G.R. No.

100150 January 5, 1994 A motion to dismiss,7 dated 10 September 1990,

questioned CHR's jurisdiction. The motion also
BRIGIDO R. SIMON, JR., CARLOS QUIMPO, averred, among other things, that:
CARLITO ABELARDO, AND GENEROSO OCAMPO,
petitioners, 1. this case came about due to the alleged violation by
vs. the (petitioners) of the Inter-Agency Memorandum of
COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS, ROQUE Agreement whereby Metro-Manila Mayors agreed on a
FERMO, AND OTHERS AS JOHN DOES, moratorium in the demolition of the dwellings of poor
respondents. dwellers in Metro-Manila;

VITUG, J.: xxx xxx xxx

The extent of the authority and power of the 3. . . . , a perusal of the said Agreement (revealed) that
Commission on Human Rights ("CHR") is again placed the moratorium referred to therein refers to
into focus in this petition for prohibition, with prayer moratorium in the demolition of the structures of poor
for a restraining order and preliminary injunction. The dwellers;
petitioners ask us to prohibit public respondent CHR
from further hearing and investigating CHR Case No. 4. that the complainants in this case (were) not poor
90-1580, entitled "Fermo, et al. vs. Quimpo, et al." dwellers but independent business entrepreneurs even
this Honorable Office admitted in its resolution of 1
The case all started when a "Demolition Notice," dated August 1990 that the complainants are indeed,
9 July 1990, signed by Carlos Quimpo (one of the vendors;
petitioners) in his capacity as an Executive Officer of
the Quezon City Integrated Hawkers Management 5. that the complainants (were) occupying government
Council under the Office of the City Mayor, was sent to, land, particularly the sidewalk of EDSA corner North
and received by, the private respondents (being the Avenue, Quezon City; . . . and
officers and members of the North EDSA Vendors
Association, Incorporated). In said notice, the 6. that the City Mayor of Quezon City (had) the sole
respondents were given a grace-period of three (3) and exclusive discretion and authority whether or not a
days (up to 12 July 1990) within which to vacate the certain business establishment (should) be allowed to
questioned premises of North EDSA.1 Prior to their operate within the jurisdiction of Quezon City, to
receipt of the demolition notice, the private revoke or cancel a permit, if already issued, upon
respondents were informed by petitioner Quimpo that grounds clearly specified by law and ordinance.8
their stalls should be removed to give way to the
"People's Park".2 On 12 July 1990, the group, led by During the 12 September 1990 hearing, the petitioners
their President Roque Fermo, filed a letter-complaint moved for postponement, arguing that the motion to
(Pinag-samang Sinumpaang Salaysay) with the CHR dismiss set for 21 September 1990 had yet to be
against the petitioners, asking the late CHR Chairman resolved. The petitioners likewise manifested that they
Mary Concepcion Bautista for a letter to be addressed would bring the case to the courts.
to then Mayor Brigido Simon, Jr., of Quezon City to
stop the demolition of the private respondents' stalls, On 18 September 1990 a supplemental motion to
sari-sari stores, and carinderia along North EDSA. The dismiss was filed by the petitioners, stating that the
complaint was docketed as CHR Case No. 90-1580.3 Commission's authority should be understood as being
On 23 July 1990, the CHR issued an Order, directing confined only to the investigation of violations of civil
the petitioners "to desist from demolishing the stalls and political rights, and that "the rights allegedly
and shanties at North EDSA pending resolution of the violated in this case (were) not civil and political rights,
vendors/squatters' complaint before the Commission" (but) their privilege to engage in business."9
and ordering said petitioners to appear before the
CHR.4 On 21 September 1990, the motion to dismiss was
heard and submitted for resolution, along with the
On the basis of the sworn statements submitted by the contempt charge that had meantime been filed by the
private respondents on 31 July 1990, as well as CHR's private respondents, albeit vigorously objected to by
own ocular inspection, and convinced that on 28 July petitioners (on the ground that the motion to dismiss
1990 the petitioners carried out the demolition of was still then unresolved).10
private respondents' stalls, sari-sari stores and
carinderia,5 the CHR, in its resolution of 1 August In an Order,11 dated 25 September 1990, the CHR
1990, ordered the disbursement of financial assistance cited the petitioners in contempt for carrying out the
of not more than P200,000.00 in favor of the private demolition of the stalls, sari-sari stores and carinderia
respondents to purchase light housing materials and despite the "order to desist", and it imposed a fine of
food under the Commission's supervision and again P500.00 on each of them.
directed the petitioners to "desist from further
demolition, with the warning that violation of said On 1 March 1991,12 the CHR issued an Order, denying
order would lead to a citation for contempt and petitioners' motion to dismiss and supplemental
arrest."6 motion to dismiss, in this wise:

Clearly, the Commission on Human Rights under its

constitutional mandate had jurisdiction over the
complaint filed by the squatters-vendors who superseded as well, the Presidential Committee on
complained of the gross violations of their human and Human Rights.21
constitutional rights. The motion to dismiss should be
and is hereby DENIED for lack of merit.13 The powers and functions22 of the Commission are
defined by the 1987 Constitution, thus: to —
The CHR opined that "it was not the intention of the
(Constitutional) Commission to create only a paper (1) Investigate, on its own or on complaint by any
tiger limited only to investigating civil and political party, all forms of human rights violations involving
rights, but it (should) be (considered) a quasi-judicial civil and political rights;
body with the power to provide appropriate legal
measures for the protection of human rights of all (2) Adopt its operational guidelines and rules of
persons within the Philippines . . . ." It added: procedure, and cite for contempt for violations thereof
in accordance with the Rules of Court;
The right to earn a living is a right essential to one's
right to development, to life and to dignity. All these (3) Provide appropriate legal measures for the
brazenly and violently ignored and trampled upon by protection of human rights of all persons within the
respondents with little regard at the same time for the Philippines, as well as Filipinos residing abroad, and
basic rights of women and children, and their health, provide for preventive measures and legal aid services
safety and welfare. Their actions have psychologically to the underprivileged whose human rights have been
scarred and traumatized the children, who were violated or need protection;
witness and exposed to such a violent demonstration of
Man's inhumanity to man. (4) Exercise visitorial powers over jails, prisons, or
detention facilities;
In an Order,14 dated 25 April 1991, petitioners' motion
for reconsideration was denied. (5) Establish a continuing program of research,
education, and information to enhance respect for the
Hence, this recourse. primacy of human rights;

The petition was initially dismissed in our resolution15 (6) Recommend to the Congress effective measures to
of 25 June 1991; it was subsequently reinstated, promote human rights and to provide for
however, in our resolution16 of 18 June 1991, in which compensation to victims of violations of human rights,
we also issued a temporary restraining order, directing or their families;
the CHR to "CEASE and DESIST from further hearing
CHR No. 90-1580."17 (7) Monitor the Philippine Government's compliance
with international treaty obligations on human rights;
The petitioners pose the following:
(8) Grant immunity from prosecution to any person
Whether or not the public respondent has jurisdiction: whose testimony or whose possession of documents or
other evidence is necessary or convenient to determine
a) to investigate the alleged violations of the "business the truth in any investigation conducted by it or under
rights" of the private respondents whose stalls were its authority;
demolished by the petitioners at the instance and
authority given by the Mayor of Quezon City; (9) Request the assistance of any department, bureau,
office, or agency in the performance of its functions;
b) to impose the fine of P500.00 each on the
petitioners; and (10) Appoint its officers and employees in accordance
with law; and
c) to disburse the amount of P200,000.00 as financial
aid to the vendors affected by the demolition. (11) Perform such other duties and functions as may be
provided by law.
In the Court's resolution of 10 October 1991, the
Solicitor-General was excused from filing his comment In its Order of 1 March 1991, denying petitioners'
for public respondent CHR. The latter thus filed its motion to dismiss, the CHR theorizes that the
own comment,18 through Hon. Samuel Soriano, one of intention of the members of the Constitutional
its Commissioners. The Court also resolved to dispense Commission is to make CHR a quasi-judicial body.23
with the comment of private respondent Roque Fermo, This view, however, has not heretofore been shared by
who had since failed to comply with the resolution, this Court. In Cariño v. Commission on Human
dated 18 July 1991, requiring such comment. Rights,24 the Court, through then Associate Justice,
now Chief Justice Andres Narvasa, has observed that it
The petition has merit. is "only the first of the enumerated powers and
functions that bears any resemblance to adjudication
The Commission on Human Rights was created by the or adjudgment," but that resemblance can in no way be
1987 synonymous to the adjudicatory power itself. The
Constitution.19 It was formally constituted by then Court explained:
President Corazon Aquino via Executive Order No.
163,20 issued on 5 May 1987, in the exercise of her . . . (T)he Commission on Human Rights . . . was not
legislative power at the time. It succeeded, but so meant by the fundamental law to be another court or
quasi-judicial agency in this country, or duplicate
much less take over the functions of the latter. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, as well as,
or more specifically, the International Covenant on
The most that may be conceded to the Commission in Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and
the way of adjudicative power is that it may investigate, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights,
i.e., receive evidence and make findings of fact as suggests that the scope of human rights can be
regards claimed human rights violations involving civil understood to include those that relate to an
and political rights. But fact finding is not individual's social, economic, cultural, political and
adjudication, and cannot be likened to the judicial civil relations. It thus seems to closely identify the term
function of a court of justice, or even a quasi-judicial to the universally accepted traits and attributes of an
agency or official. The function of receiving evidence individual, along with what is generally considered to
and ascertaining therefrom the facts of a controversy is be his inherent and inalienable rights, encompassing
not a judicial function, properly speaking. To be almost all aspects of life.
considered such, the faculty of receiving evidence and
making factual conclusions in a controversy must be Have these broad concepts been equally contemplated
accompanied by the authority of applying the law to by the framers of our 1986 Constitutional Commission
those factual conclusions to the end that the in adopting the specific provisions on human rights
controversy may be decided or determined and in creating an independent commission to
authoritatively, finally and definitively, subject to such safeguard these rights? It may of value to look back at
appeals or modes of review as may be provided by law. the country's experience under the martial law regime
This function, to repeat, the Commission does not which may have, in fact, impelled the inclusions of
have. those provisions in our fundamental law. Many voices
have been heard. Among those voices, aptly
After thus laying down at the outset the above rule, we represented perhaps of the sentiments expressed by
now proceed to the other kernel of this controversy others, comes from Mr. Justice J.B.L. Reyes, a
and, its is, to determine the extent of CHR's respected jurist and an advocate of civil liberties, who,
investigative power. in his paper, entitled "Present State of Human Rights
in the Philippines,"29 observes:
It can hardly be disputed that the phrase "human
rights" is so generic a term that any attempt to define But while the Constitution of 1935 and that of 1973
it, albeit not a few have tried, could at best be enshrined in their Bill of Rights most of the human
described as inconclusive. Let us observe. In a rights expressed in the International Covenant, these
symposium on human rights in the Philippines, rights became unavailable upon the proclamation of
sponsored by the University of the Philippines in 1977, Martial Law on 21 September 1972. Arbitrary action
one of the questions that has been propounded is then became the rule. Individuals by the thousands
"(w)hat do you understand by "human rights?" The became subject to arrest upon suspicion, and were
participants, representing different sectors of the detained and held for indefinite periods, sometimes for
society, have given the following varied answers: years, without charges, until ordered released by the
Commander-in-Chief or this representative. The right
Human rights are the basic rights which inhere in man to petition for the redress of grievances became
by virtue of his humanity. They are the same in all useless, since group actions were forbidden. So were
parts of the world, whether the Philippines or England, strikes. Press and other mass media were subjected to
Kenya or the Soviet Union, the United States or Japan, censorship and short term licensing. Martial law
Kenya or Indonesia . . . . brought with it the suspension of the writ of habeas
corpus, and judges lost independence and security of
Human rights include civil rights, such as the right to tenure, except members of the Supreme Court. They
life, liberty, and property; freedom of speech, of the were required to submit letters of resignation and were
press, of religion, academic freedom, and the rights of dismissed upon the acceptance thereof. Torture to
the accused to due process of law; political rights, such extort confessions were practiced as declared by
as the right to elect public officials, to be elected to international bodies like Amnesty International and
public office, and to form political associations and the International Commission of Jurists.
engage in politics; and social rights, such as the right to
an education, employment, and social services.25 Converging our attention to the records of the
Constitutional Commission, we can see the following
Human rights are the entitlement that inhere in the discussions during its 26 August 1986 deliberations:
individual person from the sheer fact of his humanity. .
. . Because they are inherent, human rights are not MR. GARCIA . . . , the primacy of its (CHR) task must
granted by the State but can only be recognized and be made clear in view of the importance of human
protected by it.26 rights and also because civil and political rights have
been determined by many international covenants and
(Human rights include all) the civil, political, human rights legislations in the Philippines, as well as
economic, social, and cultural rights defined in the the Constitution, specifically the Bill of Rights and
Universal Declaration of Human Rights.27 subsequent legislation. Otherwise, if we cover such a
wide territory in area, we might diffuse its impact and
Human rights are rights that pertain to man simply the precise nature of its task, hence, its effectivity
because he is human. They are part of his natural birth, would also be curtailed.
right, innate and inalienable.28
So, it is important to delienate the parameters of its MR. BENGZON. Therefore, is the Gentleman saying
tasks so that the commission can be most effective. that all the rights under the Bill of Rights covered by
human rights?
MR. BENGZON. That is precisely my difficulty because
civil and political rights are very broad. The Article on MR. GARCIA. No, only those that pertain to civil and
the Bill of Rights covers civil and political rights. Every political rights.
single right of an individual involves his civil right or
his political right. So, where do we draw the line? xxx xxx xxx

MR. GARCIA. Actually, these civil and political rights MR. RAMA. In connection with the discussion on the
have been made clear in the language of human rights scope of human rights, I would like to state that in the
advocates, as well as in the Universal Declaration of past regime, everytime we invoke the violation of
Human Rights which addresses a number of articles on human rights, the Marcos regime came out with the
the right to life, the right against torture, the right to defense that, as a matter of fact, they had defended the
fair and public hearing, and so on. These are very rights of people to decent living, food, decent housing
specific rights that are considered enshrined in many and a life consistent with human dignity.
international documents and legal instruments as
constituting civil and political rights, and these are So, I think we should really limit the definition of
precisely what we want to defend here. human rights to political rights. Is that the sense of the
committee, so as not to confuse the issue?
MR. BENGZON. So, would the commissioner say civil
and political rights as defined in the Universal MR. SARMIENTO. Yes, Madam President.
Declaration of Human Rights?
MR. GARCIA. I would like to continue and respond
MR. GARCIA. Yes, and as I have mentioned, the also to repeated points raised by the previous speaker.
International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights
distinguished this right against torture. There are actually six areas where this Commission on
Human Rights could act effectively: 1) protection of
MR. BENGZON. So as to distinguish this from the rights of political detainees; 2) treatment of prisoners
other rights that we have? and the prevention of tortures; 3) fair and public trials;
4) cases of disappearances; 5) salvagings and
MR. GARCIA. Yes, because the other rights will hamletting; and 6) other crimes committed against the
encompass social and economic rights, and there are religious.
other violations of rights of citizens which can be
addressed to the proper courts and authorities. xxx xxx xxx

xxx xxx xxx The PRESIDENT. Commissioner Guingona is

recognized.
MR. BENGZON. So, we will authorize the commission
to define its functions, and, therefore, in doing that the MR. GUINGONA. Thank You Madam President.
commission will be authorized to take under its wings
cases which perhaps heretofore or at this moment are I would like to start by saying that I agree with
under the jurisdiction of the ordinary investigative and Commissioner Garcia that we should, in order to make
prosecutorial agencies of the government. Am I the proposed Commission more effective, delimit as
correct? much as possible, without prejudice to future
expansion. The coverage of the concept and
MR. GARCIA. No. We have already mentioned earlier jurisdictional area of the term "human rights". I was
that we would like to define the specific parameters actually disturbed this morning when the reference
which cover civil and political rights as covered by the was made without qualification to the rights embodied
international standards governing the behavior of in the universal Declaration of Human Rights,
governments regarding the particular political and civil although later on, this was qualified to refer to civil and
rights of citizens, especially of political detainees or political rights contained therein.
prisoners. This particular aspect we have experienced
during martial law which we would now like to If I remember correctly, Madam President,
safeguard. Commissioner Garcia, after mentioning the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights of 1948, mentioned or
MR. BENGZON. Then, I go back to that question that I linked the concept of human right with other human
had. Therefore, what we are really trying to say is, rights specified in other convention which I do not
perhaps, at the proper time we could specify all those remember. Am I correct?
rights stated in the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights and defined as human rights. Those are the MR. GARCIA. Is Commissioner Guingona referring to
rights that we envision here? the Declaration of Torture of 1985?

MR. GARCIA. Yes. In fact, they are also enshrined in MR. GUINGONA. I do not know, but the
the Bill of Rights of our Constitution. They are integral commissioner mentioned another.
parts of that.
MR. GARCIA. Madam President, the other one is the organize, the right to education, housing, shelter, et
International Convention on Civil and Political Rights cetera.
of which we are signatory.
MR. GUINGONA. So we are just limiting at the
MR. GUINGONA. I see. The only problem is that, moment the sense of the committee to those that the
although I have a copy of the Universal Declaration of Gentlemen has specified.
Human Rights here, I do not have a copy of the other
covenant mentioned. It is quite possible that there are MR. GARCIA. Yes, to civil and political rights.
rights specified in that other convention which may not
be specified here. I was wondering whether it would be MR. GUINGONA. Thank you.
wise to link our concept of human rights to general
terms like "convention," rather than specify the rights xxx xxx xxx
contained in the convention.
SR. TAN. Madam President, from the standpoint of the
As far as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is victims of human rights, I cannot stress more on how
concerned, the Committee, before the period of much we need a Commission on Human Rights. . . .
amendments, could specify to us which of these articles
in the Declaration will fall within the concept of civil . . . human rights victims are usually penniless. They
and political rights, not for the purpose of including cannot pay and very few lawyers will accept clients who
these in the proposed constitutional article, but to give do not pay. And so, they are the ones more abused and
the sense of the Commission as to what human rights oppressed. Another reason is, the cases involved are
would be included, without prejudice to expansion very delicate — torture, salvaging, picking up without
later on, if the need arises. For example, there was no any warrant of arrest, massacre — and the persons who
definite reply to the question of Commissioner are allegedly guilty are people in power like politicians,
Regalado as to whether the right to marry would be men in the military and big shots. Therefore, this
considered a civil or a social right. It is not a civil right? Human Rights Commission must be independent.

MR. GARCIA. Madam President, I have to repeat the I would like very much to emphasize how much we
various specific civil and political rights that we felt need this commission, especially for the little Filipino,
must be envisioned initially by this provision — the little individual who needs this kind of help and
freedom from political detention and arrest prevention cannot get it. And I think we should concentrate only
of torture, right to fair and public trials, as well as on civil and political violations because if we open this
crimes involving disappearance, salvagings, to land, housing and health, we will have no place to go
hamlettings and collective violations. So, it is limited to again and we will not receive any response. . . .30
politically related crimes precisely to protect the civil (emphasis supplied)
and political rights of a specific group of individuals,
and therefore, we are not opening it up to all of the The final outcome, now written as Section 18, Article
definite areas. XIII, of the 1987 Constitution, is a provision
empowering the Commission on Human Rights to
MR. GUINGONA. Correct. Therefore, just for the "investigate, on its own or on complaint by any party,
record, the Gentlemen is no longer linking his concept all forms of human rights violations involving civil and
or the concept of the Committee on Human Rights political rights" (Sec. 1).
with the so-called civil or political rights as contained
in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The term "civil rights,"31 has been defined as referring
—
MR. GARCIA. When I mentioned earlier the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights, I was referring to an (t)o those (rights) that belong to every citizen of the
international instrument. state or country, or, in wider sense, to all its
inhabitants, and are not connected with the
MR. GUINGONA. I know. organization or administration of the government.
They include the rights of property, marriage, equal
MR. GARCIA. But it does not mean that we will refer protection of the laws, freedom of contract, etc. Or, as
to each and every specific article therein, but only to otherwise defined civil rights are rights appertaining to
those that pertain to the civil and politically related, as a person by virtue of his citizenship in a state or
we understand it in this Commission on Human community. Such term may also refer, in its general
Rights. sense, to rights capable of being enforced or redressed
in a civil action.
MR. GUINGONA. Madam President, I am not even
clear as to the distinction between civil and social Also quite often mentioned are the guarantees against
rights. involuntary servitude, religious persecution,
unreasonable searches and seizures, and
MR. GARCIA. There are two international covenants: imprisonment for debt.32
the International Covenant and Civil and Political
Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Political rights,33 on the other hand, are said to refer
Social and Cultural Rights. The second covenant to the right to participate, directly or indirectly, in the
contains all the different rights-the rights of labor to establishment or administration of government, the
right of suffrage, the right to hold public office, the
right of petition and, in general, the rights appurtenant in the instance before us, however, is not
to citizenship vis-a-vis the management of investigatorial in character but prescinds from an
government.34 adjudicative power that it does not possess. In Export
Processing Zone Authority vs. Commission on Human
Recalling the deliberations of the Constitutional Rights,36 the Court, speaking through Madame Justice
Commission, aforequoted, it is readily apparent that Carolina Griño-Aquino, explained:
the delegates envisioned a Commission on Human
Rights that would focus its attention to the more severe The constitutional provision directing the CHR to
cases of human rights violations. Delegate Garcia, for "provide for preventive measures and legal aid services
instance, mentioned such areas as the "(1) protection to the underprivileged whose human rights have been
of rights of political detainees, (2) treatment of violated or need protection" may not be construed to
prisoners and the prevention of tortures, (3) fair and confer jurisdiction on the Commission to issue a
public trials, (4) cases of disappearances, (5) salvagings restraining order or writ of injunction for, it that were
and hamletting, and (6) other crimes committed the intention, the Constitution would have expressly
against the religious." While the enumeration has not said so. "Jurisdiction is conferred only by the
likely been meant to have any preclusive effect, more Constitution or by law". It is never derived by
than just expressing a statement of priority, it is, implication.
nonetheless, significant for the tone it has set. In any
event, the delegates did not apparently take comfort in Evidently, the "preventive measures and legal aid
peremptorily making a conclusive delineation of the services" mentioned in the Constitution refer to
CHR's scope of investigatorial jurisdiction. They have extrajudicial and judicial remedies (including a writ of
thus seen it fit to resolve, instead, that "Congress may preliminary injunction) which the CHR may seek from
provide for other cases of violations of human rights proper courts on behalf of the victims of human rights
that should fall within the authority of the violations. Not being a court of justice, the CHR itself
Commission, taking into account its has no jurisdiction to issue the writ, for a writ of
recommendation."35 preliminary injunction may only be issued "by the
judge of any court in which the action is pending
In the particular case at hand, there is no cavil that [within his district], or by a Justice of the Court of
what are sought to be demolished are the stalls, Appeals, or of the Supreme Court. . . . A writ of
sari-sari stores and carinderia, as well as temporary preliminary injunction is an ancillary remedy. It is
shanties, erected by private respondents on a land available only in a pending principal action, for the
which is planned to be developed into a "People's preservation or protection of the rights and interests of
Park". More than that, the land adjoins the North a party thereto, and for no other purpose." (footnotes
EDSA of Quezon City which, this Court can take omitted).
judicial notice of, is a busy national highway. The
consequent danger to life and limb is not thus to be The Commission does have legal standing to indorse,
likewise simply ignored. It is indeed paradoxical that a for appropriate action, its findings and
right which is claimed to have been violated is one that recommendations to any appropriate agency of
cannot, in the first place, even be invoked, if it is, in government.37
fact, extant. Be that as it may, looking at the standards
hereinabove discoursed vis-a-vis the circumstances The challenge on the CHR's disbursement of the
obtaining in this instance, we are not prepared to amount of P200,000.00 by way of financial aid to the
conclude that the order for the demolition of the stalls, vendors affected by the demolition is not an
sari-sari stores and carinderia of the private appropriate issue in the instant petition. Not only is
respondents can fall within the compartment of there lack of locus standi on the part of the petitioners
"human rights violations involving civil and political to question the disbursement but, more importantly,
rights" intended by the Constitution. the matter lies with the appropriate administrative
agencies concerned to initially consider.
On its contempt powers, the CHR is constitutionally
authorized to "adopt its operational guidelines and The public respondent explains that this petition for
rules of procedure, and cite for contempt for violations prohibition filed by the petitioners has become moot
thereof in accordance with the Rules of Court." and academic since the case before it (CHR Case No.
Accordingly, the CHR acted within its authority in 90-1580) has already been fully heard, and that the
providing in its revised rules, its power "to cite or hold matter is merely awaiting final resolution. It is true
any person in direct or indirect contempt, and to that prohibition is a preventive remedy to restrain the
impose the appropriate penalties in accordance with doing of an act about to be done, and not intended to
the procedure and sanctions provided for in the Rules provide a remedy for an act already accomplished. 38
of Court." That power to cite for contempt, however, Here, however, said Commission admittedly has yet to
should be understood to apply only to violations of its promulgate its resolution in CHR Case No. 90-1580.
adopted operational guidelines and rules of procedure The instant petition has been intended, among other
essential to carry out its investigatorial powers. To things, to also prevent CHR from precisely doing
exemplify, the power to cite for contempt could be that.39
exercised against persons who refuse to cooperate with
the said body, or who unduly withhold relevant WHEREFORE, the writ prayed for in this petition is
information, or who decline to honor summons, and GRANTED. The Commission on Human Rights is
the like, in pursuing its investigative work. The "order hereby prohibited from further proceeding with CHR
to desist" (a semantic interplay for a restraining order) Case No. 90-1580 and from implementing the P500.00
fine for contempt. The temporary restraining order petition and more appropriately addressed by
heretofore issued by this Court is made permanent. No administrative agencies. The Court made
costs. permanent its temporary restraining order and
enjoined CHR from further action in CHR
SO ORDERED. Case No. 90-1580 and from enforcing the
P500 fines. ###

DIGESTED CASE! RATIO: Under Section 18, Article XIII of the 1987
Constitution, the CHR may “investigate … all forms of
FACTS: In Brigido R. Simon, Jr., et al. vs. human rights violations involving civil and political
Commission on Human Rights, et al., G.R. No. 100150, rights,” but it is not a quasi-judicial tribunal with
decided January 5, 1994, petitioners Brigido R. Simon, power to adjudicate or issue injunctions (see Carino v.
Jr. (Mayor of Quezon City), Carlos Quimpo, Carlito Commission on Human Rights, 204 SCRA 483). The
Abelardo, and Generoso Ocampo, all officers of the CHR’s contempt power is limited to enforcing its
Quezon City Integrated Hawkers Management Council, procedural rules in the course of an investigation, not
served a Demolition Notice dated July 9, 1990, on to restrain substantive acts such as demolition, nor to
members of the North EDSA Vendors Association, impose penalties for defying orders beyond those rules.
Inc., led by Roque Fermo. The Notice required private Injunctive relief and protective measures must be
respondents to vacate North EDSA stalls by July 12, sought from courts of competent jurisdiction, as the
1990, to make way for a proposed “People’s Park.” On CHR “has no jurisdiction to issue a writ of preliminary
July 12, 1990, the vendors filed a sworn complaint injunction” (see Export Processing Zone Authority v.
(Pinag-samang Sinumpaang Salaysay) before the Commission on Human Rights, 208 SCRA 125).
Commission on Human Rights (CHR), docketed as Petitioners lacked the legal standing to challenge the
CHR Case No. 90-1580, seeking intervention to stop disbursement of financial aid in a prohibition petition.
the demolition. On July 23, 1990, the CHR ordered
petitioners to “desist from demolishing” pending G.R. No. 101083 July 30, 1993
investigation and to appear before the Commission. Oposa v. Factoran
Despite this, petitioners allegedly proceeded with
demolition on July 28, 1990. On August 1, 1990, the DAVIDE, JR., J.:
CHR ordered P200,000 in financial assistance to the
vendors and again enjoined petitioners from further In a broader sense, this petition bears upon the right of
demolition under threat of contempt. Petitioners Filipinos to a balanced and healthful ecology which the
moved to dismiss CHR’s jurisdiction on September 10, petitioners dramatically associate with the twin
1990, arguing that the dispute involved business rights concepts of "inter-generational responsibility" and
and fell outside CHR’s mandate. After hearings and "inter-generational justice." Specifically, it touches on
supplemental motions, the CHR on September 25, the issue of whether the said petitioners have a cause
1990, found petitioners in contempt, fining each P500, of action to "prevent the misappropriation or
and on March 1, 1991, denied the motion to dismiss, impairment" of Philippine rainforests and "arrest the
asserting its quasi-judicial powers under the 1987 unabated hemorrhage of the country's vital life support
Constitution. Petitioners sought prohibition before the systems and continued rape of Mother Earth."
Supreme Court to restrain further proceedings and
enforcement of CHR orders. The controversy has its genesis in Civil Case No. 90-77
which was filed before Branch 66 (Makati, Metro
ISSUES: Did the Commission on Human Rights have: Manila) of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), National
●​ Jurisdiction to investigate alleged violations of Capital Judicial Region. The principal plaintiffs
private respondents’ business rights stemming therein, now the principal petitioners, are all minors
from the demolition of their stalls? duly represented and joined by their respective
●​ Authority to impose a P500 contempt fine on parents. Impleaded as an additional plaintiff is the
petitioners for violating the CHR’s “order to Philippine Ecological Network, Inc. (PENI), a
desist”? domestic, non-stock and non-profit corporation
●​ Power to disburse P200,000 as financial organized for the purpose of, inter alia, engaging in
assistance to the vendors under its concerted action geared for the protection of our
constitutional mandate? ### environment and natural resources. The original
defendant was the Honorable Fulgencio S. Factoran,
RULING: The Supreme Court granted the writ of Jr., then Secretary of the Department of Environment
prohibition, holding that: and Natural Resources (DENR). His substitution in
●​ The CHR lacked jurisdiction to investigate the this petition by the new Secretary, the Honorable
demolition as a human rights violation Angel C. Alcala, was subsequently ordered upon proper
because the contested action did not involve motion by the petitioners.1 The complaint2 was
civil and political rights as protected under the instituted as a taxpayers' class suit3 and alleges that
1987 Constitution. the plaintiffs "are all citizens of the Republic of the
●​ The CHR exceeded its authority in issuing a Philippines, taxpayers, and entitled to the full benefit,
“desist” order and punishing petitioners by use and enjoyment of the natural resource treasure
contempt for defying an injunction-like that is the country's virgin tropical forests." The same
directive it could not constitutionally issue. was filed for themselves and others who are equally
●​ Questions on the financial assistance were concerned about the preservation of said resource but
dismissed as non-justiciable in a prohibition are "so numerous that it is impracticable to bring them
all before the Court." The minors further asseverate of global warming, otherwise known as the
that they "represent their generation as well as "greenhouse effect."
generations yet unborn."4 Consequently, it is prayed
for that judgment be rendered: Plaintiffs further assert that the adverse and
detrimental consequences of continued and
. . . ordering defendant, his agents, representatives and deforestation are so capable of unquestionable
other persons acting in his behalf to — demonstration that the same may be submitted as a
matter of judicial notice. This notwithstanding, they
(1) Cancel all existing timber license agreements in the expressed their intention to present expert witnesses
country; as well as documentary, photographic and film
evidence in the course of the trial.
(2) Cease and desist from receiving, accepting,
processing, renewing or approving new timber license As their cause of action, they specifically allege that:
agreements.
CAUSE OF ACTION
and granting the plaintiffs ". . . such other reliefs just
and equitable under the premises."5 7. Plaintiffs replead by reference the foregoing
allegations.
The complaint starts off with the general averments
that the Philippine archipelago of 7,100 islands has a 8. Twenty-five (25) years ago, the Philippines had
land area of thirty million (30,000,000) hectares and some sixteen (16) million hectares of rainforests
is endowed with rich, lush and verdant rainforests in constituting roughly 53% of the country's land mass.
which varied, rare and unique species of flora and
fauna may be found; these rainforests contain a 9. Satellite images taken in 1987 reveal that there
genetic, biological and chemical pool which is remained no more than 1.2 million hectares of said
irreplaceable; they are also the habitat of indigenous rainforests or four per cent (4.0%) of the country's land
Philippine cultures which have existed, endured and area.
flourished since time immemorial; scientific evidence
reveals that in order to maintain a balanced and 10. More recent surveys reveal that a mere 850,000
healthful ecology, the country's land area should be hectares of virgin old-growth rainforests are left, barely
utilized on the basis of a ratio of fifty-four per cent 2.8% of the entire land mass of the Philippine
(54%) for forest cover and forty-six per cent (46%) for archipelago and about 3.0 million hectares of
agricultural, residential, industrial, commercial and immature and uneconomical secondary growth forests.
other uses; the distortion and disturbance of this
balance as a consequence of deforestation have 11. Public records reveal that the defendant's,
resulted in a host of environmental tragedies, such as predecessors have granted timber license agreements
(a) water shortages resulting from drying up of the ('TLA's') to various corporations to cut the aggregate
water table, otherwise known as the "aquifer," as well area of 3.89 million hectares for commercial logging
as of rivers, brooks and streams, (b) salinization of the purposes.
water table as a result of the intrusion therein of salt
water, incontrovertible examples of which may be A copy of the TLA holders and the corresponding areas
found in the island of Cebu and the Municipality of covered is hereto attached as Annex "A".
Bacoor, Cavite, (c) massive erosion and the
consequential loss of soil fertility and agricultural 12. At the present rate of deforestation, i.e. about
productivity, with the volume of soil eroded estimated 200,000 hectares per annum or 25 hectares per hour
at one billion (1,000,000,000) cubic meters per — nighttime, Saturdays, Sundays and holidays
annum — approximately the size of the entire island of included — the Philippines will be bereft of forest
Catanduanes, (d) the endangering and extinction of the resources after the end of this ensuing decade, if not
country's unique, rare and varied flora and fauna, (e) earlier.
the disturbance and dislocation of cultural
communities, including the disappearance of the 13. The adverse effects, disastrous consequences,
Filipino's indigenous cultures, (f) the siltation of rivers serious injury and irreparable damage of this
and seabeds and consequential destruction of corals continued trend of deforestation to the plaintiff
and other aquatic life leading to a critical reduction in minor's generation and to generations yet unborn are
marine resource productivity, (g) recurrent spells of evident and incontrovertible. As a matter of fact, the
drought as is presently experienced by the entire environmental damages enumerated in paragraph 6
country, (h) increasing velocity of typhoon winds hereof are already being felt, experienced and suffered
which result from the absence of windbreakers, (i) the by the generation of plaintiff adults.
floodings of lowlands and agricultural plains arising
from the absence of the absorbent mechanism of 14. The continued allowance by defendant of TLA
forests, (j) the siltation and shortening of the lifespan holders to cut and deforest the remaining forest stands
of multi-billion peso dams constructed and operated will work great damage and irreparable injury to
for the purpose of supplying water for domestic uses, plaintiffs — especially plaintiff minors and their
irrigation and the generation of electric power, and (k) successors — who may never see, use, benefit from and
the reduction of the earth's capacity to process carbon enjoy this rare and unique natural resource treasure.
dioxide gases which has led to perplexing and
catastrophic climatic changes such as the phenomenon
This act of defendant constitutes a misappropriation
and/or impairment of the natural resource property he 21. Finally, defendant's act is contrary to the highest
holds in trust for the benefit of plaintiff minors and law of humankind — the natural law — and violative of
succeeding generations. plaintiffs' right to self-preservation and perpetuation.

15. Plaintiffs have a clear and constitutional right to a 22. There is no other plain, speedy and adequate
balanced and healthful ecology and are entitled to remedy in law other than the instant action to arrest
protection by the State in its capacity as the parens the unabated hemorrhage of the country's vital life
patriae. support systems and continued rape of Mother Earth.
6
16. Plaintiff have exhausted all administrative
remedies with the defendant's office. On March 2, On 22 June 1990, the original defendant, Secretary
1990, plaintiffs served upon defendant a final demand Factoran, Jr., filed a Motion to Dismiss the complaint
to cancel all logging permits in the country. based on two (2) grounds, namely: (1) the plaintiffs
have no cause of action against him and (2) the issue
A copy of the plaintiffs' letter dated March 1, 1990 is raised by the plaintiffs is a political question which
hereto attached as Annex "B". properly pertains to the legislative or executive
branches of Government. In their 12 July 1990
17. Defendant, however, fails and refuses to cancel the Opposition to the Motion, the petitioners maintain that
existing TLA's to the continuing serious damage and (1) the complaint shows a clear and unmistakable
extreme prejudice of plaintiffs. cause of action, (2) the motion is dilatory and (3) the
action presents a justiciable question as it involves the
18. The continued failure and refusal by defendant to defendant's abuse of discretion.
cancel the TLA's is an act violative of the rights of
plaintiffs, especially plaintiff minors who may be left On 18 July 1991, respondent Judge issued an order
with a country that is desertified (sic), bare, barren and granting the aforementioned motion to dismiss.7 In
devoid of the wonderful flora, fauna and indigenous the said order, not only was the defendant's claim —
cultures which the Philippines had been abundantly that the complaint states no cause of action against
blessed with. him and that it raises a political question — sustained,
the respondent Judge further ruled that the granting of
19. Defendant's refusal to cancel the aforementioned the relief prayed for would result in the impairment of
TLA's is manifestly contrary to the public policy contracts which is prohibited by the fundamental law
enunciated in the Philippine Environmental Policy of the land.
which, in pertinent part, states that it is the policy of
the State — Plaintiffs thus filed the instant special civil action for
certiorari under Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court
(a) to create, develop, maintain and improve and ask this Court to rescind and set aside the
conditions under which man and nature can thrive in dismissal order on the ground that the respondent
productive and enjoyable harmony with each other; Judge gravely abused his discretion in dismissing the
action. Again, the parents of the plaintiffs-minors not
(b) to fulfill the social, economic and other only represent their children, but have also joined the
requirements of present and future generations of latter in this case.8
Filipinos and;
On 14 May 1992, We resolved to give due course to the
(c) to ensure the attainment of an environmental petition and required the parties to submit their
quality that is conductive to a life of dignity and respective Memoranda after the Office of the Solicitor
well-being. (P.D. 1151, 6 June 1977) General (OSG) filed a Comment in behalf of the
respondents and the petitioners filed a reply thereto.
20. Furthermore, defendant's continued refusal to
cancel the aforementioned TLA's is contradictory to Petitioners contend that the complaint clearly and
the Constitutional policy of the State to — unmistakably states a cause of action as it contains
sufficient allegations concerning their right to a sound
a. effect "a more equitable distribution of environment based on Articles 19, 20 and 21 of the
opportunities, income and wealth" and "make full and Civil Code (Human Relations), Section 4 of Executive
efficient use of natural resources (sic)." (Section 1, Order (E.O.) No. 192 creating the DENR, Section 3 of
Article XII of the Constitution); Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 1151 (Philippine
Environmental Policy), Section 16, Article II of the
b. "protect the nation's marine wealth." (Section 2, 1987 Constitution recognizing the right of the people to
ibid); a balanced and healthful ecology, the concept of
generational genocide in Criminal Law and the concept
c. "conserve and promote the nation's cultural heritage of man's inalienable right to self-preservation and
and resources (sic)" (Section 14, Article XIV, id.); self-perpetuation embodied in natural law. Petitioners
likewise rely on the respondent's correlative obligation
d. "protect and advance the right of the people to a per Section 4 of E.O. No. 192, to safeguard the people's
balanced and healthful ecology in accord with the right to a healthful environment.
rhythm and harmony of nature." (Section 16, Article II,
id.)
It is further claimed that the issue of the respondent generation as well as generations yet unborn. We find
Secretary's alleged grave abuse of discretion in no difficulty in ruling that they can, for themselves, for
granting Timber License Agreements (TLAs) to cover others of their generation and for the succeeding
more areas for logging than what is available involves a generations, file a class suit. Their personality to sue in
judicial question. behalf of the succeeding generations can only be based
on the concept of intergenerational responsibility
Anent the invocation by the respondent Judge of the insofar as the right to a balanced and healthful ecology
Constitution's non-impairment clause, petitioners is concerned. Such a right, as hereinafter expounded,
maintain that the same does not apply in this case considers
because TLAs are not contracts. They likewise submit the "rhythm and harmony of nature." Nature means
that even if TLAs may be considered protected by the the created world in its entirety.9 Such rhythm and
said clause, it is well settled that they may still be harmony indispensably include, inter alia, the
revoked by the State when the public interest so judicious disposition, utilization, management,
requires. renewal and conservation of the country's forest,
mineral, land, waters, fisheries, wildlife, off-shore
On the other hand, the respondents aver that the areas and other natural resources to the end that their
petitioners failed to allege in their complaint a specific exploration, development and utilization be equitably
legal right violated by the respondent Secretary for accessible to the present as well as future generations.
which any relief is provided by law. They see nothing in 10 Needless to say, every generation has a
the complaint but vague and nebulous allegations responsibility to the next to preserve that rhythm and
concerning an "environmental right" which supposedly harmony for the full enjoyment of a balanced and
entitles the petitioners to the "protection by the state in healthful ecology. Put a little differently, the minors'
its capacity as parens patriae." Such allegations, assertion of their right to a sound environment
according to them, do not reveal a valid cause of constitutes, at the same time, the performance of their
action. They then reiterate the theory that the question obligation to ensure the protection of that right for the
of whether logging should be permitted in the country generations to come.
is a political question which should be properly
addressed to the executive or legislative branches of The locus standi of the petitioners having thus been
Government. They therefore assert that the petitioners' addressed, We shall now proceed to the merits of the
resources is not to file an action to court, but to lobby petition.
before Congress for the passage of a bill that would ban
logging totally. After a careful perusal of the complaint in question and
a meticulous consideration and evaluation of the issues
As to the matter of the cancellation of the TLAs, raised and arguments adduced by the parties, We do
respondents submit that the same cannot be done by not hesitate to find for the petitioners and rule against
the State without due process of law. Once issued, a the respondent Judge's challenged order for having
TLA remains effective for a certain period of time — been issued with grave abuse of discretion amounting
usually for twenty-five (25) years. During its effectivity, to lack of jurisdiction. The pertinent portions of the
the same can neither be revised nor cancelled unless said order reads as follows:
the holder has been found, after due notice and
hearing, to have violated the terms of the agreement or xxx xxx xxx
other forestry laws and regulations. Petitioners'
proposition to have all the TLAs indiscriminately After a careful and circumspect evaluation of the
cancelled without the requisite hearing would be Complaint, the Court cannot help but agree with the
violative of the requirements of due process. defendant. For although we believe that plaintiffs have
but the noblest of all intentions, it (sic) fell short of
Before going any further, We must first focus on some alleging, with sufficient definiteness, a specific legal
procedural matters. Petitioners instituted Civil Case right they are seeking to enforce and protect, or a
No. 90-777 as a class suit. The original defendant and specific legal wrong they are seeking to prevent and
the present respondents did not take issue with this redress (Sec. 1, Rule 2, RRC). Furthermore, the Court
matter. Nevertheless, We hereby rule that the said civil notes that the Complaint is replete with vague
case is indeed a class suit. The subject matter of the assumptions and vague conclusions based on
complaint is of common and general interest not just unverified data. In fine, plaintiffs fail to state a cause of
to several, but to all citizens of the Philippines. action in its Complaint against the herein defendant.
Consequently, since the parties are so numerous, it,
becomes impracticable, if not totally impossible, to Furthermore, the Court firmly believes that the matter
bring all of them before the court. We likewise declare before it, being impressed with political color and
that the plaintiffs therein are numerous and involving a matter of public policy, may not be taken
representative enough to ensure the full protection of cognizance of by this Court without doing violence to
all concerned interests. Hence, all the requisites for the the sacred principle of "Separation of Powers" of the
filing of a valid class suit under Section 12, Rule 3 of three (3) co-equal branches of the Government.
the Revised Rules of Court are present both in the said
civil case and in the instant petition, the latter being The Court is likewise of the impression that it cannot,
but an incident to the former. no matter how we stretch our jurisdiction, grant the
reliefs prayed for by the plaintiffs, i.e., to cancel all
This case, however, has a special and novel element. existing timber license agreements in the country and
Petitioners minors assert that they represent their to cease and desist from receiving, accepting,
processing, renewing or approving new timber license MR. VILLACORTA:
agreements. For to do otherwise would amount to
"impairment of contracts" abhored (sic) by the Does this section mandate the State to provide
fundamental law. 11 sanctions against all forms of pollution — air, water
and noise pollution?
We do not agree with the trial court's conclusions that
the plaintiffs failed to allege with sufficient definiteness MR. AZCUNA:
a specific legal right involved or a specific legal wrong
committed, and that the complaint is replete with Yes, Madam President. The right to healthful (sic)
vague assumptions and conclusions based on environment necessarily carries with it the correlative
unverified data. A reading of the complaint itself belies duty of not impairing the same and, therefore,
these conclusions. sanctions may be provided for impairment of
environmental balance. 12
The complaint focuses on one specific fundamental
legal right — the right to a balanced and healthful The said right implies, among many other things, the
ecology which, for the first time in our nation's judicious management and conservation of the
constitutional history, is solemnly incorporated in the country's forests.
fundamental law. Section 16, Article II of the 1987
Constitution explicitly provides: Without such forests, the ecological or environmental
balance would be irreversiby disrupted.
Sec. 16. The State shall protect and advance the right of
the people to a balanced and healthful ecology in Conformably with the enunciated right to a balanced
accord with the rhythm and harmony of nature. and healthful ecology and the right to health, as well as
the other related provisions of the Constitution
This right unites with the right to health which is concerning the conservation, development and
provided for in the preceding section of the same utilization of the country's natural resources, 13 then
article: President Corazon C. Aquino promulgated on 10 June
1987 E.O. No. 192, 14 Section 4 of which expressly
Sec. 15. The State shall protect and promote the right mandates that the Department of Environment and
to health of the people and instill health consciousness Natural Resources "shall be the primary government
among them. agency responsible for the conservation, management,
development and proper use of the country's
While the right to a balanced and healthful ecology is environment and natural resources, specifically forest
to be found under the Declaration of Principles and and grazing lands, mineral, resources, including those
State Policies and not under the Bill of Rights, it does in reservation and watershed areas, and lands of the
not follow that it is less important than any of the civil public domain, as well as the licensing and regulation
and political rights enumerated in the latter. Such a of all natural resources as may be provided for by law
right belongs to a different category of rights altogether in order to ensure equitable sharing of the benefits
for it concerns nothing less than self-preservation and derived therefrom for the welfare of the present and
self-perpetuation — aptly and fittingly stressed by the future generations of Filipinos." Section 3 thereof
petitioners — the advancement of which may even be makes the following statement of policy:
said to predate all governments and constitutions. As a
matter of fact, these basic rights need not even be Sec. 3. Declaration of Policy. — It is hereby declared
written in the Constitution for they are assumed to the policy of the State to ensure the sustainable use,
exist from the inception of humankind. If they are now development, management, renewal, and conservation
explicitly mentioned in the fundamental charter, it is of the country's forest, mineral, land, off-shore areas
because of the well-founded fear of its framers that and other natural resources, including the protection
unless the rights to a balanced and healthful ecology and enhancement of the quality of the environment,
and to health are mandated as state policies by the and equitable access of the different segments of the
Constitution itself, thereby highlighting their population to the development and the use of the
continuing importance and imposing upon the state a country's natural resources, not only for the present
solemn obligation to preserve the first and protect and generation but for future generations as well. It is also
advance the second, the day would not be too far when the policy of the state to recognize and apply a true
all else would be lost not only for the present value system including social and environmental cost
generation, but also for those to come — generations implications relative to their utilization, development
which stand to inherit nothing but parched earth and conservation of our natural resources.
incapable of sustaining life.
This policy declaration is substantially re-stated it Title
The right to a balanced and healthful ecology carries XIV, Book IV of the Administrative Code of 1987,15
with it the correlative duty to refrain from impairing specifically in Section 1 thereof which reads:
the environment. During the debates on this right in
one of the plenary sessions of the 1986 Constitutional Sec. 1. Declaration of Policy. — (1) The State shall
Commission, the following exchange transpired ensure, for the benefit of the Filipino people, the full
between Commissioner Wilfrido Villacorta and exploration and development as well as the judicious
Commissioner Adolfo Azcuna who sponsored the disposition, utilization, management, renewal and
section in question: conservation of the country's forest, mineral, land,
waters, fisheries, wildlife, off-shore areas and other
natural resources, consistent with the necessity of the same gives rise to a cause of action. Petitioners
maintaining a sound ecological balance and protecting maintain that the granting of the TLAs, which they
and enhancing the quality of the environment and the claim was done with grave abuse of discretion, violated
objective of making the exploration, development and their right to a balanced and healthful ecology; hence,
utilization of such natural resources equitably the full protection thereof requires that no further
accessible to the different segments of the present as TLAs should be renewed or granted.
well as future generations.
A cause of action is defined as:
(2) The State shall likewise recognize and apply a true
value system that takes into account social and . . . an act or omission of one party in violation of the
environmental cost implications relative to the legal right or rights of the other; and its essential
utilization, development and conservation of our elements are legal right of the plaintiff, correlative
natural resources. obligation of the defendant, and act or omission of the
defendant in violation of said legal right. 18
The above provision stresses "the necessity of
maintaining a sound ecological balance and protecting It is settled in this jurisdiction that in a motion to
and enhancing the quality of the environment." Section dismiss based on the ground that the complaint fails to
2 of the same Title, on the other hand, specifically state a cause of action, 19 the question submitted to the
speaks of the mandate of the DENR; however, it makes court for resolution involves the sufficiency of the facts
particular reference to the fact of the agency's being alleged in the complaint itself. No other matter should
subject to law and higher authority. Said section be considered; furthermore, the truth of falsity of the
provides: said allegations is beside the point for the truth thereof
is deemed hypothetically admitted. The only issue to
Sec. 2. Mandate. — (1) The Department of be resolved in such a case is: admitting such alleged
Environment and Natural Resources shall be primarily facts to be true, may the court render a valid judgment
responsible for the implementation of the foregoing in accordance with the prayer in the complaint? 20 In
policy. Militante vs. Edrosolano, 21 this Court laid down the
rule that the judiciary should "exercise the utmost care
(2) It shall, subject to law and higher authority, be in and circumspection in passing upon a motion to
charge of carrying out the State's constitutional dismiss on the ground of the absence thereof [cause of
mandate to control and supervise the exploration, action] lest, by its failure to manifest a correct
development, utilization, and conservation of the appreciation of the facts alleged and deemed
country's natural resources. hypothetically admitted, what the law grants or
recognizes is effectively nullified. If that happens, there
Both E.O. NO. 192 and the Administrative Code of is a blot on the legal order. The law itself stands in
1987 have set the objectives which will serve as the disrepute."
bases for policy formulation, and have defined the
powers and functions of the DENR. After careful examination of the petitioners' complaint,
We find the statements under the introductory
It may, however, be recalled that even before the affirmative allegations, as well as the specific
ratification of the 1987 Constitution, specific statutes averments under the sub-heading CAUSE OF ACTION,
already paid special attention to the "environmental to be adequate enough to show, prima facie, the
right" of the present and future generations. On 6 June claimed violation of their rights. On the basis thereof,
1977, P.D. No. 1151 (Philippine Environmental Policy) they may thus be granted, wholly or partly, the reliefs
and P.D. No. 1152 (Philippine Environment Code) were prayed for. It bears stressing, however, that insofar as
issued. The former "declared a continuing policy of the the cancellation of the TLAs is concerned, there is the
State (a) to create, develop, maintain and improve need to implead, as party defendants, the grantees
conditions under which man and nature can thrive in thereof for they are indispensable parties.
productive and enjoyable harmony with each other, (b)
to fulfill the social, economic and other requirements The foregoing considered, Civil Case No. 90-777 be
of present and future generations of Filipinos, and (c) said to raise a political question. Policy formulation or
to insure the attainment of an environmental quality determination by the executive or legislative branches
that is conducive to a life of dignity and well-being." 16 of Government is not squarely put in issue. What is
As its goal, it speaks of the "responsibilities of each principally involved is the enforcement of a right
generation as trustee and guardian of the environment vis-a-vis policies already formulated and expressed in
for succeeding generations." 17 The latter statute, on legislation. It must, nonetheless, be emphasized that
the other hand, gave flesh to the said policy. the political question doctrine is no longer, the
insurmountable obstacle to the exercise of judicial
Thus, the right of the petitioners (and all those they power or the impenetrable shield that protects
represent) to a balanced and healthful ecology is as executive and legislative actions from judicial inquiry
clear as the DENR's duty — under its mandate and by or review. The second paragraph of section 1, Article
virtue of its powers and functions under E.O. No. 192 VIII of the Constitution states that:
and the Administrative Code of 1987 — to protect and
advance the said right. Judicial power includes the duty of the courts of justice
to settle actual controversies involving rights which are
A denial or violation of that right by the other who has legally demandable and enforceable, and to determine
the corelative duty or obligation to respect or protect whether or not there has been a grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction out by the petitioners, into every timber license must
on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the be read Section 20 of the Forestry Reform Code (P.D.
Government. No. 705) which provides:

Commenting on this provision in his book, Philippine . . . Provided, That when the national interest so
Political Law, 22 Mr. Justice Isagani A. Cruz, a requires, the President may amend, modify, replace or
distinguished member of this Court, says: rescind any contract, concession, permit, licenses or
any other form of privilege granted herein . . .
The first part of the authority represents the traditional
concept of judicial power, involving the settlement of Needless to say, all licenses may thus be revoked or
conflicting rights as conferred as law. The second part rescinded by executive action. It is not a contract,
of the authority represents a broadening of judicial property or a property right protested by the due
power to enable the courts of justice to review what process clause of the Constitution. In Tan vs. Director
was before forbidden territory, to wit, the discretion of of Forestry, 25 this Court held:
the political departments of the government.
. . . A timber license is an instrument by which the
As worded, the new provision vests in the judiciary, State regulates the utilization and disposition of forest
and particularly the Supreme Court, the power to rule resources to the end that public welfare is promoted. A
upon even the wisdom of the decisions of the executive timber license is not a contract within the purview of
and the legislature and to declare their acts invalid for the due process clause; it is only a license or privilege,
lack or excess of jurisdiction because tainted with which can be validly withdrawn whenever dictated by
grave abuse of discretion. The catch, of course, is the public interest or public welfare as in this case.
meaning of "grave abuse of discretion," which is a very
elastic phrase that can expand or contract according to A license is merely a permit or privilege to do what
the disposition of the judiciary. otherwise would be unlawful, and is not a contract
between the authority, federal, state, or municipal,
In Daza vs. Singson, 23 Mr. Justice Cruz, now speaking granting it and the person to whom it is granted;
for this Court, noted: neither is it property or a property right, nor does it
create a vested right; nor is it taxation (37 C.J. 168).
In the case now before us, the jurisdictional objection Thus, this Court held that the granting of license does
becomes even less tenable and decisive. The reason is not create irrevocable rights, neither is it property or
that, even if we were to assume that the issue property rights (People vs. Ong Tin, 54 O.G. 7576).
presented before us was political in nature, we would
still not be precluded from revolving it under the We reiterated this pronouncement in Felipe Ysmael,
expanded jurisdiction conferred upon us that now Jr. & Co., Inc. vs. Deputy Executive Secretary: 26
covers, in proper cases, even the political question.
Article VII, Section 1, of the Constitution clearly . . . Timber licenses, permits and license agreements
provides: . . . are the principal instruments by which the State
regulates the utilization and disposition of forest
The last ground invoked by the trial court in dismissing resources to the end that public welfare is promoted.
the complaint is the non-impairment of contracts And it can hardly be gainsaid that they merely evidence
clause found in the Constitution. The court a quo a privilege granted by the State to qualified entities,
declared that: and do not vest in the latter a permanent or irrevocable
right to the particular concession area and the forest
The Court is likewise of the impression that it cannot, products therein. They may be validly amended,
no matter how we stretch our jurisdiction, grant the modified, replaced or rescinded by the Chief Executive
reliefs prayed for by the plaintiffs, i.e., to cancel all when national interests so require. Thus, they are not
existing timber license agreements in the country and deemed contracts within the purview of the due
to cease and desist from receiving, accepting, process of law clause [See Sections 3(ee) and 20 of
processing, renewing or approving new timber license Pres. Decree No. 705, as amended. Also, Tan v.
agreements. For to do otherwise would amount to Director of Forestry, G.R. No. L-24548, October 27,
"impairment of contracts" abhored (sic) by the 1983, 125 SCRA 302].
fundamental law. 24
Since timber licenses are not contracts, the
We are not persuaded at all; on the contrary, We are non-impairment clause, which reads:
amazed, if not shocked, by such a sweeping
pronouncement. In the first place, the respondent Sec. 10. No law impairing, the obligation of contracts
Secretary did not, for obvious reasons, even invoke in shall be passed. 27
his motion to dismiss the non-impairment clause. If he
had done so, he would have acted with utmost cannot be invoked.
infidelity to the Government by providing undue and
unwarranted benefits and advantages to the timber In the second place, even if it is to be assumed that the
license holders because he would have forever bound same are contracts, the instant case does not involve a
the Government to strictly respect the said licenses law or even an executive issuance declaring the
according to their terms and conditions regardless of cancellation or modification of existing timber licenses.
changes in policy and the demands of public interest Hence, the non-impairment clause cannot as yet be
and welfare. He was aware that as correctly pointed invoked. Nevertheless, granting further that a law has
actually been passed mandating cancellations or March 2, 1990 before the Regional Trial Court, Makati,
modifications, the same cannot still be stigmatized as a Branch 66. The petitioners comprised numerous
violation of the non-impairment clause. This is because minors—including Juan Antonio, Anna Rosario and
by its very nature and purpose, such as law could have Jose Alfonso Oposa, Roberta Nicole Sadiua, Carlo,
only been passed in the exercise of the police power of Amanda Salud and Patrisha Flores, Gianina Dita R.
the state for the purpose of advancing the right of the Fortun, George II and Ma. Concepcion Misa, Benjamin
people to a balanced and healthful ecology, promoting Alan V. Pesigan, Jovie Marie Alfaro, Maria Concepcion
their health and enhancing the general welfare. In Abe T. Castro, Johanna Desamparado, Carlo Joaquin T.
vs. Foster Wheeler Narvasa, Ma. Margarita, Jesus Ignacio, Ma. Angela and
Corp. 28 this Court stated: Marie Gabrielle Saenz, Kristine, Mary Ellen, May,
Golda Marthe and David Ian King, David, Francisco
The freedom of contract, under our system of and Therese Victoria Endriga, Jose Ma. and Regina
government, is not meant to be absolute. The same is Ma. Abaya, Marilin, Mario Jr. and Mariette Cardama,
understood to be subject to reasonable legislative Clarissa, Ann Marie, Nagel and Imee Lyn Oposa, Philip
regulation aimed at the promotion of public health, Joseph, Stephen John and Isaiah James Quipit, and
moral, safety and welfare. In other words, the Bughaw Cielo, Crisanto, Anna, Daniel and Francisco
constitutional guaranty of non-impairment of Bibal—each represented by their respective parents,
obligations of contract is limited by the exercise of the together with the Philippine Ecological Network, Inc.
police power of the State, in the interest of public (PENI). They sued the Secretary of the Department of
health, safety, moral and general welfare. Environment and Natural Resources (DENR), Hon.
Fulgencio S. Factoran, Jr. (later substituted by Angel C.
The reason for this is emphatically set forth in Nebia Alcala), and Hon. Eriberto U. Rosario, Presiding
vs. New York, 29 quoted in Philippine American Life Judge, RTC Makati Branch 66, seeking cancellation of
Insurance Co. vs. Auditor General,30 to wit: all existing timber license agreements (TLAs) and an
injunction against new ones. The complaint, styled as a
Under our form of government the use of property and taxpayers’ class suit, alleged a drastic decline of
the making of contracts are normally matters of private Philippine rainforests—from some 16 million ha
and not of public concern. The general rule is that both twenty-five years prior to only 850,000 ha of virgin
shall be free of governmental interference. But neither old-growth—and detailed environmental harms such
property rights nor contract rights are absolute; for as water shortages, soil erosion, cultural dislocation
government cannot exist if the citizen may at will use and global warming, asserting a constitutional right to
his property to the detriment of his fellows, or exercise a balanced and healthful ecology, parens patriae duty,
his freedom of contract to work them harm. Equally and violations of PD 1151, E.O. 192, Civil Code Articles
fundamental with the private right is that of the public 19–21 and the 1987 Constitution. After a final demand
to regulate it in the common interest. letter on March 2, 1990, DENR moved on June 22,
1990 to dismiss for lack of cause of action and raising a
In short, the non-impairment clause must yield to the political question, which RTC granted on July 18, 1991
police power of the state. 31 also citing impairment of contracts. The petitioners
then filed a certiorari under Rule 65, RRC, contending
Finally, it is difficult to imagine, as the trial court did, grave abuse of discretion. The SC gave due course on
how the non-impairment clause could apply with May 14, 1992 and ultimately reversed the dismissal,
respect to the prayer to enjoin the respondent recognizing standing, justiciability and the
Secretary from receiving, accepting, processing, non-contractual nature of TLAs.
renewing or approving new timber licenses for, save in
cases of renewal, no contract would have as of yet ISSUES: The main issues are:
existed in the other instances. Moreover, with respect 1.​ Do petitioners possess a valid cause of action
to renewal, the holder is not entitled to it as a matter of to enforce the right to a balanced and healthful
right. ecology on behalf of present and future
generations?
WHEREFORE, being impressed with merit, the instant 2.​ Is the controversy a non-justiciable political
Petition is hereby GRANTED, and the challenged question barred from judicial review?
Order of respondent Judge of 18 July 1991 dismissing 3.​ Did the RTC commit grave abuse of discretion
Civil Case No. 90-777 is hereby set aside. The in dismissing the complaint for lack of
petitioners may therefore amend their complaint to jurisdiction?
implead as defendants the holders or grantees of the 4.​ Are timber license agreements contracts
questioned timber license agreements. protected by the non-impairment of contracts
clause or merely revocable licenses when
No pronouncement as to costs. national interest so requires?

SO ORDERED. RULING: The Supreme Court granted the petition,

set aside the RTC’s July 18, 1991 dismissal, and held
that petitioners stated a valid cause of action, that the
DIGESTED CASE! issue was justiciable under the expanded judicial
power of Article VIII, Section 1 of the 1987
FACTS: On July 30, 1993, the Supreme Court En Constitution to correct grave abuse of discretion, and
Banc decided Oposa et al. v. Factoran, G.R. No. that TLAs are licenses, not contracts shielded by the
101083, arising from Civil Case No. 90-777 filed on non-impairment clause, hence revocable in the public
interest; the petitioners were permitted to amend their
complaint to implead TLA holders, and no costs were
awarded.

RATIO: The Court first found that the minors, suing

as a class under Rule 3, Section 12, RRC, had locus
standi based on intergenerational responsibility,
representing their generation and those unborn. It
recognized petitioners’ right to a balanced and
healthful ecology (Sec. 16, Art. II, 1987 Constitution)
and right to health (Sec. 15, Art. II) as enforceable legal
rights, and noted the DENR’s statutory mandate under
E.O. 192 Sec. 4, PD 1151 Sec. 3 and Administrative
Code, Title XIV Book IV Secs. 1–2 to conserve natural
resources. Admitting all factual allegations as true, the
Court ruled petitioners had stated a cause of action. It
rejected the political question bar in light of Article
VIII, Section 1’s grant of power to review executive
action tainted with grave abuse of discretion. Finally,
interpreting PD 705 Sec. 20, it held that TLAs are
revocable privileges, not immutable contracts, and
thus not protected by the non-impairment clause.