WHAT IS THE CONCEPT OF JURE REGALIA? WHAT IS THE CONCEPT OF JURE REGALIA?
(REGALIAN DOCTRINE) (REGALIAN DOCTRINE)
> Generally, under this concept, private title to land must be traced to some grant, express or implied, from the Spanish > Generally, under this concept, private title to land must be traced to some grant, express or implied, from the Spanish Crown or its
Crown or its successors, the American Colonial Government, and thereafter, the Philippine Republicsuccessors, the American Colonial Government, and thereafter, the Philippine Republic
> n a broad sense, the term refers to royal rights, or those rights to which the !ing has
> n a broad sense, the term refers to royal rights, or those rights to which the !ing has by virtue of his prerogativesby virtue of his prerogatives
> "he theory of #ure
> "he theory of #ure regalia was therefore nothing more than a regalia was therefore nothing more than a natural fruit of con$uestnatural fruit of con$uest CONNECTED TO THIS IS THE STATE’S POWER OF DOMINUUM
CONNECTED TO THIS IS THE STATE’S POWER OF DOMINUUM
> Capacity of the state to own or ac$uire property%foundation for the early Spanish decree embracing the feudal theory > Capacity of the state to own or ac$uire property%foundation for the early Spanish decree embracing the feudal theory of #ura regalia
of #ura regalia
> "his concept was first introduced through the
> "his concept was first introduced through the &aws of the ndies &aws of the ndies and the Royal Cedulasand the Royal Cedulas
>
> "he Philip"he Philippines passed to pines passed to SpaiSpain n by by virtvirtue ue of discovery and of discovery and con$uecon$uest' Conse$uest' Conse$uentlyntly, all , all lands became the lands became the exclexclusiveusive patrimony and dominion of the Spanish
patrimony and dominion of the Spanish Crown'Crown'
> "he &aw of the ndies was followed by the &ey (ipotecaria or the )ortgage &aw of *+-' "his law provided for the > "he &aw of the ndies was followed by the &ey (ipotecaria or the )ortgage &aw of *+-' "his law provided for the systematic registration of titles and deeds as well as
systematic registration of titles and deeds as well as possessory claimspossessory claims
> "he )aura &aw. was partly an amendment and was the last Spanish land law promulgated in the Philippines, which > "he )aura &aw. was partly an amendment and was the last Spanish land law promulgated in the Philippines, which re$uired the ad#ustment or registration of all agricultural lands, otherwise the lands
re$uired the ad#ustment or registration of all agricultural lands, otherwise the lands shall revert to the Stateshall revert to the State
"A!/ 01"/ "(A" "(/ R/GA&A0 21C"R0/ S /0S(R0/2 0 13R PR/S/0" A02 PAS" C10S""3"10S "(/ "A!/ 01"/ "(A" "(/ R/GA&A0 21C"R0/ S /0S(R0/2 0 13R PR/S/0" A02 PAS" C10S""3"10S "(/ *+4 C10S""3"10 PR152/S 302/R 0A"10A& /C101)6 A02 PA"R)106 "(/ 71&&180G%
*+4 C10S""3"10 PR152/S 302/R 0A"10A& /C101)6 A02 PA"R)106 "(/ 71&&180G%
> 9 Section :' All lands of the public domain, waters, minerals, coal, petroleum, and other mineral oils, all forces of > 9 Section :' All lands of the public domain, waters, minerals, coal, petroleum, and other mineral oils, all forces of potential energy, fi
potential energy, fisheries, forests or timber, wildlisheries, forests or timber, wildlife, flora and fe, flora and fauna, and other natural resources fauna, and other natural resources are owned by the are owned by the State'State' 8ith the exception of agricultural lands, all other natural resources shall not be alienated' "he exploration, development, 8ith the exception of agricultural lands, all other natural resources shall not be alienated' "he exploration, development, and utili;ation of natural resources shall be under the full control and supervision of the State' "he State may directly and utili;ation of natural resources shall be under the full control and supervision of the State' "he State may directly underta<e such activities, or it may enter into co=production, #oint venture, or production=sharing agreements with 7ilipino underta<e such activities, or it may enter into co=production, #oint venture, or production=sharing agreements with 7ilipino citi;ens, or corporations or associations at least sixty per centum of whose capital is owned by such citi;ens' Such citi;ens, or corporations or associations at least sixty per centum of whose capital is owned by such citi;ens' Such agreements may be for a period not exceeding twenty=five years, renewable for not more than twenty=five years, and agreements may be for a period not exceeding twenty=five years, renewable for not more than twenty=five years, and under such terms and
under such terms and conditions as may be conditions as may be provided by law' n cases of water rights provided by law' n cases of water rights for irrigation, water supply fisheries,for irrigation, water supply fisheries, or industrial uses other than the
or industrial uses other than the development of water power, beneficial use may be the measure adevelopment of water power, beneficial use may be the measure a nd limit of the grant'nd limit of the grant'
> "he abovementioned provision provides that except for agricultural lands for public domain which alone may be > "he abovementioned provision provides that except for agricultural lands for public domain which alone may be alienated, forest or timber, and mineral lands, as well as all other natural resources must remain with the State, the alienated, forest or timber, and mineral lands, as well as all other natural resources must remain with the State, the
exploration, development and utili;ation of which shall be sub#ect to its full control and supervision albeit allowing it to exploration, development and utili;ation of which shall be sub#ect to its full control and supervision albeit allowing it to ent
enter er intinto o copcoprodroductuctionion, , #oi#oint nt venventurture e or or proproducductiotion=sn=sharharing ing agragreemeementents, s, or or intinto o agragreemeementents s wiwith th forforeigeign=own=ownedned corporations involving technical or financial assistance
corporations involving technical or financial assistance for large=scale exploration, development, and utili;ationfor large=scale exploration, development, and utili;ation "(/ *+4 PR15S10 (A2 "S R11"S 0 "(/ *-? C10S""3"10
"(/ *+4 PR15S10 (A2 "S R11"S 0 "(/ *-? C10S""3"10
8(C( PR152/S% 8(C( PR152/S%
> Section *' All agricultural timber, and mineral lands of the public domain, waters, minerals, coal, petroleum, and other > Section *' All agricultural timber, and mineral lands of the public domain, waters, minerals, coal, petroleum, and other mine
mineral oils, all ral oils, all forcforces of es of potenpotential energy and tial energy and other naturaother natural l resoresources of urces of the Philippthe Philippines belong to ines belong to the State, and the State, and their their disposition, exploitation, development, or utili;ation shall be limited to citi;ens of the Philippines or to corporations or disposition, exploitation, development, or utili;ation shall be limited to citi;ens of the Philippines or to corporations or associations at least sixty per centum of the cap
associations at least sixty per centum of the cap ital of which is owned by such ital of which is owned by such citi;ens, sub#ect to any existing right, grant,citi;ens, sub#ect to any existing right, grant, lease, or concession at the time of the inauguration of the Government established under this Constitution' 0atural lease, or concession at the time of the inauguration of the Government established under this Constitution' 0atural resources, with the exception of public agricultural land, shall not be alienated, and no license, concession, or lease for resources, with the exception of public agricultural land, shall not be alienated, and no license, concession, or lease for the exploitation, development, or utili;ation of any of the
the exploitation, development, or utili;ation of any of the natural resources shall be granted for natural resources shall be granted for a period exceeding twenty=a period exceeding twenty= fi
fivve e yyeaearrs, s, rrenenewewabablle e ffor or ananototheher r ttwwenentty=y=fifivve e yyeaearrs, s, exexcecept pt as as tto o wawatter er rrigighthts s ffor or irirrrigigatatioion, n, wwatater er supply, fisheries, or industrial uses other than the development of water power, in which cases beneficial use may be the supply, fisheries, or industrial uses other than the development of water power, in which cases beneficial use may be the measure and limit of the grant'
measure and limit of the grant'
"(/ *4- C10S""3"10 R/"/RA"/2 "(/ R/GA&A0 21C"R0/ "(/ *4- C10S""3"10 R/"/RA"/2 "(/ R/GA&A0 21C"R0/
AS 71&&1 AS 71&&18S8S
> Section +' All lands of public domain, waters, minerals, coal, petroleum and other mineral oils, all forces of potential > Section +' All lands of public domain, waters, minerals, coal, petroleum and other mineral oils, all forces of potential energy, fisheries, wildlife, and other natural resources of the Philippines belong to the State' 8ith the exception of energy, fisheries, wildlife, and other natural resources of the Philippines belong to the State' 8ith the exception of agricultural, industrial or commercial, residential, or resettlement lands of the public domain, natural
agricultural, industrial or commercial, residential, or resettlement lands of the public domain, natural resources shall not beresources shall not be alienated, and no license, concession, or lease for the exploration, or utili;ation of any of the natural resources shall be alienated, and no license, concession, or lease for the exploration, or utili;ation of any of the natural resources shall be granted for a period exceeding twentyfive years, except as to water rights for irrigation, water supply, fisheries, or granted for a period exceeding twentyfive years, except as to water rights for irrigation, water supply, fisheries, or industrial uses other than development of water power, in which cases, beneficial use may by the
industrial uses other than development of water power, in which cases, beneficial use may by the measure and the limit of measure and the limit of the grant'
the grant'
"(/ R/GA&A0 21C"R0/ 21/S0@" 0/GA"/ 0A"5/ ""&/' "(S S 0 P3RS3A0C/ "1 8(A" (AS //0 (/&2 "(/ R/GA&A0 21C"R0/ 21/S0@" 0/GA"/ 0A"5/ ""&/' "(S S 0 P3RS3A0C/ "1 8(A" (AS //0 (/&2 0 CR3B
0 CR3B 5' S/CR/"5' S/CR/"AR6 17 /05R10)/0" A02 0A"3RA& R/S13RC/SAR6 17 /05R10)/0" A02 0A"3RA& R/S13RC/S
> Petitioners challenged the constitutionality of ndigenous Peoples Rights Act on the ground that it amounts to an > Petitioners challenged the constitutionality of ndigenous Peoples Rights Act on the ground that it amounts to an unlawful deprivation of the States ownership over lands of the public domain and all other natural resources therein, by unlawful deprivation of the States ownership over lands of the public domain and all other natural resources therein, by recogni;ing the right of ownership of CC
recogni;ing the right of ownership of CC or Ps to their ancestral domains and or Ps to their ancestral domains and ancestral lands on the basis ancestral lands on the basis of native title'of native title'
> As the votes were e$ually divided, the necessary ma#ority wasnt obtained and petition was dismissed and the laws > As the votes were e$ually divided, the necessary ma#ority wasnt obtained and petition was dismissed and the laws validity was upheld
validity was upheld
>
> Justice Justice K!u""K!u""## RegRegalialian an thetheory ory doedoesnsnt t negnegate ate the the natnative ive tittitle le to to lanlands ds helheld d in in priprivatvate e ownownersership hip sinsince ce titimeme immemorial, adverting to the landmar< case of CAR01 5' &1CA& G15/R0)/0", where the 3S SC through (olmes immemorial, adverting to the landmar< case of CAR01 5' &1CA& G15/R0)/0", where the 3S SC through (olmes held. 9xxx the land has been
held. 9xxx the land has been held by individuals under a claim of private ownership, it will be presumed to haheld by individuals under a claim of private ownership, it will be presumed to ha ve been heldve been held in the same way from before the Spanish con$uest, and never to have been public land'
in the same way from before the Spanish con$uest, and never to have been public land'
> /xistence of native titie to land, or ownership of land by 7ilipinos by virtue of possession under a claim of ownership > /xistence of native titie to land, or ownership of land by 7ilipinos by virtue of possession under a claim of ownership since time immemorial and independent of any grant from the Spanish crown as an exception to the theory of #ure regalia since time immemorial and independent of any grant from the Spanish crown as an exception to the theory of #ure regalia
> Justice Pu"$. Carino case firmly established a concept of private land title that existed irrespective of any royal grant from the State and was based on the strong mandate extended to the slands via the Philippine ill of *D:' "he PRA recogni;es the existence of CCsEPs as a distinct sector in the society' t grants this people the ownership and possession of their ancestral domains and ancestral lands and defines the extent of these lands and domains
> Justice %itu&# Carino cannot override the collective will of the people expressed in the Constitution'
> Justice P"&"i'". all 7ilipinos, whether indigenous or not, are sub#ect to the Constitution, and that no one is exempt from its all encompassing provisions
REGALIAN DOCTRINE
ut first, a pee< at the Regalian principle and the power of the executive to reclassify lands of the public domain' "he *-? Constitution classified lands of the public domain into agricultural, forest or timber'FDH )eanwhile, the *4-Constitution provided the following divisions. agricultural, industrial or commercial, residential, resettlement, mineral, timber or forest and gra;ing lands, and such other classes as may be provided by law,F*H giving the government great leeway for classification'F:H "hen the *+4 Constitution reverted to the *-? Constitution classification with one addition. national par<s'F-H 1f these, only agricultural lands may be alienated'FH Prior to Proclamation 0o' *DI of )ay ::, :DDI, oracay sland had never been expressly and administratively classified under any of these grand divisions' oracay was an unclassified land of the public domain'
"he Regalian 2octrine dictates that all lands of the public domain belong to the State, that the State is the source of any asserted right to ownership of land and charged with the conservation of such patrimony'F?H "he doctrine has been consistently adopted under the *-?, *4-, and *+4 Constitutions'FIH
All lands not otherwise appearing to be clearly within private ownership are presumed to belong to the State'F4H "hus, all lands that have not been ac$uired from the government, either by purchase or by grant, belong to the State as part of the inalienable public domain'F+H 0ecessarily, it is up to the State to determine if lands of the public domain will be disposed of for private ownership' "he government, as the agent of the state, is possessed of the plenary power as the persona in law to determine who shall be the favored recipients of public lands, as well as under what terms they may be granted such privilege, not excluding the placing of obstacles in the way of their exercise of what otherwise would be ordinary acts of ownership'FH
1ur present land law traces its roots to the Regalian 2octrine' 3pon the Spanish con$uest of the Philippines, ownership of all lands, territories and possessions in the Philippines passed to the Spanish Crown'F?DH "he Regalian doctrine was first introduced in the Philippines through the &aws of the ndies and the Royal Cedulas, which laid the foundation that 9all lands that were not ac$uired from the Government, either by purchase or by grant, belong to the public domain'F?*H "he &aws of the ndies was followed by the &ey (ipotecaria or the )ortgage &aw of *+-' "he Spanish )ortgage &aw provided for the systematic registration of titles and deeds as well as possessory claims'F?:H
"he Royal 2ecree of *+ or the )aura &awF?-H partly amended the Spanish )ortgage &aw and the &aws of the ndies' t established possessory information as the method of legali;ing possession of vacant Crown land, under certain conditions which were set forth in said decree'F?H 3nder Section -- of the )aura &aw, an informacion posesoria or possessory information title,F??H when duly inscribed in the Registry of Property, is converted into a title of ownership only after the lapse of twenty J:DK years of uninterrupted possession which must be actual, public, and adverse,F?IH from the date of its inscription'F?4H (owever, possessory information title had to be perfected one year after the promulgation of the )aura &aw, or until April *4, *+?' 1therwise, the lands would revert to the State'F?+H
n sum, private ownership of land under the Spanish regime could only be founded on royal concessions which too< various forms, namely. J*K titulo real or royal grantL J:K concesion especial or special grantL J-K composicion con el estado or ad#ustment titleL JK titulo de compra or title by purchaseL and J?K informacion posesoria or possessory information title' F?H
"he first law governing the disposition of public lands in the Philippines under American rule was embodied in the Philippine ill of *D:'FIDH y this law, lands of the public domain in the Philippine slands were classified into three J-K grand divisions, to wit. agricultural, mineral, and timber or forest lands'FI*H "he act provided for, among others, the disposal of mineral lands by means of absolute grant Jfreehold systemK and by lease Jleasehold systemK'FI:H t also
provided the definition by exclusion of 9agricultural public lands'FI-H nterpreting the meaning of 9agricultural lands under the Philippine ill of *D:, the Court declared in )apa v' nsular Government.FIH
x x x n other words, that the phrase 9agricultural land as used in Act 0o' :I means those public lands ac$uired from Spain which are not timber or mineral lands' x x xFI?H J/mphasis 1ursK
1n 7ebruary *, *D-, the Philippine &egislature passed Act 0o' I, otherwise <nown as the &and Registration Act' "he act established a system of registration by which recorded title becomes absolute, indefeasible, and imprescriptible' "his is <nown as the "orrens system'FIIH
Concurrently, on 1ctober 4, *D-, the Philippine Commission passed Act 0o' :I, which was the first Public &and Act' "he Act introduced the homestead system and made provisions for #udicial and administrative confirmation of imperfect titles and for the sale or lease of public lands' t permitted corporations regardless of the nationality of persons owning the controlling stoc< to lease or purchase lands of the public domain'FI4H 3nder the Act, open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession and occupation of agricultural lands for the next ten J*DK years preceding Muly :I, *D was sufficient for #udicial confirmation of imperfect title'FI+H
1n 0ovember :, **, Act 0o' :I was superseded by Act 0o' :+4, otherwise <nown as the second Public &and Act' "his new, more comprehensive law limited the exploitation of agricultural lands to 7ilipinos and Americans and citi;ens of other countries which gave 7ilipinos the same privileges' 7or #udicial confirmation of title, possession and occupation en concepto dueNo since time immemorial, or since Muly :I, *+, was re$uired'FIH
After the passage of the *-? Constitution, CA 0o' ** amended Act 0o' :+4 on 2ecember *, *-I' "o this day, CA 0o' **, as amended, remains as the existing general law governing the classification and disposition of lands of the public domain other than timber and mineral lands,F4DH and privately owned lands which reverted to the State'F4*H
Section +JbK of CA 0o' ** retained the re$uirement under Act 0o' :+4 of possession and occupation of lands of the public domain since time immemorial or since Muly :I, *+' (owever, this provision was superseded by Republic Act JRAK 0o' *:,F4:H which provided for a simple thirty=year prescriptive period for #udicial confirmation of imperfect title' "he provision was last amended by P2 0o' *D4-,F4-H which now provides for possession and occupation of the land applied for since Mune *:, *?, or earlier'F4H
"he issuance of P2 0o' +:F4?H on 7ebruary *I, *4I discontinued the use of Spanish titles as evidence in land registration proceedings'F4IH 3nder the decree, all holders of Spanish titles or grants should apply for registration of their lands under Act 0o' I within six JIK months from the effectivity of the decree on 7ebruary *I, *4I' "hereafter, the recording of all unregistered landsF44H shall be governed by Section * of the Revised Administrative Code, as amended by Act 0o' --'
1n Mune **, *4+, Act 0o' I was amended and updated by P2 0o' *?:, <nown as the Property Registration 2ecree' t was enacted to codify the various laws relative to registration of property'F4+H t governs registration of lands under the "orrens system as well as unregistered lands, including chattel mortgages'F4H
A positive act declaring land as alienable and disposable is re$uired' n <eeping with the presumption of State ownership, the Court has time and again emphasi;ed that there must be a positive act of the government, such as an official proclamation,F+DH declassifying inalienable public land into disposable land for agricultural or other purposes'F+*H n fact, Section + of CA 0o' ** limits alienable or disposable lands only to those lands which have been 9officially delimited and classified'F+:H
"he burden of proof in overcoming the presumption of State ownership of the lands of the public domain is on the person applying for registration Jor claiming ownershipK, who must prove that the land sub#ect of the application is alienable or disposable'F+-H "o overcome this presumption, incontrovertible evidence must be established that the land sub#ect of the application Jor claimK is alienable or disposable'F+H "here must still be a positive act declaring land of the public domain as alienable and disposable' "o prove that the land sub#ect of an application for registration is alienable, the applicant must establish the existence of a positive act of the government such as a presidential proclamation or an executive orderL an administrative actionL investigation reports of ureau of &ands investigatorsL and a legislative act or a statute' F+?H "he applicant may also secure a certification from the government that the land claimed to have been possessed for the re$uired number of years is alienable and disposable'F+IH
Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT
)anila /0 A0C
GR N$ **+, Ju-. ,*/ 00,
JUAN ANTONIO/ ANNA ROSARIO "1 JOSE ALFONSO/ -- su2"3e1 OPOSA/ 3i"$2s/ "1 2e!2ese"te1 '. t4ei2 !2e"ts ANTONIO "1 RI5ALINA OPOSA/ RO6ERTA NICOLE SADIUA/ 3i"$2/ 2e!2ese"te1 '. 4e2 !2e"ts CAL%IN "1 RO6ERTA SADIUA/ CARLO/ AMANDA SALUD "1 PATRISHA/ -- su2"3e1 FLORES/ 3i"$2s "1 2e!2ese"te1 '. t4ei2 !2e"ts ENRICO "1 NIDA FLORES/ GIANINA DITA R FORTUN/ 3i"$2/ 2e!2ese"te1 '. 4e2 !2e"ts SIGRID "1 DOLORES FORTUN/ GEORGE II "1 MA CONCEPCION/ -- su2"3e1 MISA/ 3i"$2s "1 2e!2ese"te1 '. t4ei2 !2e"ts GEORGE "1 M7RA MISA/ 6ENJAMIN ALAN % PESIGAN/ 3i"$2/ 2e!2ese"te1 '. 4is !2e"ts ANTONIO "1 ALICE PESIGAN/ JO%IE MARIE ALFARO/ 3i"$2/ 2e!2ese"te1 '. 4e2 !2e"ts JOSE "1 MARIA %IOLETA ALFARO/ MARIA CONCEPCION T CASTRO/ 3i"$2/ 2e!2ese"te1 '. 4e2 !2e"ts FREDENIL "1
JANE CASTRO/ JOHANNA DESAMPARADO/
3i"$2/ 2e!2ese"te1 '. 4e2 !2e"ts JOSE "1 ANGELA DESAMPRADO/ CARLO JOA8UIN T NAR%ASA/ 3i"$2/ 2e!2ese"te1 '. 4is !2e"ts GREGORIO II "1 CRISTINE CHARIT7 NAR%ASA/ MA MARGARITA/ JESUS IGNACIO/ MA ANGELA "1 MARIE GA6RIELLE/ -- su2"3e1 SAEN5/ 3i"$2s/ 2e!2ese"te1 '. t4ei2 !2e"ts RO6ERTO "1 AURORA SAEN5/ KRISTINE/ MAR7 ELLEN/ MA7/ GOLDA MARTHE "1 DA%ID IAN/ -- su2"3e1 KING/ 3i"$2s/ 2e!2ese"te1 '. t4ei2 !2e"ts MARIO "1 HA7DEE KING/ DA%ID/ FRANCISCO "1 THERESE %ICTORIA/ --su2"3e1 ENDRIGA/ 3i"$2s/ 2e!2ese"te1 '. t4ei2 !2e"ts 6ALTA5AR "1 TERESITA ENDRIGA/ JOSE MA "1 REGINA MA/ -- su2"3e1 A6A7A/ 3i"$2s/ 2e!2ese"te1 '. t4ei2 !2e"ts ANTONIO "1 MARICA A6A7A/ MARILIN/ MARIO/ JR "1 MARIETTE/ -- su2"3e1 CARDAMA/ 3i"$2s/ 2e!2ese"te1 '. t4ei2 !2e"ts MARIO "1 LINA CARDAMA/ CLARISSA/ ANN MARIE/ NAGEL/ "1 IMEE L7N/ -- su2"3e1 OPOSA/ 3i"$2s "1 2e!2ese"te1 '. t4ei2 !2e"ts RICARDO "1 MARISSA OPOSA/ PHILIP JOSEPH/ STEPHEN JOHN "1 ISAIAH JAMES/ --su2"3e1 8UIPIT/ 3i"$2s/ 2e!2ese"te1 '. t4ei2 !2e"ts JOSE MA9 "1 %ILMI 8UIPIT/ 6UGHAW CIELO/ CRISANTO/ ANNA/ DANIEL "1 FRANCISCO/ -- su2"3e1 6I6AL/ 3i"$2s/ 2e!2ese"te1 '. t4ei2 !2e"ts FRANCISCO/ JR "1 MILAGROS 6I6AL/ "1 THE PHILIPPINE ECOLOGICAL NETWORK/ INC/ petitioners, vs'
THE HONORA6LE FULGENCIO S FACTORAN/ JR/ i" 4is c!cit. s t4e Sec2et2. $: t4e De!2t3e"t $: E";i2$"3e"t "1 Ntu2- Res$u2ces/ "1 THE HONORA6LE ERI6ERTO U ROSARIO/ P2esi1i"& Ju1&e $: t4e RTC/ M<ti/ 62"c4 ==/ respondents'
Oposa Law Office for petitioners. The Solicitor General for respondents.
DA%IDE/ JR/ J.:
n a broader sense, this petition bears upon the right of 7ilipinos to a balanced and healthful ecology which the petitioners dramatically associate with the twin concepts of Ointer=generational responsibilityO and Ointer=generational #ustice'O Specifically, it touches on the issue of whether the said petitioners have a cause of action to Oprevent the misappropriation or impairmentO of Philippine rainforests and Oarrest the unabated hemorrhage of the country@s vital life support systems and continued rape of )other /arth'O
"he controversy has its genesis in Civil Case 0o' D=44 which was filed before ranch II J)a<ati, )etro )anilaK of the Regional "rial Court JR"CK, 0ational Capital Mudicial Region' "he principal plaintiffs therein, now the principal petitioners, are all minors duly represented and #oined by their respective parents' mpleaded as an additional plaintiff is the Philippine
/cological 0etwor<, nc' JP/0K, a domestic, non=stoc< and non=profit corporation organi;ed for the purpose of, inter alia, engaging in concerted action geared for the protection of our environment and natural resources' "he original defendant was the (onorable 7ulgencio S' 7actoran, Mr', then Secretary of the 2epartment of /nvironment and 0atural Resources J2/0RK' (is substitution in this petition by the new Secretary, the (onorable Angel C' Alcala, was subse$uently ordered upon proper motion by the petitioners'
"he complaint >
was instituted as a taxpayers@ class suit ,
and alleges that the plaintiffs Oare all citi;ens of the Republic of the Philippines, taxpayers, and entitled to the full benefit, use a nd en#oyment of the natural resource treasure that is the country@s virgin tropical forests'O "he same was filed for themselves and others who are e$ually concerned about the preservation of said resource but are Oso numerous that it is impracticable to bring them all before the Court'O "he minors further asseverate that they Orepresent their generation as well as generations yet unborn'O Conse$uently, it is prayed for that #udgment be rendered.
' ' ' ordering defendant, his agents, representatives and other persons acting in his behalf to % J*K Cancel all existing timber license agreements in the countryL
J:K Cease and desist from receiving, accepting, processing, renewing or approving new timber license agreements'
and granting the plaintiffs O' ' ' such other reliefs #ust and e$uitable under the premises'O @
"he complaint starts off with the general averments that the Philippine archipelago of 4,*DD islands has a land area of thirty million J-D,DDD,DDDK hectares and is endowed with rich, lush and verdant rainforests in which varied, rare and uni$ue species of flora and fauna may be foundL these rainforests contain a genetic, biological and chemical pool which is irreplaceableL they are also the habitat of indigenous Philippine cultures which have existed, endured and flourished since time immemorialL scientific evidence reveals that in order to maintain a balanced and healthful ecology, the country@s land area should be utili;ed on the basis of a ratio of fifty=four per cent J?K for forest cover and forty=six per cent JIK for agricultural, residential, industrial, commercial and other usesL the distortion and disturbance of this balance as a conse$uence of deforestation have resulted in a host of environmental tragedies, such as JaK water shortages resulting from drying up of the water table, otherwise <nown as the Oa$uifer,O as well as of rivers, broo<s and streams, JbK salini;ation of the water table as a result of the intrusion therein of salt water, incontrovertible examples of which may be found in the island of Cebu and the )unicipality of acoor, Cavite, JcK massive erosion and the conse$uential loss of soil fertility and agricultural productivity, with the volume of soil eroded estimated at one billion J*,DDD,DDD,DDDK cubic meters per annum % approximately the si;e of the entire island of Catanduanes, JdK the endangering and extinction of the country@s uni$ue, rare and varied flora and fauna, JeK the disturbance and dislocation of cultural communities, including the disappearance of the 7ilipino@s indigenous cultures, JfK the siltation of rivers and seabeds and conse$uential destruction of corals and other a$uatic life leading to a critical reduction in marine resource productivity, JgK recurrent spells of drought as is presently experienced by the entire country, JhK increasing velocity of typhoon winds which result from the absence of windbrea<ers, JiK the floodings of lowlands and agricultural plains arising from the absence of the absorbent mechanism of forests, J#K the siltation and shortening of the lifespan of multi=billion peso dams constructed and operated for the purpose of supplying water for domestic uses, irrigation and the generation of electric power, and J<K the reduction of the earth@s capacity to process carbon dioxide gases which has led to perplexing and catastrophic climatic changes such as the phenomenon of global warming, otherwise <nown as the Ogreenhouse effect'O
Plaintiffs further assert that the adverse and detrimental conse$uences of continued and deforestation are so capable of un$uestionable demonstration that the same may be submitted as a matter of #udicial notice' "his notwithstanding, they expressed their intention to present expert witnesses as well as documentary, photographic and film evidence in the course of the trial'
As their cause of action, they specifically allege that. CAUSE OF ACTION
+' "wenty=five J:?K years ago, the Philippines had some sixteen J*IK million hectares of rainforests constituting roughly ?- of the country@s land mass'
' Satellite images ta<en in *+4 reveal that there remained no more than *': million hectares of said rainforests or four per cent J'DK of the country@s land area'
*D' )ore recent surveys reveal that a mere +?D,DDD hectares of virgin old=growth rainforests are left, barely :'+ of the entire land mass of the Philippine archipelago and about -'D million hectares of immature and uneconomical secondary growth forests'
**' Public records reveal that the defendant@s, predecessors have granted timber license agreements J@"&A@s@K to various corporations to cut the aggregate area of -'+ million hectares for commercial logging purposes'
A copy of the "&A holders and the corresponding areas covered is hereto attached as Annex OAO'
*:' At the present rate of deforestation, i.e. about :DD,DDD hectares per annum or :? hectares per hour % nighttime, Saturdays, Sundays and holidays included % the Philippines will be bereft of forest resources after the end of this ensuing decade, if not earlier'
*-' "he adverse effects, disastrous conse$uences, serious in#ury and irreparable damage of this continued trend of deforestation to the plaintiff minor@s generation and to generations yet unborn are evident and incontrovertible' As a matter of fact, the environmental damages enumerated in paragraph I hereof are already being felt, e xperienced and suffered by the generation of plaintiff adults'
*' "he continued allowance by defendant of "&A holders to cut and deforest the remaining forest stands will wor< great damage and irreparable in#ury to plaintiffs % especially plaintiff minors and their successors % who may never see, use, benefit from and en#oy this rare and uni$ue natural resource treasure'
"his act of defendant constitutes a misappropriation andEor impairment of the natural resource property he holds in trust for the benefit of plaintiff minors and succeeding generations'
*?' Plaintiffs have a clear and constitutional right to a balanced and healthful ecology and are entitled to protection by the State in its capacity as the parens patriae'
*I' Plaintiff have exhausted all administrative remedies with the defendant@s office' 1n )arch :, *D, plaintiffs served upon defendant a final demand to cancel all logging permits in the country'
A copy of the plaintiffs@ letter dated )arch *, *D is hereto attached as Annex OO'
*4' 2efendant, however, fails and refuses to cancel the existing "&A@s to the continuing serious damage and extreme pre#udice of plaintiffs'
*+' "he continued failure and refusal by defendant to cancel the "&A@s is an act violative of the rights of plaintiffs, especially plaintiff minors who may be left with a country that is desertified J sic K, bare, barren and devoid of the wonderful flora, fauna and indigenous cultures which the Philippines had been abundantly blessed with'
*' 2efendant@s refusal to cancel the aforementioned "&A@s is manifestly contrary to the public policy enunciated in the Philippine /nvironmental Policy which, in pertinent part, states that it is the policy of the State %
JaK to create, develop, maintain and improve conditions under which man and nature can thrive in productive and en#oyable harmony with each otherL
JbK to fulfill the social, economic and other re$uirements of present and future generations of 7ilipinos andL
JcK to ensure the attainment of an environmental $uality that is conductive to a life of dignity and well= being' JP'2' **?*, I Mune *44K
:D' 7urthermore, defendant@s continued refusal to cancel the aforementioned "&A@s is contradictory to the Constitutional policy of the State to %
a' effect Oa more e$uitable distribution of opportunities, income and wealthO and Oma<e full and efficient use of natural resources Jsic K'O JSection *, Article Q of the ConstitutionKL
b' Oprotect the nation@s marine wealth'O JSection :, ibid KL
c' Oconserve and promote the nation@s cultural heritage and resources JsicKO JSection *, Article Q5,id 'KL d' Oprotect and advance the right of the people to a balanced and healthful ecology in accord with the rhythm and harmony of nature'O JSection *I, Article , id 'K
:*' 7inally, defendant@s act is contrary to the highest law of human<ind % the natural law % and violative of plaintiffs@ right to self=preservation and perpetuation'
::' "here is no other plain, speedy and ade$uate remedy in law other than the instant action to arrest the unabated hemorrhage of the country@s vital life support systems and continued rape of )other /arth'= 1n :: Mune *D, the original defendant, Secretary 7actoran, Mr', filed a )otion to 2ismiss the complaint based on two J:K grounds, namely. J*K the plaintiffs have no cause of action against him and J:K the issue raised by the plaintiffs is a political $uestion which properly pertains to the legislative or executive branches of Government' n their *: Muly *D 1pposition to the )otion, the petitioners maintain that J*K the complaint shows a clear and unmista<able cause of action, J:K the motion is dilatory and J-K the action presents a #usticiable $uestion as it involves the defendant@s abuse of discretion'
1n *+ Muly **, respondent Mudge issued an order granting the aforementioned motion to dismiss' n the said order, not only was the defendant@s claim % that the complaint states no cause of action against him and that it raises a political $uestion % sustained, the respondent Mudge further ruled that the granting of the relief prayed for would result in the impairment of contracts which is prohibited by the fundamental law of the land'
Plaintiffs thus filed the instant special civil action for certiorari under Rule I? of the Revised Rules of Court and as< this Court to rescind and set aside the dismissal order on the ground that the respondent Mudge gravely abused his discretion in dismissing the action' Again, the parents of the plaintiffs=minors not only represent their children, but have also #oined the latter in this case' +
1n * )ay *:, 8e resolved to give due course to the petition and re$uired the parties to submit their respective )emoranda after the 1ffice of the Solicitor General J1SGK filed a Comment in behalf of the respondents and the petitioners filed a reply thereto'
Petitioners contend that the complaint clearly and unmista<ably states a cause of action as it contains sufficient allegations concerning their right to a sound environment based on Articles *, :D and :* of the Civil Code J(uman RelationsK, Section of /xecutive 1rder J/'1'K 0o' *: creating the 2/0R, Section - of Presidential 2ecree JP'2'K 0o' **?* JPhilippine /nvironmental PolicyK, Section *I, Article of the *+4 Constitution recogni;ing the right of the people to
a balanced and healthful ecology, the concept of generational genocide in Criminal &aw and the concept of man@s inalienable right to self=preservation and self=perpetuation embodied in natural law' Petitioners li<ewise rely on the respondent@s correlative obligation per Section of /'1' 0o' *:, to safeguard the people@s right to a healthful environment'
t is further claimed that the issue of the respondent Secretary@s alleged grave abuse of discretion in granting "imber &icense Agreements J"&AsK to cover more areas for logging than what is available involves a #udicial $uestion'
Anent the invocation by the respondent Mudge of the Constitution@s non=impairment clause, petitioners maintain that the same does not apply in this case because "&As are not contracts' "hey li<ewise submit that even if "&As may be considered protected by the said clause, it is well settled that they may still be revo<ed by the State when the public interest so re$uires'
1n the other hand, the respondents aver that the petitioners failed to allege in their complaint a specific legal right violated by the respondent Secretary for which any relief is provided by law' "hey see nothing in the complaint but vague and nebulous allegations concerning an Oenvironmental rightO which supposedly entitles the petitioners to the Oprotection by the state in its capacity as parens patriae.O Such allegations, according to them, do not reveal a valid cause of action' "hey then reiterate the theory that the $uestion of whether logging should be permitted in the country is a political $uestion which should be properly addressed to the executive or legislative branches of Government' "hey therefore assert that the petitioners@ resources is not to file an action to court, but to lobby before Congress for the passage of a bill that would ban logging totally'
As to the matter of the cancellation of the "&As, respondents submit that the same cannot be done by the State without due process of law' 1nce issued, a "&A remains effective for a certain period of time % usually for twenty=five J:?K years' 2uring its effectivity, the same can neither be revised nor cancelled unless the holder has been found, after due notice and hearing, to have violated the terms of the agreement or other forestry laws and regulations' Petitioners@ proposition to have all the "&As indiscriminately cancelled without the re$uisite hearing would be violative of the re$uirements of due process'
efore going any further, 8e must first focus on some procedural matters' Petitioners instituted Civil Case 0o' D=444 as a class suit' "he original defendant and the present respondents did not ta<e issue with this matter' 0evertheless, 8e hereby rule that the said civil case is indeed a class suit' "he sub#ect matter of the complaint is of common and general interest not #ust to several, but to all citi;ens of the Philippines' Conse$uently, since the parties are so numerous, it, becomes impracticable, if not totally impossible, to bring all of them before the court' 8e li<ewise declare that the plaintiffs therein are numerous and representative enough to ensure the full protection of all concerned interests' (ence, all the re$uisites for the filing of a valid class suit under Section *:, Rule - of the Revised Rules of Court are present both in the said civil case and in the instant petition, the latter being but an incident to the former'
"his case, however, has a special and novel element' Petitioners minors assert that they represent their generation as well as generations yet unborn' 8e find no difficulty in ruling that they can, for themselves, for others of their generation and for the succeeding generations, file a class suit' "heir personality to sue in behalf of the succeeding generations can only be based on the concept of intergenerational responsibility insofar as the right to a balanced and healthful ecology is concerned' Such a right, as hereinafter expounded, considers the Orhythm and harmony of nature'O 0ature means the created world in its entirety' 0
Such rhythm and harmony indispensably include, inter alia, the #udicious disposition, utili;ation, management, renewal and conservation of the country@s forest, mineral, land, waters, fisheries, wildlife, off= shore areas and other natural resources to the end that their exploration, development and utili;ation be e$uitably accessible to the present as well as future generations'*
0eedless to say, every generation has a responsibility to the next to preserve that rhythm and harmony for the full en#oyment 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'
After a careful perusal of the complaint in $uestion and a meticulous consideration and evaluation of the issues raised and arguments adduced by the parties, 8e do not hesitate to find for the petitioners and rule against the respondent Mudge@s challenged order for having been issued with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lac< of #urisdiction' "he pertinent portions of the said order reads as follows.
xxx xxx xxx
After a careful and circumspect evaluation of the Complaint, the Court cannot help but agree with the defendant' 7or although we believe that plaintiffs have but the noblest of all intentions, it J sic K fell short of alleging, with sufficient definiteness, a specific legal right they are see<ing to enforce and protect, or a specific legal wrong they are see<ing to prevent and redress JSec' *, Rule :, RRCK' 7urthermore, the Court notes that the Complaint is replete with vague assumptions and vague conclusions based on unverified data' n fine, plaintiffs fail to state a cause of action in its Complaint against the herein defendant'
7urthermore, the Court firmly believes that the matter before it, being impressed with political color and involving a matter of public policy, may not be ta<en cogni;ance of by this Court without doing violence to the sacred principle of OSeparation of PowersO of the three J-K co=e$ual branches of the Government' "he Court is li<ewise of the impression that it cannot, no matter how we stretch our #urisdiction, grant the reliefs prayed for by the plaintiffs, i.e., to cancel all existing timber license agreements in the country and to cease and desist from receiving, accepting, processing, renewing or approving new timber license agreements' 7or to do otherwise would amount to Oimpairment of contractsO abhored Jsic K by the fundamental law'
8e do not agree with the trial court@s conclusions that the plaintiffs failed to allege with sufficient definiteness a specific legal right involved or a specific legal wrong committed, and that the complaint is replete with vague assumptions and conclusions based on unverified data' A reading of the complaint itself belies these conclusions'
"he complaint focuses on one specific fundamental legal right % the right to a balanced and healthful ecology which, for the first time in our nation@s constitutional history, is solemnly incorporated in the fundamental law' Section *I, Article of the *+4 Constitution explicitly provides.
Sec' *I' "he 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'
"his right unites with the right to health which is provided for in the preceding section of the same article. Sec' *?' "he State shall protect and promote the right to health of the people and instill health consciousness among them'
8hile the right to a balanced and healthful ecology is to be found under the 2eclaration of Principles and State Policies and not under the ill of Rights, it does not follow that it is less important than any of the civil and political rights enumerated in the latter' Such a right belongs to a different category of rights altogether for it concerns nothing less than self=preservation and self=perpetuation % aptly and fittingly stressed by the petitioners % the advancement of which may even be said to predate all governments and constitutions' As a matter of fact, these basic rights need not e ven be written in the Constitution for they are assumed to exist from the inception of human<ind' f they are now explicitly mentioned in the fundamental charter, it is because of the well=founded fear of its framers 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 % generations which stand to inherit nothing but parched earth incapable of sustaining life'
"he right to a balanced and healthful ecology carries with it the correlative duty to refrain from impairing the environment' 2uring the debates on this right in one of the plenary sessions of the *+I Constitutional Commission, the following exchange transpired between Commissioner 8ilfrido 5illacorta and Commissioner Adolfo A;cuna who sponsored the section in $uestion.
)R' 5&&AC1R"A.
2oes this section mandate the State to provide sanctions against all forms of pollution % air, water and noise pollution
)R' ABC30A.
6es, )adam President' "he right to healthful Jsic K environment necessarily carries with it the correlative duty of not impairing the same and, therefore, sanctions may be provided for impairment of environmental balance'>
"he said right implies, among many other things, the #udicious management and conservation of the country@s forests' 8ithout such forests, the ecological or environmental balance would be irreversiby disrupted'
Conformably with the enunciated right to a balanced and healthful ecology and the right to health, as well as the other related provisions of the Constitution concerning the conservation, development and utili;ation of the country@s natural resources,,
then President Cora;on C' A$uino promulgated on *D Mune *+4 /'1' 0o' *:,
Section of which expressly mandates that the 2epartment of /nvironment and 0atural Resources Oshall be the primary government agency responsible for the conservation, management, development and proper use of the country@s environment and natural resources, specifically forest and gra;ing lands, mineral, resources, including those in reservation and watershed areas, and lands of the public domain, as well as the licensing and regulation of all natural resources as may be provided for by law in order to ensure e$uitable sharing of the benefits derived therefrom for the welfare of the present and future generations of 7ilipinos'O Section - thereof ma<es the following statement of policy.
Sec' -' eclaration of !olic" ' % t is hereby declared the policy of the State to ensure the sustainable use, development, management, renewal, and conservation of the country@s forest, mineral, land, off= shore areas and other natural resources, including the protection and enhancement of the $uality of the environment, and e$uitable access of the different segments of the population to the development and the use of the country@s natural resources, not only for the present generation but for future generations as well' t is also the policy of the state to recogni;e and apply a true value system including social and environmental cost implications relative to their utili;ation, development and conservation of our natural resources'
"his policy declaration is substantially re=stated it "itle Q5, oo< 5 of the Administrative Code of *+4, @specifically in Section * thereof which reads.
Sec' *' eclaration of !olic" ' % J*K "he State shall ensure, for the benefit of the 7ilipino people, the full exploration and development as well as the #udicious disposition, utili;ation, management, renewal and conservation of the country@s forest, mineral, land, waters, fisheries, wildlife, off=shore areas and other natural resources, consistent with the necessity of maintaining a sound ecological balance and protecting and enhancing the $uality of the environment and the ob#ective of ma<ing the exploration, development and utili;ation of such natural resources e$uitably accessible to the different segments of the present as well as future generations'
J:K "he State shall li<ewise recogni;e and apply a true value system that ta<es into account social and environmental cost implications relative to the utili;ation, development and conservation of our natural resources'
"he above provision stresses Othe necessity of maintaining a sound ecological balance and protecting and enhancing the $uality of the environment'O Section : of the same "itle, on the other hand, specifically spea<s of the mandate of the 2/0RL however, it ma<es particular reference to the fact of the agency@s being sub#ect to law and higher authority' Said section provides.
Sec' :' #andate' % J*K "he 2epartment of /nvironment and 0atural Resources shall be primarily responsible for the implementation of the foregoing policy'
J:K t shall, sub#ect to law and higher authority, be in charge of carrying out the State@s constitutional mandate to control and supervise the exploration, development, utili;ation, and conservation of the country@s natural resources'
oth /'1' 01' *: and the Administrative Code of *+4 have set the ob#ectives which will serve as the bases for policy formulation, and have defined the powers and functions of the 2/0R'
t may, however, be recalled that even before the ratification of the *+4 Constitution, specific statutes already paid special attention to the Oenvironmental rightO of the present and future generations' 1n I Mune *44, P'2' 0o' **?* JPhilippine /nvironmental PolicyK and P'2' 0o' **?: JPhilippine /nvironment CodeK were issued' "he former Odeclared a continuing policy of the State JaK to create, develop, maintain and improve conditions under which man and nature can thrive in productive and en#oyable harmony with each other, JbK to fulfill the social, economic and other re$uirements of present and future generations of 7ilipinos, and JcK to insure the attainment of an environmental $uality that is conducive to a life of dignity and well=being'O = As its goal, it spea<s of the Oresponsibilities of each generation as trustee and guardian of the environment for succeeding generations'O"he latter statute, on the other hand, gave flesh to the said policy'
"hus, the right of the petitioners Jand all those they representK to a balanced and healthful ecology is as clear as the 2/0R@s duty % under its mandate and by virtue of its powers and functions under /'1' 0o' *: and the Administrative Code of *+4 % to protect and advance the said right'
A denial or violation of that right by the other who has the corelative duty or obligation to respect or protect the same gives rise to a cause of action' Petitioners maintain that the granting of the "&As, which they claim was done with grave abuse of discretion, violated their right to a balanced and healthful ecologyL hence, the full protection thereof re$uires that no further "&As should be renewed or granted'
A cause of action is defined as.
' ' ' an act or omission of one party in violation of the legal right or rights of the otherL and its essential elements are legal right of the plaintiff, correlative obligation of the defendant, and act or omission of the defendant in violation of said legal right'+
t is settled in this #urisdiction that in a motion to dismiss based on the ground that the complaint fails to state a cause of action,0the $uestion submitted to the court for resolution involves the sufficiency of the facts alleged in the complaint itself' 0o other matter should be consideredL furthermore, the truth of falsity of the said allegations is beside the point for the truth thereof is deemed hypothetically admitted' "he only issue to be resolved in such a case is. admitting such alleged facts to be true, may the court render a valid #udgment in accordance with the prayer in the complaint>*
n#ilitante $s. Edrosolano, >
this Court laid down the rule that the #udiciary should Oexercise the utmost care and circumspection in passing upon a motion to dismiss on the ground of the absence thereof Fcause of actionH lest, by its failure to manifest a correct appreciation of the facts alleged and deemed hypothetically admitted, what the law grants or recogni;es is effectively nullified' f that happens, there is a blot on the legal order' "he law itself stands in disrepute'O After careful examination of the petitioners@ complaint, 8e find the statements under the introductory affirmative
allegations, as well as the specific averments under the sub=heading CA3S/ 17 AC"10, to be ade$uate enough to show, pri%a facie, the claimed violation of their rights' 1n the basis thereof, they may thus be granted, wholly or partly, the reliefs prayed for' t bears stressing, however, that insofar as the cancellation of the "&As is concerned, there is the need to implead, as party defendants, the grantees thereof for they are indispensable parties'
"he foregoing considered, Civil Case 0o' D=444 be said to raise a political $uestion' Policy formulation or determination by the executive or legislative branches of Government is not s$uarely put in issue' 8hat is principally involved is the enforcement of a right $is&a&$is policies already formulated and expressed in legislation' t must, nonetheless, be emphasi;ed that the political $uestion doctrine is no longer, the insurmountable obstacle to the exercise of #udicial power or the impenetrable shield that protects executive and legislative actions from #udicial in$uiry or review' "he second paragraph of section *, Article 5 of the Constitution states that.
Mudicial power includes the duty of the courts of #ustice to settle actual controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable, and to determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lac< or excess of #urisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the Government'
Commenting on this provision in his boo<, !hilippine !olitical Law ,>>
)r' Mustice sagani A' Cru;, a distinguished member of this Court, says.
"he first part of the authority represents the traditional concept of #udicial power, involving the settlement of conflicting rights as conferred as law' "he second part of the authority represents a broadening of #udicial power to enable the courts of #ustice to review what was before forbidden territory, to wit, the
discretion of the political departments of the government'
As worded, the new provision vests in the #udiciary, and particularly the Supreme Court, the power to rule upon even the wisdom of the decisions of the executive and the legislature and to declare their acts invalid for lac< or excess of #urisdiction because tainted with grave abuse of discretion' "he catch, of course, is the meaning of Ograve abuse of discretion,O which is a very elastic phrase that can expand or contract according to the disposition of the #udiciary'
n a'a $s. Sin(son,>,)r' Mustice Cru;, now spea<ing for this Court, noted.
n the case now before us, the #urisdictional ob#ection becomes even less tenable and decisive' "he reason is that, even if we were to assume that the issue presented before us was political in nature, we would still not be precluded from revolving it under the expanded #urisdiction conferred upon us that now covers, in proper cases, even the political $uestion' Article 5, Section *, of the Constitution clearly provides. ' ' '
"he last ground invo<ed by the trial court in dismissing the complaint is the non=impairment of contracts clause found in the Constitution' "he court a )uo declared that.
"he Court is li<ewise of the impression that it cannot, no matter how we stretch our #urisdiction, grant the reliefs prayed for by the plaintiffs, i 'e', to cancel all existing timber license agreements in the country and to cease and desist from receiving, accepting, processing, renewing or approving new timber license agreements' 7or to do otherwise would amount to Oimpairment of contractsO abhored Jsic K by the fundamental law'>
8e are not persuaded at allL on the contrary, 8e are ama;ed, if not shoc<ed, by such a sweeping pronouncement' n the first place, the respondent Secretary did not, for obvious reasons, even invo<e in his motion to dismiss the non= impairment clause' f he had done so, he would have acted with utmost infidelity to the Government by providing undue and unwarranted benefits and advantages to the timber license holders because he would have forever bound the Government to strictly respect the said licenses according to their terms and conditions regardless of changes in policy and the demands of public interest and welfare' (e was aware that as correctly pointed out by the petitioners, into every timber license must be read Section :D of the 7orestry Reform Code JP'2' 0o' 4D?K which provides.
' ' ' !ro$ided , "hat when the national interest so re$uires, the President may amend, modify, replace or rescind any contract, concession, permit, licenses or any other form of privilege granted herein ' ' '
0eedless to say, all licenses may thus be revo<ed or rescinded by executive action' t is not a contract, property or a property right protested by the due process clause of the Constitution' n Tan $s. irector of Forestr" ,>@
this Court held.
' ' ' A timber license is an instrument by which the State regulates the utili;ation and disposition of forest resources to the end that public welfare is promoted' A timber license is not a contract within the purview of the due process clauseL it is only a license or privilege, which can be validly withdrawn whenever dictated by public interest or public welfare as in this case'
A license is merely a permit or privilege to do what otherwise would be unlawful, and is not a contract between the authority, federal, state, or municipal, granting it and the person to whom it is grantedL neither is it property or a property right, nor does it create a vested rightL nor is it taxation J-4 C'M' *I+K' "hus, this Court held that the granting of license does not create irrevocable rights, neither is it property or property rights JPeople vs' 1ng "in, ? 1'G' 4?4IK'
8e reiterated this pronouncement in Felipe *s%ael+ ,r. - Co.+ Inc. $s. eput" Eecuti$e Secretar" . >=
' ' ' "imber licenses, permits and license agreements are the principal instruments by which the State regulates the utili;ation and disposition of forest resources to the end that public welfare is promoted' And it can hardly be gainsaid that they merely evidence a privilege granted by the State to $ualified entities, and do not vest in the latter a permanent or irrevocable right to the particular concession area and the forest products therein' "hey may be validly amended, modified, replaced or rescinded by the Chief /xecutive when national interests so re$uire' "hus, they are not deemed contracts within the purview of the due process of law clause FSee Sections -JeeK and :D of Pres' 2ecree 0o' 4D?, as amended' Also, "an v' 2irector of 7orestry, G'R' 0o' &=:?+, 1ctober :4, *+-, *:? SCRA -D:H'
Since timber licenses are not contracts, the non=impairment clause, which reads.
Sec' *D' 0o law impairing, the obligation of contracts shall be passed'> cannot be invo<ed'
n the second place, even if it is to be assumed that the same are contracts, the instant case does not involve a law or even an executive issuance declaring the cancellation or modification of existing timber licenses' (ence, the non= impairment clause cannot as yet be invo<ed' 0evertheless, granting further that a law has actually been passed mandating cancellations or modifications, the same cannot still be stigmati;ed as a violation of the non=impairment clause' "his is because by its very nature and purpose, such as law could have only been passed in the exercise of the police power of the state for the purpose of advancing the right of the people to a balanced and healthful ecology, promoting their health and enhancing the general welfare' n Abe $s. Foster /heeler Corp'>+
this Court stated.
"he freedom of contract, under our system of government, is not meant to be absolute' "he same is understood to be sub#ect to reasonable legislative regulation aimed at the promotion of public health, moral, safety and welfare' n other words, the constitutional guaranty of non=impairment of obligations of contract is limited by the exercise of the police power of the State, in the interest of public health, safety, moral and general welfare'
"he reason for this is emphatically set forth in Nebia $s. New *or0 , >0
$uoted in !hilippine A%erican Life Insurance Co. $s. Auditor General , ,* to wit.
3nder our form of government the use of property and the ma<ing of contracts are normally matters of private and not of public concern' "he general rule is that both shall be free of governmental interference' ut neither property rights nor contract rights are absoluteL for government cannot exist if the citi;en may
at will use his property to the detriment of his fellows, or exercise his freedom of contract to wor< them harm' /$ually fundamental with the private right is that of the public to regulate it in the common interest' n short, the non=impairment clause must yield to the police power of the state' ,
7inally, it is difficult to imagine, as the trial court did, how the non=impairment clause could apply with respect to the prayer to en#oin the respondent Secretary from receiving, accepting, processing, renewing or approving new timber licenses for, save in cases of renewal , no contract would have as of yet existed in the other instances' )oreover, with respect to renewal, the holder is not entitled to it as a matter of right'
8(/R/71R/, being impressed with merit, the instant Petition is hereby GRA0"/2, and the challenged 1rder of respondent Mudge of *+ Muly ** dismissing Civil Case 0o' D=444 is hereby set aside' "he petitioners may therefore amend their complaint to implead as defendants the holders or grantees of the $uestioned timber license agreements' 0o pronouncement as to costs'
S1 1R2/R/2'
Cru'+ !adilla+ 1idin+ Gri2o&A)uino+ 3e(alado+ 3o%ero+ Nocon+ 1ellosillo+ #elo and 4uiason+ ,,.+ concur. Nar$asa+ C.,.+ !uno and 5itu(+ ,,.+ too0 no pa rt.
Se!2te O!i"i$" FELICIANO, J., concurring
#oin in the result reached by my distinguished brother in the Court, 2avide, Mr', , ', in this case which, to my mind, is one of the most important cases decided by this Court in the last few years' "he seminal principles laid down in this decision are li<ely to influence profoundly the direction and course of the protection and management of the environment, which of course embraces the utili;ation of all the natural resources in the territorial base of our polity' have therefore sought to clarify, basically to myself, what the Court appears to be saying'
"he Court explicitly states that petitioners have the locus standi necessary to sustain the bringing and, maintenance of this suit J2ecision, pp' **=*:K' Locus standi is not a function of petitioners@ claim that their suit is properly regarded as a class suit ' understand locus standi to refer to the legal interest which a plaintiff must have in the sub#ect matter of the suit' ecause of the very broadness of the concept of OclassO here involved % membership in this OclassO appears to embrace e$er"one living in the country whether now or in the future % it appears to me that everyone who may be expected to benefit from the course of action petitioners see< to re$uire public respondents to ta<e, is vested with the necessary locus standi ' "he Court may be seen therefore to be recogni;ing a beneficiaries6 ri(ht of action in the field of environmental protection, as against both the public administrative agency directly concerned and the private persons or entities operating in the field or sector of activity involved' 8hether such beneficiaries@ right of action may be found under any and all circumstances, or whether some failure to act, in the first instance, on the part of the governmental agency concerned must be shown JOprior exhaustion of administrative remediesOK, is not discussed in the decision and presumably is left for future determination in an appropriate case'
"he Court has also declared that the complaint has alleged and focused upon Oone specific fundamental legal right % the right to a balanced and healthful ecologyO J2ecision, p' *K' "here is no $uestion that Othe right to a balanced and healthful ecologyO is OfundamentalO and that, accordingly, it has been Oconstitutionali;ed'O ut although it is fundamental in character, suggest, with very great respect, that it cannot be characteri;ed as Ospecific,O without doing excessive violence to language' t is in fact very difficult to fashion language more comprehensive in scope and generali;ed in character than a right to Oa balanced and healthful ecology'O "he list of particular claims which can be subsumed under this rubic appears to be entirely open=ended. prevention and control of emission of toxic fumes and smo<e from factories and motor vehiclesL of discharge of oil, chemical effluents, garbage and raw sewage into rivers, inland and coastal waters by vessels,
oil rigs, factories, mines and whole communitiesL of dumping of organic and inorganic wastes on open land, streets and thoroughfaresL failure to rehabilitate land after strip=mining or open=pit miningL 0ain(in or slash=and=burn farmingL destruction of fisheries, coral reefs and other living sea resources through the use of dynamite or cyanide and other chemicalsL contamination of ground water resourcesL loss of certain species of fauna and floraL and so on' "he other statements pointed out by the Court. Section -, /xecutive 1rder 0o' *: dated *D Mune *+4L Section *, "itle Q5, oo< 5 of the *+4 Administrative CodeL and P'2' 0o' **?*, dated I Mune *44 % all appear to be formulations of polic" , as general and abstract as the constitutional statements of basic policy in Article , Section *I JOthe right % to a balanced and healthful ecologyOK and *? JOthe right to healthOK'
P'2' 0o' **?:, also dated I Mune *44, entitled O"he Philippine /nvironment Code,O is, upon the other hand, a compendious collection of more Ospecific environment management policiesO and Oenvironment $uality standardsO Jfourth O8hereasO clause, PreambleK relating to an extremely wide range of topics.
JaK air $uality managementL JbK water $uality managementL JcK land use managementL
JdK natural resources management and conservation embracing. JiK fisheries and a$uatic resourcesL
JiiK wild lifeL
JiiiK forestry and soil conservationL JivK flood control and natural calamitiesL JvK energy developmentL
JviK conservation and utili;ation of surface and ground water JviiK mineral resources
"wo J:K points are worth ma<ing in this connection' 7irstly, neither petitioners nor the Court has identified the particular provision or provisions Jif anyK of the Philippine /nvironment Code which give rise to a specific legal right which petitioners are see<ing to enforce' Secondly, the Philippine /nvironment 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=headings mentioned above' "he Philippine /nvironment Code does not, in other words, appear to contemplate action on the part of pri$ate persons who are beneficiaries of implementation of that Code'
As a matter of logic, by finding petitioners@ cause of action as anchored on a legal right comprised in the constitutional statements above noted, the Court is in effect saying that Section *? Jand Section *IK of Article of the Constitution are self=executing and #udicially enforceable even in their present form' "he implications of this doctrine will have to be explored in future casesL those implications are too large and far=reaching in nature even to be hinted at here'
)y suggestion is simply that petitioners must, before the trial court, show a more specific legal right % a right cast in language of a significantly lower order of generality than Article J*?K of the Constitution % that is or may be violated by the actions, or failures to act, imputed to the public respondent by petitioners so that the trial court can validly render #udgment granting all or part of the relief prayed for' "o my mind, the Court should be understood as simply saying that such a more specific legal right or rights %a" well exist in our corpus of law, considering the general policy principles
