A corollary, both dictated by logicand soundsense from a basic concept is that public funds cannot be the object of agarnishment proceeding even if theconsent to be sued had been previously granted andthe state liability adjudged. 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. Justice Cruz, now speaking for this Court, noted: In the case now before us, the jurisdictional objection becomes even less tenable and decisive. The Court held that the Timber License Agreement is an instrument by which the state regulates the utilization and disposition of forest resources to the end that public welfare is promoted. I understand locus standi to refer to the legal interest which a plaintiff must have in the subject matter of the suit. 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.
Disbursements of publicfunds must be covered by the correspondingappropriation as required by law. They further asseverate that they represent their generation as well as generations yet unborn and asserted that continued deforestation have caused a distortion and disturbance of the ecological balance and have resulted in a host of environmental tragedies. At least in respect of the vast area of environmental protection and management, our courts have no claim to special technical competence and experience and professional qualification. The State may not be sued without its consent. The Court may be seen therefore to be recognizing a beneficiaries' right of action in the field of environmental protection, as against both the public administrative agency directly concerned and the private persons or entities operating in the field or sector of activity involved.
Impleaded as an additional plaintiff is the Philippine Ecological Network, Inc. This case, however, has a special and novel element. Twenty-five 25 years ago, the Philippines had some sixteen 16 million hectares of rainforests constituting roughly 53% of the country's land mass. 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. The same is understood to be subject to reasonable legislative regulation aimed at the promotion of public health, moral, safety and welfare.
According to sociobiological theory, genetics and natural selection ultimately explain the entire range of human behavior, including the concern that we have for our offspring and descendants. 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. Where no specific, operable norms and standards are shown to exist, then the policy making departments C the legislative and executive departments C must be given a real and effective opportunity to fashion and promulgate those norms and standards, and to implement them before the courts should intervene. 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 instrumentality of the Government. The last ground invoked by the trial court in dismissing the complaint is the non-impairment of contracts clause found in the Constitution.
Hence, the non-impairment clause cannot as yet be invoked. His substitution in this petition by the new Secretary, the Honorable Angel C. Secondly, the Philippine Environment Code identifies with notable care the particular government agency charged with the formulation and implementation of guidelines and programs dealing with each of the headings and sub-headings mentioned above. 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. What is principally involved is the enforcement of a right vis-a-vis policies already formulated and expressed in legislation. 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. Impleaded as an additional plaintiff is the Philippine Ecological Network, Inc.
It is not a contract, property or a property right protected by the due process clause of the Constitution. This right unites with the right to health which is provided for in the preceding section of the same article: Sec. Issue: Whether or not petitioners have a cause of action? Alcala, was subsequently ordered upon proper motion by the petitioners. Satellite images taken in 1987 reveal that there remained no more than 1. 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.
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. 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. What is principally involved is the enforcement of a right vis-a-vis policies already formulated and expressed in legislation. The subject matter of the complaint is of common and general interest not just to several, but to all citizens of the Philippines. It is not a contract, property or a property right protected by the due process clause of the Constitution. It might be asked that, if petitioners' entitlement to the relief demanded is not dependent upon proof of breach by the timber companies of one or more of the specific terms and conditions of their concession agreements and this, petitioners implicitly assume , what will those companies litigate about? Policy formulation or determination by the executive or legislative branches of Government is not squarely put in issue. 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.
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. 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. 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. The Philippine Environment Code does not, in other words, appear to contemplate action on the part of private persons who are beneficiaries of implementation of that Code. The subject matter of the complaint is of common and general interest not just to several, but to all citizens of the Philippines.
They may be validly amended, modified, replaced or rescinded by the Chief Executive when national interests so require. The said right carries with it the duty to refrain from impairing the environment and implies, among many other things, the judicious management and conservation of the country's forests. Relevance The case of Oposa vs. According to him, the subject matter of the complaint is of common interest, making this civil case a class suit and proving the existence of an actual controversy. Petitioners minors assert that they represent their generation as well as generations yet unborn. Such a right belongs to a different category of rights altogether for it concerns nothing less than self-preservation and self-perpetuation — aptly and fittinglystressed by the petitioners — the advancement of which may even be said to predate all governments and constitutions. The answer I suggest is that they may seek to dispute the existence of the specific legal right petitioners should allege, as well as the reality of the claimed factual nexus between petitioners' specific legal rights and the claimed wrongful acts or failures to act of public respondent administrative agency.