRA law is unconstitutional.

HELD: The SC deliberated upon the matter. After deliberation they voted and reached a 7-7 vote. They deliberated again and the same result transpired. Since there was no majority vote, Cruz’s petition was dismissed and the IPRA law was sustained. Hence, ancestral domains may include natural resources – somehow against the regalian doctrine.