EN BANC

[G.R. No. 101083. July 30, 1993.]

JUAN ANTONIO, ANNA ROSARIO and JOSE ALFONSO, all surnamed

OPOSA, minors, and represented by their parents ANTONIO and
RIZALINA OPOSA, ROBERT A NICOLE SADIUA, minor, represented by
her parents CALVIN and ROBERTA SADIUA, CARLO, AMANDA SALUD
and PATRISHA, all surnamed FLORES, minors and represented by
their parents ENRICO and NIDA FLORES, GIANINA DITA R. FORTUN,
minor, represented by her parents SIGFRID and DOLORES FORTUN,
GEORGE II and MA. CONCEPCION, all surnamed MISA, minors and
represented by their parents GEORGE and MYRA MISA, BENJAMIN
ALAN V. PASIGAN, minor, represented by his parents ANTONIO and
ALICE PESIGAN, JOVIE MARIE ALFARO, minor, represented by her
parents JOSE and MARIA VIOLETA ALFARO, MARIA CONCEPCION T.
CASTRO, minor, represented by her parents FREDENIL and JANE
CASTRO, JOHANNA DESAMPARADO, minor, represented by her
parents JOSE and ANGELA DESAMPARADO, CARLO JOAQUIN T.
NARVASA, minor, represented by his parents GREGORIO II and
CRISTINE CHARITY NARVASA, MA. MARGARITA, JESUS IGNACIO,
MA. ANGELA and MARIE GABRIELLE, all surnamed SAENZ, minors,
represented by their parents ROBERTO and AURORA SAENZ,
KRISTINE, MARY ELLEN, MAY, GOLDA MARTHE and DAVID IAN, all
surnamed KING, minors, represented by their parents MARIO and
HAYDEE KING, DAVID, FRANCISCO and THERESE VICTORIA, all
surnamed ENDRIGA, minors, represented by their parents BALTAZAR
and TERESITA ENDRIGA, JOSE MA. and REGINA MA., all surnamed
ABAYA, minors, represented by their parents ANTONIO and MARICA
ABAYA, MARILIN, MARIO, JR. and MARIETTE, all surnamed
CARDAMA, minors, represented by their parents MARIO and LINA
CARDAMA, CLARISSA, ANN MARIE, NAGEL and IMEE LYN, all
surnamed OPOSA, minors and represented by their parents RICARDO
and MARISSA OPOSA, PHILIP JOSEPH, STEPHEN JOHN and ISAIAH
JAMES, all surnamed QUIPIT, minors, represented by their parents
JOSE MAX and VILMI QUIPIT, BUGHAW CIELO, CRISANTO, ANNA,
DANIEL and FRANCISCO, all surnamed BIBAL, minors, represented by
their parents FRANCISCO, JR. and MILAGROS BIBAL, and THE
PHILIPPINE ECOLOGICAL NETWORK, INC., petitioners, vs. THE
HONORABLE FULGENCIO S. FACTORAN, JR., in his capacity as the
Secretary of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources,
and THE HONORABLE ERIBERTO U. ROSARIO, Presiding Judge of the
RTC, Makati, Branch 66, respondents.

Oposa Law Office for petitioners.

The Solicitor General for respondents.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2025 cdasiaonline.com

 DECISION

DAVIDE, JR., J : p

In a broader sense, this petition bears upon the right of Filipinos to a balanced
and healthful ecology which the petitioners dramatically associate with the twin
concepts of "inter-generational responsibility" and "inter-generational justice."
Specifically, it touches on the issue of whether the said petitioners have a cause of
action to "prevent the misappropriation or impairment" of Philippine rainforests and
"arrest the unabated hemorrhage of the country's vital life-support systems and
continued rape of Mother Earth."

The controversy has its genesis in Civil Case No. 90-777 which was filed before
Branch 66 (Makati, Metro Manila) of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), National Capital
Judicial Region. The principal plaintiffs therein, now the principal petitioners, are all
minors duly represented and joined by their respective parents. Impleaded as an
additional plaintiff is the Philippine Ecological Network, Inc. (PENI), a domestic, non-
stock and non-profit corporation organized for the purpose of, inter alia, engaging in
concerted action geared for the protection of our environment and natural resources.
The original defendant was the Honorable Fulgencio S. Factoran, Jr., then Secretary of
the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR). His substitution in this
petition by the new Secretary, the Honorable Angel C. Alcala, was subsequently
ordered upon proper motion by the petitioners. 1 The complaint 2 was instituted as a
taxpayers' class suit 3 and alleges that the plaintiffs "are all citizens of the Republic of
the Philippines, taxpayers, and entitled to the full benefit, use and enjoyment of the
natural resource treasure that is the country's virgin tropical rainforests." The same was
filed for themselves and others who are equally concerned about the preservation of
said resource but are "so numerous that it is impracticable to bring them all before the
Court." The minors further asseverate that they "represent their generation as well as
generations yet unborn." 4 Consequently, it is prayed for that judgment be rendered:
". . . ordering defendant, his agents, representatives and other persons
acting in his behalf to —
(1) Cancel all existing timber license agreements in the country;
(2) Cease and desist from receiving, accepting, processing,
renewing or approving new timber license agreements."
and granting the plaintiffs ". . . such other reliefs just and equitable under the
premises." 5
The complaint starts off with the general averments that the Philippine
archipelago of 7,100 islands has a land area of thirty million (30,000,000) hectares and
is endowed with rich, lush and verdant rainforests in which varied, rare and unique
species of flora and fauna may be found; these rainforests contain a genetic, biological
and chemical pool which is irreplaceable; they are also the habitat of indigenous
Philippine cultures which have existed, endured and flourished since time immemorial;
scientific evidence reveals that in order to maintain a balanced and healthful ecology,
the country's land area should be utilized on the basis of a ratio of fifty-four per cent
(54%) for forest cover and forty-six per cent (46%) for agricultural, residential, industrial,
commercial and other uses; the distortion and disturbance of this balance as a
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2025 cdasiaonline.com
 consequence of deforestation have resulted in a host of environmental tragedies, such
as (a) water shortages resulting from the drying up of the water table, otherwise known
as the "aquifer," as well as of rivers, brooks and streams, (b) salinization 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 Municipality of Bacoor, Cavite, (c) massive
erosion and the consequential loss of soil fertility and agricultural productivity, with the
volume of soil eroded estimated at one billion (1,000,000,000) cubic meters per annum
— approximately the size of the entire island of Catanduanes, (d) the endangering and
extinction of the country's unique, rare and varied flora and fauna, (e) the disturbance
and dislocation of cultural communities, including the disappearance of the Filipino's
indigenous cultures, (f) the siltation of rivers and seabeds and consequential destruction
of corals and other aquatic life leading to a critical reduction in marine resource
productivity, (g) recurrent spells of drought as is presently experienced by the entire
country, (h) increasing velocity of typhoon winds which result from the absence of
windbreakers, (i) the flooding of lowlands and agricultural plains arising from the
absence of the absorbent mechanism of forests, (j) 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
(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 known as the "greenhouse effect."
Plaintiffs further assert that the adverse and detrimental consequences of
continued deforestation are so capable of unquestionable demonstration that the same
may be submitted as a matter of judicial notice. This 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
7. Plaintiffs replead by reference the foregoing allegations.
8. Twenty-five (25) years ago, the Philippines had some sixteen (16)
million hectares of rainforests constituting roughly 53% of the country's land
mass.
9. Satellite images taken in 1987 reveal that there remained no more
than 1.2 million hectares of said rainforests or four per cent (4.0%) of the
country's land area.
10. More recent surveys reveal that a mere 850,000 hectares of
virgin old-growth rainforests are left, barely 2.8% of the entire land mass of the
Philippine archipelago and about 3.0 million hectares of immature and
uneconomical secondary growth forests.
11. Public records reveal that defendant's predecessors have
granted timber license agreements ('TLA's') to various corporations to cut the
aggregate area of 3.89 million hectares for commercial logging purposes.
A copy of the TLA holders and the corresponding areas covered is
hereto attached as Annex 'A'.
12. At the present rate of deforestation, i.e. about 200,000 hectares
per annum or 25 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.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2025 cdasiaonline.com
 13. The adverse effects, disastrous consequences, serious injury
and irreparable damage of this continued trend of deforestation to the plaintiff
minors' generation and to generations yet unborn are evident and
incontrovertible. As a matter of fact, the environmental damages enumerated in
paragraph 6 hereof are already being felt, experienced and suffered by the
generation of plaintiff adults.
14. The continued allowance by defendant of TLA holders to cut and
deforest the remaining forest stands will work great damage and irreparable
injury to plaintiffs — especially plaintiff minors and their successors — who may
never see, use, benefit from and enjoy this rare and unique natural resource
treasure.
This act of defendant constitutes a misappropriation and/or impairment
of the natural resource property he holds in trust for the benefit of plaintiff
minors and succeeding generations.
15. 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.
16. Plaintiffs have exhausted all administrative remedies with the
defendant's office. On March 2, 1990, plaintiffs served upon defendant a final
demand to cancel all logging permits in the country.
A copy of the plaintiffs' letter dated March 1, 1990 is hereto attached as
Annex 'B'.
17. Defendant, however, fails and refuses to cancel the existing
TLA's, to the continuing serious damage and extreme prejudice of plaintiffs.
18. The continued failure and refusal by defendant to cancel the
TLA's is an act violative of the rights of plaintiffs, especially plaintiff minors who
may be left with a country that is desertified (sic), bare, barren and devoid of
the wonderful flora, fauna and indigenous cultures which the Philippines has
been abundantly blessed with.
19. Defendant's refusal to cancel the aforementioned TLA's is
manifestly contrary to the public policy enunciated in the Philippine
Environmental Policy which, in pertinent part, states that it is the policy of the
State —
'(a) to create, develop, maintain and improve conditions under
which man and nature can thrive in productive and enjoyable harmony
with each other;

'(b) to fulfill the social, economic and other requirements of

present and future generations of Filipinos and;

'(c) to ensure the attainment of an environmental quality that is

conducive to a life of dignity and well-being'. (P.D. 1151, 6 June 1977).

20. Furthermore, defendant's continued refusal to cancel the

aforementioned TLA's is contradictory to the Constitutional policy of the State to
—

a. effect 'a more equitable distribution of opportunities, income

and wealth' and 'make full and efficient use of natural resources (sic).'
(Section 1, Article XII of the Constitution);
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2025 cdasiaonline.com
 b. 'protect the nation's marine wealth.' (Section 2, ibid);

c. 'conserve and promote the nation's cultural heritage and

resources (sic).' (Section 14, Article XIV, id.);

d. 'protect and advance the right of the people to a balanced

and healthful ecology in accord with the rhythm and harmony of nature.'
(Section 16, Article II, id.)
21. Finally, defendant's act is contrary to the highest law of
humankind — the natural law — and violative of plaintiffs' right to self-
preservation and perpetuation.
22. There is no other plain, speedy and adequate 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 Mother Earth." 6
On 22 June 1990, the original defendant, Secretary Factoran, Jr., filed a Motion
to Dismiss the complaint based on two (2) grounds, namely: (1) the plaintiffs have no
cause of action against him and (2) the issue raised by the plaintiffs is a political
question which properly pertains to the legislative or executive branches of
Government. In their 12 July 1990 Opposition to the Motion, the petitioners maintain
that (1) the complaint shows a clear and unmistakable cause of action, (2) the motion is
dilatory and (3) the action presents a justiciable question as it involves the defendant's
abuse of discretion.
On 18 July 1991, respondent Judge issued an order granting the aforementioned
motion to dismiss. 7 In 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 question —
sustained, the respondent Judge further ruled that the granting of the reliefs 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 65 of
the Revised Rules of Court and ask this Court to rescind and set aside the dismissal
order on the ground that the respondent Judge gravely abused his discretion in
dismissing the action. Again, the parents of the plaintiffs-minors not only represent their
children, but have also joined the latter in this case. 8
On 14 May 1992, We resolved to give due course to the petition and required the
parties to submit their respective Memoranda after the Office of the Solicitor General
(OSG) filed a Comment in behalf of the respondents and the petitioners filed a reply
thereto.
Petitioners contend that the complaint clearly and unmistakably states a cause of
action as it contains sufficient allegations concerning their right to a sound environment
based on Articles 19, 20 and 21 of the Civil Code (Human Relations), Section 4 of
Executive Order (E.O.) No. 192 creating the DENR, Section 3 of Presidential Decree
(P.D.) No. 1151 (Philippine Environmental Policy), Section 16, Article II of the 1987
Constitution recognizing the right of the people to a balanced and healthful ecology, the
concept of generational genocide in Criminal Law and the concept of man's inalienable
right to self-preservation and self-perpetuation embodied in natural law. Petitioners
likewise rely on the respondent's correlative obligation, per Section 4 of E.O. No. 192,
the safeguard the people's right to a healthful environment.
It is further claimed that the issue of the respondent Secretary's alleged grave
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2025 cdasiaonline.com
 abuse of discretion in granting Timber License Agreements (TLAs) to cover more areas
for logging than what is available involves a judicial question.
Anent the invocation by the respondent Judge of the Constitution's non-
impairment clause, petitioners maintain that the same does not apply in this case
because TLAs are not contracts. They likewise submit that even if TLAs may be
considered protected by the said clause, it is well settled that they may still be revoked
by the State when public interest so requires.
On 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. They see nothing in the complaint but vague and nebulous
allegations concerning an "environmental right" which supposedly entitles the
petitioners to the "protection by the state in its capacity as parens patriae." Such
allegations, according to them, do not reveal a valid cause of action. They then reiterate
the theory that the question of whether logging should be permitted in the country is a
political question which should be properly addressed to the executive or legislative
branches of Government. They therefore assert that the petitioners' recourse is not to
file an action in 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 TLAs, respondents submit that the
same cannot be done by the State without due process of law. Once issued, a TLA
remains effective for a certain period of time — usually for twenty-five (25) years.
During 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
TLAs indiscriminately cancelled without the requisite hearing would be violative of the
requirements of due process.
Before going any further, We must first focus on some procedural matters.
Petitioners instituted Civil Case No. 90-777 as a class suit. The original defendant and
the present respondents did not take issue with this matter. Nevertheless, We hereby
rule that the said civil case is indeed a class suit. The subject matter of the complaint is
of common and general interest not just to several, but to all citizens of the Philippines.
Consequently, since the parties are so numerous, it becomes impracticable, if not totally
impossible, to bring all of them before the court. We likewise declare that the plaintiffs
therein are numerous and representative enough to ensure the full protection of all
concerned interests. Hence, all the requisites for the filing of a valid class suit under
Section 12, Rule 3 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.
This case, however, has a special and novel element. Petitioners minors assert
that they represent their generation as well as generations yet unborn. We find no
difficulty in ruling that they can, for themselves, for others of their generation and for the
succeeding generations, file a class suit. Their 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 "rhythm and harmony of nature."
Nature means the created world in its entirety. 9 Such rhythm and harmony
indispensably include, inter alia, the judicious disposition, utilization, 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,
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2025 cdasiaonline.com
 development and utilization be equitably accessible to the present as well as future
generations. 10 Needless to say, every generation has a responsibility to the next to
preserve that rhythm and harmony for the full enjoyment of a balanced and healthful
ecology. Put a little differently, the minors' assertion of their right to a sound
environment constitutes, at the same time, the performance of their obligation to ensure
the protection of that right for the generations to come.
The locus standi of the petitioners having thus been addressed, We shall now
proceed to the merits of the petition.
After a careful perusal of the complaint in question and a meticulous
consideration and evaluation of the issues raised and arguments adduced by the
parties, We do not hesitate to find for the petitioners and rule against the respondent
Judge's challenged order for having been issued with grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack of jurisdiction. The pertinent portions of the said order read as
follows:
xxx xxx xxx
"After a careful and circumspect evaluation of the Complaint, the Court
cannot help but agree with the defendant. For although we believe that plaintiffs
have but the noblest of all intentions, it (sic) fell short of alleging, with sufficient
definiteness, a specific legal right they are seeking to enforce and protect, or a
specific legal wrong they are seeking to prevent and redress (Sec. 1, Rule 2,
RRC). Furthermore, the Court notes that the Complaint is replete with vague
assumptions and vague conclusions based on unverified data. In fine, plaintiffs
fail to state a cause of action in its Complaint against the herein defendant.
Furthermore, the Court firmly believes that the matter before it, being
impressed with political color and involving a matter of public policy, may not be
taken cognizance of by this Court without doing violence to the sacred principle
of 'Separation of Powers' of the three (3) co-equal branches of the
Government.
The Court is likewise of the impression that it cannot, no matter how we
stretch our jurisdiction, 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. For to do otherwise would amount to 'impairment of
contracts' abhored (sic) by the fundamental law." 11
We do not agree with the trial court's conclusion 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.
The 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 16, Article II of the
1987 Constitution explicitly provides:
"SEC. 16. The State shall protect and advance the right of the
people to a balanced and healthful ecology in accord with the rhythm and
harmony of nature."
This right unites with the right to health which is provided for in the preceding
section of the same article:

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2025 cdasiaonline.com

 "SEC. 15. The State shall protect and promote the right to health of
the people and instill health consciousness among them."
While the right to a balanced and healthful ecology is to be found under the
Declaration of Principles and State Policies and not under the Bill 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 even be
written in the Constitution for they are assumed to exist from the inception of
humankind. If 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.
The right to a balanced and healthful ecology carries with it the correlative duty to
refrain from impairing the environment. During the debates on this right in one of the
plenary sessions of the 1986 Constitutional Commission, the following exchange
transpired between Commissioner Wilfrido Villacorta and Commissioner Adolfo Azcuna
who sponsored the section in question:
"MR. VILLACORTA:
Does this section mandate the State to provide sanctions against all
forms of pollution — air, water and noise pollution?
MR. AZCUNA:
Yes, Madam President. The right to healthful (sic) environment
necessarily carries with it the correlative duty of not impairing the same and,
therefore, sanctions may be provided for impairment of environmental balance."
12

The said right implies, among many other things, the judicious management and
conservation of the country's forests. Without such forests, the ecological or
environmental balance would be irreversibly 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 utilization of the country's natural resources, 13 then
President Corazon C. Aquino promulgated on 10 June 1987 E.O. No. 192, 14 Section 4
of which expressly mandates that the Department of Environment and Natural
Resources "shall 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 grazing 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 equitable sharing of the benefits derived therefrom for the welfare of the
present and future generations of Filipinos." Section 3 thereof makes the following
statement of policy:
"SEC. 3. Declaration of Policy. — It is hereby declared the policy of
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2025 cdasiaonline.com
 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
quality of the environment, and equitable access of the different segments of
the population to the development and use of the country's natural resources,
not only for the present generation but for future generations as well. It is also
the policy of the state to recognize and apply a true value system including
social and environmental cost implications relative to their utilization;
development and conservation of our natural resources."
This policy declaration is substantially re-stated in Title XIV, Book IV of the
Administrative Code of 1987, 15 specifically in Section 1 thereof which reads:
"SEC. 1. Declaration of Policy. — (1) The State shall ensure, for the
benefit of the Filipino people, the full exploration and development as well as
the judicious disposition, utilization, 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 quality of the environment
and the objective of making the exploration, development and utilization of such
natural resources equitably accessible to the different segments of the present
as well as future generations.
(2) The State shall likewise recognize and apply a true value system
that takes into account social and environmental cost implications relative to the
utilization, development and conservation of our natural resources."
The above provision stresses "the necessity of maintaining a sound ecological
balance and protecting and enhancing the quality of the environment." Section 2 of the
same Title, on the other hand, specifically speaks of the mandate of the DENR;
however, it makes particular reference to the fact of the agency's being subject to law
and higher authority. Said section provides:
"SEC. 2. Mandate. — (1) The Department of Environment and
Natural Resources shall be primarily responsible for the implementation of the
foregoing policy.
(2) It shall, subject to law and higher authority, be in charge of
carrying out the State's constitutional mandate to control and supervise the
exploration, development, utilization, and conservation of the country's natural
resources."
Both E.O. No. 192 and the Administrative Code of 1987 have set the objectives
which will serve as the bases for policy formulation, and have defined the powers and
functions of the DENR.
It may, however, be recalled that even before the ratification of the 1987
Constitution, specific statutes already paid special attention to the "environmental right"
of the present and future generations. On 6 June 1977, P.D. No. 1151 (Philippine
Environmental Policy) and P.D. No. 1152 (Philippine Environment Code) were issued.
The former "declared a continuing policy of the State (a) to create, develop, maintain
and improve conditions under which man and nature can thrive in productive and
enjoyable harmony with each other, (b) to fulfill the social, economic and other
requirements of present and future generations of Filipinos, and (c) to insure the
attainment of an environmental quality that is conducive to a life of dignity and well-
being." 16 As its goal, it speaks of the "responsibilities of each generation as trustee and
guardian of the environment for succeeding generations." 17 The latter statute, on the
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2025 cdasiaonline.com
 other hand, gave flesh to the said policy.
Thus, the right of the petitioners (and all those they represent) to a balanced and
healthful ecology is as clear as the DENR's duty — under its mandate and by virtue of
its powers and functions under E.O. No. 192 and the Administrative Code of 1987 — to
protect and advance the said right.
A denial or violation of that right by the other who has the correlative duty or
obligation to respect or protect the same gives rise to a cause of action. Petitioners
maintain that the granting of the TLAs, which they claim was done with grave abuse of
discretion, violated their right to a balanced and healthful ecology; hence, the full
protection thereof requires that no further TLAs 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 other; 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." 18
It is settled in this jurisdiction that in a motion to dismiss based on the ground that
the complaint fails to state a cause of action, 19 the question submitted to the court for
resolution involves the sufficiency of the facts alleged in the complaint itself. No other
matter should be considered; furthermore, the truth or falsity of the said allegations is
beside the point for the truth thereof is deemed hypothetically admitted. The only issue
to be resolved in such a case is: admitting such alleged facts to be true, may the court
render a valid judgment in accordance with the prayer in the complaint? 20 In Militante
vs. Edrosolano, 21 this Court laid down the rule that the judiciary should "exercise the
utmost care and circumspection in passing upon a motion to dismiss on the ground of
the absence thereof [cause of action] lest, by its failure to manifest a correct
appreciation of the facts alleged and deemed hypothetically admitted, what the law
grants or recognizes is effectively nullified. If that happens, there is a blot on the legal
order. The law itself stands in disrepute."
After a careful examination of the petitioners' complaint, We find the statements
under the introductory affirmative allegations, as well as the specific averments under
the subheading CAUSE OF ACTION, to be adequate enough to show, prima facie, the
claimed violation of their rights. On the basis thereof, they may thus be granted, wholly
or partly, the reliefs prayed for. It bears stressing, however, that insofar as the
cancellation of the TLAs is concerned, there is the need to implead, as party
defendants, the grantees thereof for they are indispensable parties.
The foregoing considered, Civil Case No. 90-777 cannot be said to raise a
political question. Policy formulation or determination by the executive or legislative
branches of Government is not squarely put in issue. What is principally involved is the
enforcement of a right vis-a-vis policies already formulated and expressed in legislation.
It must, nonetheless, be emphasized that the political question doctrine is no longer the
insurmountable obstacle to the exercise of judicial power or the impenetrable shield that
protects executive and legislative actions from judicial inquiry or review. The second
paragraph of section 1, Article VIII of the Constitution states that:
"Judicial power includes the duty of the courts of justice 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 lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2025 cdasiaonline.com
 instrumentality of the Government."
Commenting on this provision in his book, Philippine Political Law, 22 Mr. Justice
Isagani A. Cruz, a distinguished member of this Court, says:
"The first part of the authority represents the traditional concept of
judicial power, involving the settlement of conflicting rights as conferred by law.
The second part of the authority represents a broadening of judicial power to
enable the courts of justice 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 judiciary, 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 lack or excess
of jurisdiction because tainted with grave abuse of discretion. The catch, of
course, is the meaning of 'grave abuse of discretion,' which is a very elastic
phrase that can expand or contract according to the disposition of the judiciary."
In Daza vs. Singson, 23 Mr. Justice Cruz, now speaking for this Court, noted:
"In the case now before us, the jurisdictional objection becomes even
less tenable and decisive. The 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 resolving it under the expanded jurisdiction conferred upon us
that now covers, in proper cases, even the political question. Article VII, Section
1, of the Constitution clearly provides: . . ."
The last ground invoked by the trial court in dismissing the complaint is the non-
impairment of contracts clause found in the Constitution. The court a quo declared that:
"The Court is likewise of the impression that it cannot, no matter how we
stretch our jurisdiction, 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. For to do otherwise would amount to 'impairment of
contracts' abhored (sic) by the fundamental law." 24
We are not persuaded at all; on the contrary, We are amazed, if not shocked, by
such a sweeping pronouncement. In the first place, the respondent Secretary did not,
for obvious reasons, even invoke in his motion to dismiss the non-impairment clause. If
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. He was aware that as correctly pointed out by
the petitioners, into every timber license must be read Section 20 of the Forestry
Reform Code (P.D. No. 705) which provides:
". . . Provided, That when the national interest so requires, the President
may amend, modify, replace or rescind any contract, concession, permit,
licenses or any other form of privilege granted herein . . ."
Needless to say, all licenses may thus be revoked or rescinded by executive
action. It is not a contract, property or a property right protected by the due process
clause of the Constitution. In Tan vs. Director of Forestry, 25 this Court held:
". . . A timber license is an instrument by which the State regulates the
utilization and disposition of forest resources to the end that public welfare is
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2025 cdasiaonline.com
 promoted. A timber license is not a contract within the purview of the due
process clause; 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 granted; neither is it property
or a property right, nor does it create a vested right; nor is it taxation' (37 C.J.
168). Thus, this Court held that the granting of license does not create
irrevocable rights, neither is it property or property rights (People vs. Ong Tin,
54 O.G. 7576) . . ."
We reiterated this pronouncement in Felipe Ysmael, Jr. & Co., Inc. vs. Deputy
Executive Secretary: 26
". . . Timber licenses, permits and license agreements are the principal
instruments by which the State regulates the utilization 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 qualified
entities, and do not vest in the latter a permanent or irrevocable right to the
particular concession area and the forest products therein. They may be validly
amended, modified, replaced or rescinded by the Chief Executive when
national interests so require. Thus, they are not deemed contracts within the
purview of the due process of law clause [See Sections 3(ee) and 20 of Pres.
Decree No. 705, as amended. Also, Tan v. Director of Forestry, G.R. No. L-
24548, October 27, 1983, 125 SCRA 302]."
Since timber licenses are not contracts, the non-impairment clause, which reads:
"SEC. 10. No law impairing the obligation of contracts shall be
passed." 27
cannot be invoked.
In 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. Hence, the non-impairment
clause cannot as yet be invoked. Nevertheless, granting further that a law has actually
been passed mandating cancellations or modifications, the same cannot still be
stigmatized as a violation of the non-impairment clause. This is because by its very
nature and purpose, such a 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. In Abe vs. Foster Wheeler Corp., 28 this Court stated:
"The freedom of contract, under our system of government, is not meant
to be absolute. The same is understood to be subject to reasonable legislative
regulation aimed at the promotion of public health, moral, safety and welfare. In
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."
The reason for this is emphatically set forth in Nebia vs. New York , 29 quoted in
Philippine American Life Insurance Co. vs. Auditor General , 30 to wit:
" 'Under our form of government the use of property and the making of
contracts are normally matters of private and not of public concern. The general
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2025 cdasiaonline.com
 rule is that both shall be free of governmental interference. But neither property
rights nor contract rights are absolute; for government cannot exist if the citizen
may at will use his property to the detriment of his fellows, or exercise his
freedom of contract to work them harm. Equally fundamental with the private
right is that of the public to regulate it in the common interest.' "
In court, the non-impairment clause must yield to the police power of the state. 31

Finally, it is difficult to imagine, as the trial court did, how the non-impairment
clause could apply with respect to the prayer to enjoin 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.
Moreover, with respect to renewal, the holder is not entitled to it as a matter of right.
WHEREFORE, being impressed with merit, the instant Petition is hereby
GRANTED, and the challenged Order of respondent Judge of 18 July 1991 dismissing
Civil Case No. 90-777 is hereby set aside. The petitioners may therefore amend their
complaint to implead as defendants the holders or grantees of the questioned timber
license agreements.
No pronouncement as to costs.
SO ORDERED.
Cruz, Padilla, Bidin, Griño-Aquino, Regalado, Romero, Nocon, Bellosillo, Melo
and Quiason, JJ ., concur.
Narvasa, C . J . , took no part; related to one of the parties.
Puno, J ., took no part in the deliberations.
Vitug, J ., took no part; I was not yet with the Court when the case was
deliberated upon.

Footnotes

1. Rollo, 164; 186

2. Id., 62-65, exclusive of annexes.

3. Under Section 12, Rule 3, Revised Rules of Court.

4. Rollo, 67.

5. Id., 74.

6. Rollo, 70-73.
7. Annex "B" of Petition; Id., 43-44.

8. Paragraph 7, Petition, 6; Rollo, 20.

9. Webster's Third New International Dictionary, unabridged, 1986, 1508.

10. Title XIV (Environment and Natural Resources), Book IV of the Administrative Code of
1987, E.O. No. 292.
11. Annex "B" of Petition; Rollo, 43-44.

12. Record of the Constitutional Commission, vol. 4, 913.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2025 cdasiaonline.com
 13. For instance, the Preamble and Article XII on the National Economy and Patrimony.

14. The Reorganization Act of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources.
15. E.O. No. 292.

16. Section 1.
17. Section 2.

18. Marao Sugar Central Co. vs. Barrios, 79 Phil. 666 [1947]; Community Investment and
Finance Corp. vs. Garcia, 88 Phil. 215 [1951]; Remitere vs. vda. de Yulo, 16 SCRA 251
[1966]; Caseñas vs. Rosales, 19 SCRA 462 [1967]; Virata vs. Sandiganbayan, 202
SCRA 680 [1991]; Madrona vs. Rosal, 204 SCRA 1 [1991].
19. Section 1(q), Rule 16, Revised Rules of Court.

20. Adamos vs. J.M. Tuason and Co., Inc., 25 SCRA 529 [1968]; Virata vs.
Sandiganbayan, supra.; Madrona vs. Rosal, supra.

21. 39 SCRA 473, 479 [1971].

22. 1991 ed., 226-227.

23. 180 SCRA 496, 501-502 [1989]. See also, Coseteng vs. Mitra, 187 SCRA 377 [1990];
Gonzales vs. Macaraig, 191 SCRA 452 [1990]; Llamas vs. Orbos, 202 SCRA 844
[1991]; Bengzon vs. Senate Blue Ribbon Committee, 203 SCRA 267 [1991].
24. Rollo, 44.

25. 125 SCRA 302, 325 [1983].

26. 190 SCRA 673, 684 [1990].

27. Article III, 1987 Constitution.

28. 110 Phil. 198, 203 [1960]; footnotes omitted.

29. 291 U.S. 502, 523, 78 L. ed. 940, 947-949.

30. 22 SCRA 135, 146-147 [1968].

31. Ongsiako vs. Gamboa, 86 Phil. 50 [1950]; Abe vs. Foster Wheeler Corp.,supra.: Phil.
American Life Insurance Co. vs. Auditor General, supra.; Alalayan vs. NPC, 24 SCRA
172 [1968]; Victoriano vs. Elizalde Rope Workers Union, 59 SCRA 54 [1974]; Kabiling
vs. National Housing Authority, 156 SCRA 623 [1987].

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2025 cdasiaonline.com