II.
CONSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK
A. PREAMBLE
We, the sovereign Filipino people, imploring the aid of
Almighty God, in order to build a just and humane society,
and establish a Government that shall embody our ideals and
aspirations, promote the common good, conserve and
develop our patrimony, and secure to ourselves and our
posterity, the blessings of independence and democracy
under the rule of law and a regime of truth, justice, freedom,
love, equality, and peace, do ordain and promulgate this
Constitution.
1. What is preamble?
- Derived from the Latin preambulare which means
“to walk before.”
- An introduction to the main subject.
- Prologue of the constitution.
- It forms no integral part of our Constitution.
- It cannot be invoked as a source of private right
enforceable by the courts or of any governmental
power not expressly granted or at least, clearly
therefrom.
2. What are the purposes of preamble?
(1) Sets down origin and purposes of the Constitution. –
Preamble is couched in general terms, provides the
broad outline of, and the spirit behind the
Constitution.
(a) It tells us who are the authors of the Constitution
and for whom it has been promulgated; and
(b) It states the general purposes which are intended to
be achieved by the Constitution and the government
established under it, and certain basic principles
underlying the fundamental charter.
(2) May serve as an aid in its interpretation. – The
Preamble has a value for purposes of construction.
The statement of the general purposes may be
resorted to as an aid in determining the meaning of
vague or ambiguous provisions of the Constitution
proper.
B. NATIONAL TERRITORY
ARTICLE I
Section 1. The national territory comprises the Philippine
archipelago, with all the islands and waters embraced therein,
and all other territories over which the Philippines has
sovereignty or jurisdiction, consisting of its terrestrial, fluvial,
and aerial domains, including its territorial sea, the seabed,
the subsoil, the insular shelves, and other submarine areas.
The waters around, between, and connecting the islands of
the archipelago, regardless of their breadth and dimensions,
form part of the internal waters of the Philippines.
3. Define the Philippine Territory.
The Philippine Territory: The national territory is comprised
of –
(1) Philippine Archipelago, with all the islands and
waters embraced therein; Internal waters – waters
around, between, and connecting the islands of the
archipelago, regardless of breadth and dimension;
and
(2) All other territories over which the Philippines has
sovereignty or jurisdiction consisting of its territorial
sea, seabed, subsoil, insular shelves, and other
submarine areas; and its terrestrial, fluvial and aerial
domains.
Magallona, et al v. Ermita et al.,
G.R. NO. 147465, July 16, 2011
Subject Matter: constitutionality of the Philippine Baselines
Law. (RA 9522 is a Statutory Tool to Demarcate the Country’s
Maritime Zones and Continental Shelf Under UNCLOS III, not
to delineate Philippine Territory.)
FACTS:
RA 3046 was passed demarcating the baselines of
the Philippines. After five decades, RA 9552 was passed,
amending 3046 to comply with the terms of the United
Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). The new
law shortened one baseline, optimized the location of some
basepoints around the Philippine archipelago and classified
adjacent territories, namely, the Kalayaan Island Group and
the Scarborough Shoal, as regimes of islands whose islands
generate their own applicable maritime zones.
Petitioners assailed the constitutionality of the new
law on the ground that: it reduces the Philippine maritime
territory, in violation of Article I of the Constitution and it
opens the country’s waters to maritime passage by all vessels,
thus undermining Philippine sovereignty.
Magallona, et al objections: anchored their petition
on Article I of the Constitution.
1. R.A. 9522 violates Art. I of the Constitution.
2. Treats the Kalayaan Island Group (KIG) as a regime of
islands.
3. Waives Philippines claim over Sabah.
Respondents, on the other hand, defended the new
law as the country’s compliance with the terms of UNCLOS.
Respondents stressed that RA 9522 does not relinquish the
country’s claim over Sabah.
ISSUE:
WON RA 9522 is unconstitutional.
RULING:
No. UNCLOS III has nothing to do with the
acquisition (or loss) of territory. It is a multilateral treaty
regulating, among others, sea use rights over maritime zones
(i.e. the territorial waters (12nm miles from the baselines),
contiguous zone (24nm from the baselines), exclusive
economic zone (200 nm from the baselines)) and continental
shelves that UNCLOS III delimits. UNCLOS III was the
culmination of decades long negotiations among United
Nations members to codify norms regulating the conduct of
States in the world’s oceans and submarine areas, recognizing
coastal and archipelagic States graduated authority over a
limited span of waters and submarine lands along their coasts.
UNCLOS III and its ancillary baselines laws play no
role in the acquisition, enlargement or, as petitioners claim,
diminution of territory. Under traditional International law
typology, States acquire (or conversely, lose) territory
through occupation, accretion, cession and prescription, not
by executing multilateral treaties on regulations of sea use
rights or enacting statutes to comply with the treaty terms to
delimit maritime zones and continental shelves. Territorial
claims to land features are outside UNCLOS III, and are
instead governed by the rules on general international law.
4. What is archipelagic doctrine?
- A body of water studded with islands, or the islands
surrounded with water, is viewed as a unity of
islands and waters together forming one integrated
unit.
- The waters around, between and connecting the
islands of the archipelago, regardless of their
breadth and dimensions, form part of the internal
waters of the Philippines.
The right of innocent passage to the territorial waters of
States is customary international law. In the absence of
municipal legislation, international law norms, now codified
in UNCLOS III, operate to grant innocent passage rights over
the territorial sea or archipelagic waters, subject to the
treaty’s limitations and conditions for their exercise.
Significantly, the right of innocent passage is a customary
international law, thus automatically incorporated in the
corpus of Philippine law. No modern State can validly invoke
its sovereignty to absolutely forbid innocent passage that is
exercised in accordance with customary international law
without risking retaliatory measures from the international
community.
Nature of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the
Sea. UNCLOS III has nothing to do with the acquisition (or loss)
of territory. It is a multilateral treaty regulating, among others,
sea-use rights over maritime zone (i.e., the territorial waters
[12 nautical miles from the baselines], contiguous zone [24
nautical miles from the baselines], exclusive economic zone
[200 nautical miles from the baselines], and continental
shelves that UNCLOS III delimits.
Modes of acquisition or loss of territory under international
law. Under traditional international law typology, States
acquire (or conversely, loss) territory through occupation,
accretion, cession and prescription, not by executing
multilateral treaties on the regulations of sea-use rights or
enacting statutes to comply with the treaty’s terms to delimit
maritime zones and continental shelves. Territorial claims to
land features are outside UNCLOS III and are instead
governed by the rules on general international law.
Consequence of classifying the KIG and the Scarborough
Shoal as Regimes of Islands. Far from surrendering the
Philippines’ claim over the KIG and the Scarborough Shoal,
Congress’ decision to classify the KIG and the Scarborough
Shoal as “Regime(s) of Islands” under the Republic of the
Philippines consistent with Article 121 of UNCLOS III
manifests the Philippine State’s responsible observance.
5. What is UNCLOS (UNITED NATIONS CONVENTION
ON THE LAW OF THE SEA)?
- UNCLOS, ratified by 165 states comprising 85% of
the entire membership of the United Nations, is the
primary international law governing the use of the
oceans and seas of planet earth.
- Specifically, UNCLOS governs the use of the
following maritime zones: (a) Internal Waters or
Archipelagic Waters, the landward waters adjacent
to the territorial sea; (b) Territorial Sea, an area of
12 nm from the baselines along the coast; (c)
Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), an area of 200 nm
from the baselines; (d) Extended Continental Shelf
(ECS), an additional area of 150 nm from the outer
limits of EEZ; and (e) The High Seas area, which is
the maritime zone beyond the ECS.
- The high seas belong to all states, whether coastal or
land-locked.
- It is also known as the Law of the Sea Treaty.
- It is the international agreement that defined the
limits of the territorial seas of nations and the areas
in which they could exploit marine resources.
- It also established the rules for the use of the high
seas for international navigation, and outlined the
rights and responsibilities of nations in the
protection of the marine environment.
6. What are the maritime zones protected by UNCLOS?
o Exclusive Economic Zone is an area beyond and
adjacent to the territorial sea, which shall not extend
beyond 200 nautical miles from the baseline from
which the territorial sea is measured.
o Territorial Sea is 12 nautical miles from the baseline.
o Contiguous Zone is 24 nautical miles from the
baseline.
o Continental Shelf is 150 nautical miles from the
baseline.
- UNCLOS governs maritime disputes on overlapping
maritime zones like overlapping territorial seas, eezs
and ecss.
- UNCLOS does not govern territorial disputes, which
are sovereignty or ownership issues over land
territory like islands or rocks above water at high
tide.
- Rocks that are below water, or submerged, at high
tide are not considered land and thus disputes over
such rocks are governed by UNCLOS.
- UNCLOS provides for a compulsory dispute
settlement mechanism over maritime disputes
among its member states, including disputes
involving the interpretation or application of the
provisions of UNCLOS.
7. What the sovereign rights covered by UNCLOS?
- The UNCLOS gives to the coastal State sovereign
rights in varying degrees over the different zones of
the sea which are: 1) internal waters, 2) territorial
sea, 3) contiguous zone, 4) exclusive economic zone,
and 5) the high seas.
- It also gives coastal States more or less jurisdiction
over foreign vessels depending on where the vessel
is located.
- Insofar as the internal waters and territorial sea is
concerned, the Coastal State exercises sovereignty,
subject to the UNCLOS and other rules of
international law. Such sovereignty extends to the
air space over the territorial sea as well as to its bed
and subsoil.
- Article 193: States have the sovereign right to exploit
their natural resources pursuant to their
environmental policies and in accordance with their
duty to protect and preserve the marine
environment.
8. What is the concept of pact sunt servanda?
- It is a latin term which means “agreements must be
kept”. It is the principle in international law which
says that international treaties should be upheld by
all the signatories.
- This rule is based upon the principle of good faith.
The basis of good faith indicates that a party to the
treaty cannot invoke provisions of its domestic law
as a justification for a failure to perform.
- The only limit to pacta sunt servanda is jus cogens
which means “compelling law.” That body of
peremptory principles or norms from which no
derogation is permitted.
- Jus cogens may operate to invalidate a treaty or
agreement between states to the extent of the
inconsistency with any such principles or norms.
These are those which cannot be violated by any
State through international treaties or laws such as
prohibition of genocide, maritime piracy, torture,
and slavery.
9. Does UNCLOS allow a state to claim a territory?
- No.
 - UNCLOS III has nothing to do with the acquisition (or
loss) of territory.
- It is a multilateral treaty regulating sea-use rights
over maritime zones.
- Territorial claims to land features are outside
UNLCOS III, and are instead governed by the rules on
general international law.
10. What will be the legal basis of a state which has a
territorial dispute with another state?
- Article 286 of UNCLOS provides that subject to
Section 3, any dispute concerning the interpretation
or application of this Convention shall, where no
settlement has been reached by recourse to
Section1, be submitted at the request of any party to
the dispute to the court or tribunal having
jurisdiction under this Section. - Since the Philippines
and China have not chosen a specific procedure to
resolve their disputes, they fall under Annex VII of
UNCLOS. Parties would now be covered by binding
arbitration.
11. What is the purpose of the Philippine Congress in
enacting a law which redefined the Philippine
baselines?
- Far from surrendering the Philippines’ claim over
the Kalayaan Island Group (KIG) and the
Scarborough Shoal, Congress’ decision to classify the
KIG and the Scarborough Shoal as “’Regime(s) of
Islands’ under the Republic of the Philippines
consistent with Article 121” of UNCLOS III manifests
the Philippine State’s responsible observance of its
pacta sund servanda obligation under UNCLOS III.
- The purpose of RA 9522 is that it is the country’s
compliance with the terms of UNCLOS III, preserving
Philippine territory over the KIG or Scarborough
Shoal.
12. Did the new law have any effect on the Philippine
claim on Sabah and the Kalayaan Island Group?
- None.
- The purpose of the law is to comply with limitations
on the maximum length of baselines allowed by
UNCLOS III. It does not affect the claim of Philippines
on Sabah and the KIG. - Furthermore, Section 2 of RA
9522 commits to text the Philippines continued
claim of sovereignty and jurisdiction over the Sabah,
KIG and Scarborough Shoal.
C. DECLARATION OF PRINCIPLES AND STATE POLICIES –
ARTICLE II
Section 15 – Right to Health
Section 15. The State shall protect and promote the right to
health of the people and instill health consciousness among
them.
Review Question: What is the scope of the constitutional
right to good health?
- Human health
- It includes the right of the people for a balanced and
healthful ecology because without this balance,
human health is susceptible to health hazards
- Philippine Constitution provides the following:
Under Article II, Section 2 provides that, “The State shall
protect and promote the right to health of the people and
instill health consciousness among them.”
ARTICLE XIII Social Justice and Human Rights
Health
Section 11. The State shall adopt an integrated and
comprehensive approach to health development which shall
endeavor to make essential goods, health and other social
services available to all the people at affordable cost. There
shall be priority for the needs of the under-privileged sick,
elderly, disabled, women, and children. The State shall
endeavor to provide free medical care to paupers.
Section 12. The State shall establish and maintain an
effective food and drug regulatory system and undertake
appropriate health manpower development and research,
responsive to the country's health needs and problems.
Section 13. The State shall establish a special agency for
disabled person for their rehabilitation, self-development and
self-reliance, and their integration into the mainstream of
society.
Section 16 – Right to a Balanced Ecology
Section 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.
- 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.
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. The right
to a balanced and healthful ecology carries with it
the correlative duty to refrain from impairing the
environment.
- Section 16 is unusual among those found in Article II
in that, whereas almost all the other provisions in
the Article are not self-executing but need
implementing legislation to make them effective,
Section 16 has been recognized by the Supreme
Court as self-executing like the provisions in the Bill
of Rights.
Review Questions:
1. What is a balanced ecology?
- Ecological balance brings the existence of the world.
Earth’s inhabitants such as human beings, plants,
animals and other micro living organisms continue to
survive. These species get the conducive
environment to multiply and thrive. The world gets
to produce sufficient food for all species. Hunger
caused by drought becomes history. This is because
the drought will never be experienced at any point.
Also, green environment is maintained. This means
that the world achieves its equilibrium state that
benefits and protects all living organisms in it.
- Balanced between particular biotic and nonbiotic
entities which depend on each other for the biotic
entities to survive and maintain life.
- A critical element for biotic entities to maintain life
would be that their populations are in a proper and
natural proportion to others so that, in the given
limits of available non-biotic entities in the
ecosystem, no one population overwhelms another
2. What is biodiversity?
- Variety of life on the planet.
- Variability among living organisms from all sources,
including terrestrial, marine, and other
aquatic ecosystems and the ecological complexes of
which they are part; this
 includes diversity within species, between species,
and of ecosystems.
- Forms the foundation of the vast array of ecosystem
services that critically contribute to human well-
being.
- Important in human-managed as well as natural
ecosystems.
International Services for Acquisition of Agri-Biotech
Applications, Inc. v. Greenpeace Southeast Asia (Phil.), Dec.8,
2015
Subject Matter: (S.C. issued Writ of Kalikasan for BT field
trials for violation of constitutional right to health and
balanced ecology; Respondents raised the following
objections: Petitioner did not obtain ECC; BT Talong is
presumed harmful, if consumed; has adverse and toxic effect
on human health; experiments showed adverse effect even on
insects.)
BACKGROUND:
In 1990, President Corazon Aquino signed Executive
Order (EO) No. 430 creating the National Committee on
Biosafety of the Philippines (NCBP) which was tasked to
identify and evaluate potential hazards involved in initiating
genetic engineering experiments and introducing new species
and genetically engineered organisms and recommend
measures to minimize risks.
In 1991, NCBP formulated the Philippine Biosafety
Guidelines which governs the regulation of the importation or
introduction, movement and field release of potentially
hazardous biological materials in the Philippines. The same
was followed by the Guidelines on Planned Release of
Genetically Manipulated Organisms (GMOs) and Potentially
Harmful Exotic Species (PHES).
On 29 December 1993, the Convention on Biological
Diversity (CBD) came into force. This is a multilateral treaty
recognizing the great potential of modern biotechnology for
human well-being if developed and used with adequate
safety measures for the environment and human health.
In January 2000, an agreement was reached on the
Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety (Cartagena Protocol), a
supplement to the CBD, which aims to ensure an adequate
level of safe transfer, handling and use of living modified
organisms resulting from modern biotechnology. The
Philippines signed the same on May 24 of the same year.
In April 2002, the Department of Agriculture (DA) issued
DA Administrative Order No. 08 which provides rules and
regulations for the importation and release into the
environment of plants and plant products derived from the
use of modern biotechnology.
On 17 March 2006, EO No. 514 (EO 514) entitled,
“Establishing the National Biosafety Framework (NBF),
Prescribing Guidelines for its Implementation, and
Strengthening the NCBP” was issued. It expressly provides
that DAO 2002-08, NCBP Guidelines on the Contained Use of
GMOs, except for provisions on potentially harmful exotic
species which were repealed, and all issuances of the Bureau
of Food and Drugs Authority (FDA) on products of modern
biotechnology, shall continue to be in force and effect unless
amended by the issuing departments or agencies.
FACTS:
 On 24 September 2010, a Memorandum of
Undertaking was executed between International
Service for the Acquisition of Agri-Biotech
Applications, Inc. (ISAAA), University of the
Philippines Los Baños Foundation, Inc. (UPLBFI) and
UP Mindanao Foundation, Inc. (UPMFI), in pursuance
of a collaborative research and development project
on eggplants that are resistant to the fruit and shoot
borer. Other partner agencies involved were UPLB
through its Institute of Plant Breeding, Maharastra
Hybrid Seed Company (MAHYCO) of India, Cornell
University and the Agricultural Biotechnology
Support Project II (ABSPII) of USAID.
 The UPLB Field Trial Proposal states that the pest-
resistant crop subject of the field trial was described
as a “bio-engineered eggplant.” The crystal toxin
genes from the soil bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis
(Bt) were incorporated into the eggplant genome to
produce the protein CrylAc which is toxic to target
insect pests. The latter is said to be highly specific to
lepidopteran larvae such as fruit and shoot borer
(FSB), the most destructive insect pest of eggplant.
 NCBP issued a Certificate of Completion of
Contained Experiment which was conducted from
2007 to 3 March 2009 stating that during the
conduct of experiment, all the biosafety measures
have been complied with and no untoward incident
has occurred.
 On 16 March 2010 and 28 June 2010, the Bureau of
Plant Industry (BPI) issued biosafety permits to
UPLB.
 Field testing commenced on various dates in the
following approved trial sites: Kabacan, North
Cotabato; Sta. Maria, Pangasinan; Pili, Camarines
Sur; Bago Oshiro, Davao City; and Bay, Laguna.
 On 26 April 2012, Greenpeace, MASIPAG and
individual respondents (Greenpeace, et.al.) filed a
petition for writ of kalikasan and writ of continuing
mandamus with prayer for the issuance of
Temporary Environmental Protection Order (TEPO)
alleging that the Bt talong field trials violate their
constitutional right to health and a balanced ecology
considering that:
- The required Environmental Compliance
Certificate (ECC) under PD 1151 was not
secured prior to the project implementation
- There is no independent, peer-reviewed
study on the safety of Bt talong for human
consumption and the environment
- There was a study conducted showing
adverse effects on rats who were fed Bt
corn, local scientists likewise attested to the
harmful effects of GMOs to human and
animal health
- Bt crops can be directly toxic to non-target
species
- There is a failure to comply with the
required public consultation under Sections
26 and 27 of the Local Government Code
- The case calls for the application of the
precautionary principle, it being a classic
environmental case where scientific
evidence as to the health, environmental
and socio-economic safety is insufficient or
uncertain and preliminary scientific
evaluation indicates reasonable grounds for
concern that there are potentially
dangerous effects on human health and the
environment
 The following reliefs are prayed for by Greenpeace,
et.al., to wit:
- Issuance of a TEPO enjoining BPI and
Fertilizer and Pesticide Authority (FPA) of
the Department of Agriculture (DA) from
processing for field testing and registering
 as herbicidal product Bt talong in the
Philippines, stopping all pending field
testing, and ordering the uprooting of
planted Bt talong; and
- Issuance of a writ of continuing mandamus
commanding the ISAAAI, et.al.: (1) to
submit to an environmental impact
statement system under the Environmental
Management Bureau of the Department of
Environment and Natural Resources (DENR-
EMB); (2) to submit an independent,
comprehensive, and rigid risk assessment,
field tests report, and regulatory
compliance reports; (3) to submit all issued
certifications on public information, public
consultation, public participation and
consent from the LGUs affected by the field
testing; (4) to submit an acceptable draft of
an amendment of the NBF and DAO 2002-
08; and (5) for BPI of DA to conduct
balanced nationwide public information on
the nature of Bt talong and Bt talong field
trial, and a survey of its social acceptability.
 On 2 May 2012, the SC issued the writ of kalikasan
against ISAAA, EMB, BPI, FPA and UPLB, ordering
them to file a verified return.
 The contentions of the respondents are as follows:
- All environmental laws were complied with,
including public consultations in the
affected communities
- The Bt talong project is not covered by the
Philippine Environmental Impact Statement
Law
- There is a plethora of scientific works and
literature, peer-reviewed, on the safety of
Bt talong for human consumption
- Allegations regarding the safety of Bt talong
are irrelevant in the field trial stage as none
of the eggplants will be consumed by
humans or animals
- There is a non-observance of the rule on
hierarchy of courts
- Greenpeace, et.al. have no legal standing as
they do not stand to suffer any direct injury
as a result of the Bt talong field tests
- The precautionary principle does not apply
since the field testing is only a part of a
continuing study to ensure that the field
trials have no significant and negative
impact on the environment
 SC, in a Resolution dated 10 July 2012, referred the
case to the Court of Appeals.
 On 12 September 2012, the parties submitted the
following procedural issues before the CA: (1)
whether Greenpeace, et.al. has legal standing to file
the petition for writ of kalikasan; (2) whether the
petition has been rendered moot and academic by
the alleged termination of the Bt talong field testing;
and (3) whether the case presented a justiciable
controversy
 CA, in a Resolution dated 12 October 2012, resolved
that: (1) the Greenpeace, et.al. possess legal
standing; (2) the case is not yet moot since it is
capable of repetition yet evading review; and (3) the
alleged non-compliance with environmental and
local government laws present justiciable
controversies for resolution by the court.
 On 17 May 2013, CA rendered a decision in favor of
the Greenpeace, et.al. finding that the precautionary
principle set forth in Section 1, Rule 20 of the Rules
of Procedure for Environmental Cases (the Rules)
finds relevance in the case.
 CA rejected the Motions for Reconsideration filed by
ISAAA, EMB/BPI/FPA, UPLB and UPLBFI rejecting the
argument that CA violated UPLB’s right to academic
freedom. The writ stops the field trials of Bt talong
as a procedure, it does not stop Bt talong research.
Thus, there is no assault on academic freedom.
 CA further justified its ruling by expounding on the
theory that introducing a genetically modified plant
into our ecosystem is an “ecologically imbalancing
act.”
 Before the SC is a consolidated petition of ISAAAI,
EMB/BPI/FPA, UPLB and UPLBFI to reverse the CA
decision permanently enjoining the conduct of field
trials for Genetically Modified eggplants.
ISSUES
1. WON Greenpeace, et.al. has a legal standing
2. WON the case is moot and academic
3. WON there is a violation of the doctrines of primary
jurisdiction and exhaustion of administrative
remedies
4. WON the law on environmental impact
statement/assessment applies on projects involving
the introduction and propagation of GMOs in the
country
5. WON there is neglect or unlawful omission
committed by the public respondents in the
processing and evaluation of the applications for Bt
talong field testing
6. WON the Precautionary Principle applies
RULING
1. Yes. The liberalized rule on standing is now enshrined in
the Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases which
allows the filing of a citizen suit in environmental cases.
The provision on citizen suits in the Rules “collapses the
tradional rule on personal and direct interest, on the
principle that humans are stewards of nature,” and aims
to “further encourage the protection of the
environment.”
2. No. The case falls under the “capable of repetition yet
evading review” exception to the mootness principle, the
human and environmental health hazards posed by the
introduction of a genetically modified plant which is a
very popular staple vegetable among Filipinos is an issue
of paramount public interest.
3. No. The provisions of DAO 2002-08 do not provide a
speedy or adequate remedy for the respondents to
determine the questions of unique national and local
importance raised in this case that pertain to laws and
rules for environmental protection, thus Greenpeace,
et.al. is justified in coming to the Supreme Court.
4. Yes. EO 514 mandates that concerned departments and
agencies, most particularly petitioners DENR-EMB, BPI
and FPA, to make a determination whether the EIS
system should apply to the release of GMOs into the
environment and issue joint guidelines on the matter.
The Philippine EIS System (PEISS) is concerned
primarily with assessing the direct and indirect impacts of
a project on the biophysical and human environment and
ensuring that these impacts are addressed by
appropriate environmental protection and enhancement
measures. It aids proponents in incorporating
 environmental considerations in planning their projects
as well as in determining the environment’s impact on
their project.” There are six stages in the regular EIA
process. The proponent initiates the first three stages
while EMB takes the lead in the last three stages. Public
participation is enlisted in most stages.
Even without the issuance of EO 514, GMO field
testing should have at least been considered for EIA
under existing regulations of EMB on new and emerging
technologies, to wit:
g) Group V (Unclassified Projects):
These are the projects not listed in any
of the groups, e.g. projects using new
processes/technologies with uncertain
impacts. This is an interim category –
unclassified projects will eventually be
classified into their appropriate groups
after EMB evaluation. (Emphasis
supplied)
All government agencies as well as private
corporations, firms and entities who intend to undertake
activities or projects which will affect the quality of
environment are required to prepare a detailed
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) prior to
undertaking such development activity.
An environmentally critical project (ECP) is
considered by the EMB as “likely to have significant
adverse impact that may be sensitive, irreversible and
diverse” and which “include activities that have
significant environmental consequences.”
In this context, and given the overwhelming
scientific attention worldwide on the potential hazards of
GMOs to human health and the environment, their
release into the environment through field testing would
definitely fall under the category of ECP.
5. Yes. It must be stressed that DAO 2002-08 and related
DA order are not the only legal bases for regulating field
trials of GM plants and plant products. EO 514 clearly
provides that the NBF applies to the development,
adoption and implementation of all biosafety policies,
measures and guidelines and in making biosafety
decisions concerning the research, development,
handling and use, transboundary movement, release into
the environment and management of regulated articles.
The NBF requires the use of precaution, as provided
in Section 2.6 which reads:
6.
2.6. Using Precaution. – In accordance
with Principle 15 of the Rio Declaration
of 1992 and the relevant provisions of
the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, in
particular Article 1, 10 (par. 6) and 11
(par. 8), the precautionary approach
shall guide biosafety decisions. The
principles and elements of this
approach are hereby implemented
through the decision-making system in
the NBF.
It likewise contains general principles and minimum
guidelines that the concerned agencies are expected to
follow and which their respective rules and regulations
must conform with. In cases of conflict in applying the
principles, the principle of protecting the public interest
and welfare shall always prevail, and no provision of the
NBF shall be construed as to limit the legal authority and
mandate of heads of departments and agencies to
consider the national interest and public welfare in
making biosafety decisions.
Notably, Section 7 of NBF mandates a more
transparent, meaningful and participatory public
consultation on the conduct of field trials beyond the
posting and publication of notices and information
sheets, consultations with some residents and
government officials, and submission of written
comments, provided in DAO 2002-08.
The Supreme Court found that ISAAAI, et.al. simply
adhered to the procedures laid down by DAO 2002-08
and no real effort was made to operationalize the
principles of NBF in the conduct of field testing of Bt
talong. Said failure means that the DA lacks mechanisms
to mandate applicants to comply with international
biosafety protocols. For these reasons, the DAO 2002-08
should be declared invalid.
Parenthetically, during the hearing at the CA, Atty.
Segui of the EMB was evasive in answering the questions
on whether his office undertook the necessary
evaluation on the possible environmental impact of Bt
talong field trials and the release of GMOs into the
environment in general. While he initially cited lack of
budget and competence as reasons for their inaction, he
later said that an amendment of the law should be made
since projects involving GMOS are not covered by
Proclamation No. 2146, entitled “Proclaiming Certain
Areas and Types of Projects as Environmentally Critical
and Within the Scope of the Environmental Impact
Statement System Established Under Presidential Decree
No. 1586”.
The Supreme Court took the above as an indication
of the DENR-EMB’s lack of serious attention to their
mandate under EO 514 to ensure that environmental
assessments are done and impacts identified in biosafety
decisions.
Section 6 of EO 514 likewise directed the DOST,
DENR, DA and DOH to ensure the allocation of funds for
the implementation of the NBF as it was intended to be a
multi-disciplinary effort involving the different
government departments and agencies.
The petitioners government agencies clearly failed to
fulfil their mandates in the implementation of the NBF.
Yes. The precautionary principle originated in Germany in
the 1960s, expressing the normative idea that
governments are obliged to “foresee and forestall” harm
to the environment. The Rules incorporated the principle
in Part V, Rule 20, which states:
SEC.1. Applicability. – When there is a
lack of full scientific certainty in
establishing a causal link between
human activity and environmental
effect, the court shall apply the
precautionary principle in resolving the
case before it.
The constitutional right of the people
to a balanced and healthful ecology
shall be given the benefit of the doubt.
 SEC 2. Standards for application. – In
applying the precautionary principle,
the following factors, among others,
may be considered: (1) threats to
human life or health; (2) inequity to
present or future generations; or (3)
prejudice to the environment without
legal consideration of the
environmental rights of those affected.
When the features of uncertainty, possibility of
irreversible harm, and possibility of serious harm
coincide, the case for the precautionary principle is
strongest. The Supreme Court found all three (3)
conditions present.
While the goal of increasing crop yields to raise farm
incomes is laudable, independent scientific studies
revealed uncertainties due to unfulfilled economic
benefits from Bt crops and plants, adverse effects on the
environment associated with the use of GE technology in
agriculture, and serious health hazards from
consumption of GM foods. For a biodiversity-rich country
like the Philippines, the natural and unforeseen
consequences of contamination and genetic pollution
would be disastrous and irreversible.
Alongside the aforesaid uncertainties, the non-
implementation of the NBF in the crucial stages of risk
assessment and public consultation, including the
determination of the applicability of the EIS
requirements to the GMO field testing, are compelling
reasons for the application of the precautionary
principle.
There exists a preponderance of evidence that the
release of the GMOs into the environment threatens to
damage our ecosystems and not just the field trial sites,
and eventually the health of our people once the Bt
eggplants are consumed as food.
Adopting the precautionary approach, the Supreme
Court ruled that the principles of the NBF need to be
operationalized first by the coordinated actions of the
concerned departments and agencies before allowing
the release into the environment of genetically modified
eggplant.
Further, the precautionary approach entailed inputs
from stakeholders, including marginalized famers, not
just the scientific community. This proceeds from the
realization that acceptance of uncertainty is not only a
scientific issue, but is related to public policy and involves
an ethical dimension.
SUMMARY:
The Supreme Court of the Philippines upheld a lower
court decision invalidating an administrative order governing
import and release of genetically-modified organisms (GMOs)
in the Philippines. The Court addressed a range of issues,
from standing and mootness to application of the
precautionary principle. On the procedural claims by the
petitioners that the case was moot and “academic” because
all field trials had been suspended, the Supreme Court found
the paramount public interest in the case and the fact that
the legal issues were capable of repetition yet evading review
justified the Court’s review of the case. Page 38. The Court
also noted the petitioners were warranted in seeking judicial
review because the biotechnology administrative framework
does not provide “a speedy, or adequate remedy.”
The decision explains the current controversy over
GMOs and, in particular, genetically-modified food crops for
human consumption. Drawing on research and case studies
from around the world, and the testimony of expert
witnesses, the Supreme Court found there to be no
consensus on the safety of Bt talong to humans and the
environment, stating “[t]hese divergent views of local
scientists reflect the continuing international debate on
GMOs and the varying degrees of acceptance of GM
technology by states . . . .” Page 69. The Court also cautioned
that the “uncertainties generated by conflicting scientific
findings or limited research [are] not diminished by extensive
use at present of GM technology in agriculture.”
Turning to the existing biosafety regulation in the
Philippines, the Supreme Court found Administrative Order
(DAO) 08-2002 deficient because it lacks provisions for
meaningful, participatory, and transparent public
consultation prior to field trials and contains no mechanisms
requiring applicants seeking to import or release GMOs to
comply with international biosafety standards. Pages 89-
91. The Court also found that officials should have complied
with environmental impact assessment (EIA) procedures prior
to approving release of Bt talong.
Invoking the precautionary principle, the Supreme
Court blocked further field trials of Bt talong until regulatory
systems governing the import and release of GMOs are
strengthened. “When these features - uncertainty, the
possibility of irreversible harm, and the possibility of serious
harm - coincide, the case for the precautionary principle is
strongest. When in doubt, cases must be resolved in favor of
the constitutional right to a balanced and healthful ecology.”
The Court proceeded to nullify DAO 08-2002 and enjoined
applications for contained use, field testing, propagation and
commercialization, and importation of any GMOs until a new
administrative order is adopted.
Review Questions:
1. What is your understanding of the concept of GMO?
- Genetically modified organisms
- A plant, animal, microorganism or other organism
whose genetic makeup has been modified in a
laboratory using genetic engineering or transgenic
technology.
- organisms (i.e. plants, animals or microorganisms) in
which the genetic material (DNA) has been altered in
a way that does not occur naturally by mating
and/or natural recombination. The technology is
often called “modern biotechnology” or “gene
technology”, sometimes also “recombinant DNA
technology” or “genetic engineering”.
- It allows selected individual genes to be transferred
from one organism into another, also between
nonrelated species. Foods produced from or using
GM organisms are often referred to as GM foods.
2. What was the claim of Greenpeace on the conduct
of experiment conducted by the Petitioner of BT
Talong?
- alleged that the field trials of the bioengineered
aubergine were a violation of their constitutional
right to health and a balanced ecology because of
the following:
 Required environmental compliance
certificated was not secured prior to the
project implementation.
 No independent, peer-reviewed study on
the safety of BT talong for human
consumption and the environment.
 Will affect other beneficial species.
  Did not comply with the required public
consultation under Sections 26 and 27 of
the Local Government Code.
3. What was the objective of the Petitioner in
conducting its experiment on BT Talong?
- Pest-resistant crop.
 To alter natural feed-feeder relationships of
the eggplant.
 Reduce the use of pesticides.
4. What action did the Supreme Court take in order to
carry out the constitutional guarantee to good
health of the people?
- The Supreme Court applied the precautionary
principle in deciding the case.
- Precautionary principle: lack of scientific certainty is
no reason to postpone action to avoid potentially
serious or irreversible harm to the environment.
- It bridges the gap in cases where scientific certainty
in factual findings cannot be achieved.
- Shifts the burden of evidence of harm away from
those likely to suffer harm and onto those desiring to
change the status quo.
- Principle of las resort where application of the
regular Rules of Evidence would cause in an
inequitable result for the environmental plaintiff:
 Settings in which the risks of harm are
uncertain.
 Settings in which harm might be irreversible
and what is lost is irreplaceable.
 Settings in which the harm might result
would be serious when
- These requisites for the application of precautionary
principle are present in this case.
Resident Mammals of Tanon Straits v. DENR Sec. Angelo
Reyes, G.R. No. 180771, April 21, 2015
Subject Matter: (Court recognized the protection of the
resident mammals of Tanon Strait through petitioners who
are natural citizens acting as legal guardians, as friends and
for being stewards of creation. Under the Rules of Procedure
in Environmental Cases, a citizen suit is encouraged for the
protection of the environment. This provision liberalizes
standing for all cases filed enforcing environmental laws and
collapses the traditional rule on personal and direct interest,
on the principle that humans are stewards of nature.)
SUMMARY:
Two sets of petitioners filed separate cases
challenging the legality of Service Contract No. 46 (SC-46)
awarded to Japan Petroleum Exploration Co. (JAPEX). The
service contract allowed JAPEX to conduct oil exploration in
the Tañon Strait during which it performed seismic surveys
and drilled one exploration well. The first petition was
brought on behalf of resident marine mammals in the Tañon
Strait by two individuals acting as legal guardians and
stewards of the marine mammals. The second petition was
filed by a non-governmental organization representing the
interests of fisherfolk, along with individual representatives
from fishing communities impacted by the oil exploration
activities. The petitioners filed their cases in 2007, shortly
after JAPEX began drilling in the strait. In 2008, JAPEX and
the government of the Philippines mutually terminated the
service contract and oil exploration activities ceased. The
Supreme Court consolidated the cases for the purpose of
review.
In its decision, the Supreme Court first addressed the
important procedural point of whether the case was moot
because the service contract had been terminated. The Court
declared that mootness is “not a magical formula that can
automatically dissuade the courts in resolving a case.” Due to
the alleged grave constitutional violations and paramount
public interest in the case, not to mention the fact that the
actions complained of could be repeated, the Court found it
necessary to reach the merits of the case even though the
particular service contract had been terminated. Id.
Reviewing the numerous claims filed by the
petitioners, the Supreme Court narrowed them down to two:
1) whether marine mammals, through their stewards, have
legal standing to pursue the case; and 2) whether the service
contract violated the Philippine Constitution or other
domestic laws.
As to standing, the Court declined to extend the
principle of standing beyond natural and juridical persons,
even though it recognized that the current trend in Philippine
jurisprudence “moves towards simplification of procedures
and facilitating court access in environmental
cases.” Id. Instead, the Court explained, “the need to give
the Resident Marine Mammals legal standing has been
eliminated by our Rules, which allow any Filipino citizen, as a
steward of nature, to bring a suit to enforce our
environmental laws.” Id.
The Court then held that while SC-46 was authorized
Presidential Decree No. 87 on oil extraction, the contract did
not fulfill two additional constitutional requirements. Section
2 Article XII of the 1987 Constitution requires a service
contract for oil exploration and extraction to be signed by the
president and reported to congress. Because the JAPEX
contract was executed solely by the Energy Secretary, and
not reported to the Philippine congress, the Court held that it
was unconstitutional.
In addition, the Court also ruled that the contract
violated the National Integrated Protected Areas System Act
of 1992 (NIPAS Act), which generally prohibits exploitation of
natural resources in protected areas. In order to explore for
resources in a protected area, the exploration must be
performed in accordance with an environmental impact
assessment (EIA). The Court noted that JAPEX started the
seismic surveys before any EIA was performed; therefore its
activity was unlawful. Furthermore, the Tanon Strait is a
NIPAS area, and exploration and utilization of energy
resources can only be authorized through a law passed by the
Philippine Congress. Because Congress had not specifically
authorized the activity in Tañon Strait, the Court declared
that no energy exploration should be permitted in that area.
Review Questions:
1. What are mammals?
- Group of vertebrate animals in which the young are
nourished with milk from special mammary glands of
the mother.
2. Where is Tanon Straits?
- Body of water separating the islands of Negros and
Cebu in Visayas.
3. What is legal standing?
- A right of appearance in a court of justice, or before
a legislative body, on a given question.
- A personal and substantial interest in a case such
that the party has sustained or will sustain direct
injury as a result of the act that is being challenged.
4. Can mammals acquire locus standi in a court case?
- No.
- Our Rules only allow any Filipino citizen, as a
steward of nature, to bring a suit to enforce our
environmental laws.
5. What is regalian doctrine?
- Dictates that all lands of public domain belong to the
State, that the State is the source of any asserted
 right to ownership of land charged with the
conservation of such patrimony.
6. What is Qualified Political Agency?
- Department secretaries are alter egos or assistants
of the President and their acts are presumed to be
those of the President unless disapproved or
reprobated by him.
- Acts of the secretaries of the Executive Departments
performed and promulgated in the regular course of
business are presumptively the acts of the Chief
Executive.
- Exception: in cases where the Chief Executive is
required by the Constitution or law to act in person
or the exigencies of the situation demand that he act
personally
7. What is the relevant constitutional provision on the
exploration, development and utilization of minerals?
- Section 2, Article XII
- “All lands of the public domain, waters, minerals,
coal, petroleum, and other mineral oils, all forces of
potential energy, fisheries, forests or timber, wildlife,
flora and fauna, and other natural resources are
owned by the State. With the exception of
agricultural lands, all other natural resources shall
not be alienated. The exploration, development, and
utilization of natural resources shall be under the full
control and supervision of the State. The State may
directly undertake such activities, or it may enter
into co-production, joint venture, or production-
sharing agreements with Filipino citizens, or
corporations or associations at least sixty per
centum of whose capital is owned by such citizens.
Such agreements may be for a period not exceeding
twenty-five years, renewable for not more than
twenty-five years, and under such terms and
conditions as may be provided by law. In cases of
water rights for irrigation, water supply, fisheries, or
industrial uses other than the development of water
power, beneficial use may be the measure and limit
of the grant.
The State shall protect the nation’s marine
wealth in its archipelagic waters, territorial sea, and
exclusive economic zone, and reserve its use and
enjoyment exclusively to Filipino citizens.
The Congress may, by law, allow small-scale
utilization of natural resources by Filipino citizens, as
well as cooperative fish farming, with priority to
subsistence fishermen and fishworkers in rivers,
lakes, bays, and lagoons.
The President may enter into agreements
with foreign-owned corporations involving either
technical or financial assistance for large-scale
exploration, development, and utilization of
minerals, petroleum, and other mineral oils
according to the general terms and conditions
provided by law, based on real contributions to the
economic growth and general welfare of the country.
In such agreements, the State shall promote the
development and use of local scientific and technical
resources.
The President shall notify the Congress of
every contract entered into in accordance with this
provision, within thirty days from its execution.”
8. May the power to enter into agreements involving
financial and technical assistance related to the
above constitutional provision be assumed by a
Cabinet Secretary?
- No.
- Our Constitution requires that the President himself
be the signatory of service agreements with foreign-
owned corporation involving the exploration,
development, and utilization of our mineral,
petroleum, and other mineral oils.
- It must be shown that the government agency or
subordinate official has been authorized by the
President to enter into such service contract for the
government. Otherwise, it should be at least shown
that the President subsequently approved of such
contract explicitly.
Most Rev. Pedro Arigo v. Scott H. Swift, et al., G.R. No.
206510, Sept. 16, 2014
Subject Matter: (The Court held that the liberalization of
standing first enunciated in Oposa, insofar as it refers to
minors and generations yet unborn, is now enshrined in the
Rules which allows the filing of a citizen suit in environmental
cases. The provision on citizen suits in the Rules “collapses the
traditional rule on personal and direct interest, on the
principle that humans are stewards of nature.”)
FACTS:
Under RA 10067 otherwise known as the “Tubbataha
Reefs National Park (TNRP) Act of 2009”, a “no-take” policy
was created whereby entry in to the waters of TNRP is strictly
regulated and many human activities are prohibited and
penalized or fined, including fishing, gathering, destroying
and disturbing the resources within the TNRP. The USS
Guardian requested diplomatic clearance for the said vessel
“to enter and exit the territorial waters of the Philippines ad t
arrive at the port of Subic Bay for purpose of routine ship
replenishment, maintenance, and crew liberty. “However, the
ship ran aground on the northwest side of South Shoal of the
Tubbataha Reefs.
Petitioners cite the following violation committed by
US respondents under RA 10067: unauthorized entry; non-
payment of conservation fees; obstruction of law
enforcement officer; damages to the reef; and destroying and
disturbing resources. Furthermore, petitioners assail certain
provisions of the Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA) which they
want this Court to nullify for being unconstitutional.
Consequently, petitioners filed a petition for a Temporary
Environmental Protection Order (TEPO) and/or Writ of
Kalikasan.
ISSUE:
WON the court has jurisdiction over the US
respondents who did not submit any pleading or
manifestation in this case.
RULING:
Yes. During the deliberations, Senior Associate
Justice Antonio T. Carpio took the position that the conduct
of the US in this case, when its warship entered a restricted
area in violation of RA 10067 and caused damage to the TNRP
reef system, brings, the matter within the ambit of Article 31
of the United Nations Convention Law of the Sea (UNCLOS).
He explains that while historically, warships enjoy sovereign
immunity from suit as extensions of their flag State. Art. 31 of
the UNCLOS creates an exception to this rule in cases where
they fail to comply with the rules and regulations of the
coastal state regarding passage through the latter’s internal
waters and the territorial sea.
Non-membership in the UNCLOS does not mean that
the US will disregard the rights of the Philippines as a Coastal
State over its internal waters and territorial sea. We thus
expect the US to bear “international responsibility” under Art.
31 in connection with the USS Guardian grounding which
adversely affected the Tubbataha Reefs. Under 197 of the
UNCLOS provides, “Cooperation on a global or regional basis:
States shall cooperate on a global basis and as appropriate,
on a regional basis, directly or through competent
international organizations, in formulating and elaborating
international rules, standards and recommended practices
and procedures consistent with this Convention, for the
protection and preservation of the marine environment,
taking into account characteristics regional features.”
Review Questions:
1. What is state immunity?
- Sovereign immunity, or state immunity, is a
principle of customary international law, by
virtue of which one sovereign state cannot be
sued before the courts of another
sovereign state without its consent.
- The state cannot be sued without its consent (Article
XVI, Section)
- Exception: The State consents to be sued.
2. What is the claim of the Petitioners Arigo et al.
against Swift and the other Filipino public officers?
- The grounding, salvaging, and post-salvaging
operations of the USS Guardian cause and continue
to cause environmental damage of such magnitude
as to affect the provinces of Palawan, Antique, Aklan,
Guimaras, etc. which events violate their
constitutional rights to a balanced and healthful
ecology.
- Violations of RA 10067 (Tubbataha Reefs Natual Park)
(to ensure the protection and conservation of the
Tubbataha Reefs into perpetuity for the enjoyment
of prsenet and future generations)
 Unauthorized entry o Non-payment of
conservation fees.
 Obstruction of law enforcement officer.
 Damages to the reef.
 Destroying and disturbing resources
3. Did the Supreme Court grant the claim of Petitioners?
Why?
- No. The SC did not grant petitioners’ claim.
- In this case, the US respondents were sued in their
official capacity. The alleged act or omission was
committed while they were performing official
military duties.
- Thus, the principle of State immunity therefore bars
the exercise of jurisdiction by the Court over the
persons of the respondents Swift, Rice and Robling.
Henares, Jr. v. LTFRB and DOTC, G.R. No. 158290, October 23,
2006
Subject Matter: (Writ of Mandamus will not lie where there is
no law requiring PUVs to use Compressed Natural Gas.)
FACTS:
Petitioners challenge this Court to issue a writ of
mandamus commanding respondents Land Transportation
Franchising and Regulatory Board (LTFRB) and the
Department of Transportation and Communications (DOTC)
to require public utility vehicles (PUVs) to use compressed
natural gas (CNG) as alternative fuel. Asserting their right to
clean air, petitioners contend that the bases for their petition
for a writ of mandamus to order the LTFRB to require PUVs to
use CNG as an alternative fuel, lie in Section 16, Article II of
the 1987 Constitution, our ruling in Oposa v. Factoran, Jr.,
and Section 4 of Republic Act No. 8749otherwise known as
the "Philippine Clean Air Act of 1999."
ISSUES:
(1) Do petitioners have legal personality to bring this
petition before us?
(2) Should mandamus issue against respondents to
compel PUVs to use CNG as alternative fuel?
RULING:
(1) YES. There is no dispute that petitioners have
standing to bring their case before this Court. Moreover, as
held previously, a party's standing before this Court is a
procedural technicality which may, in the exercise of the
Court's discretion, be set aside in view of the importance of
the issue raised. We brush aside this issue of technicality
under the principle of the transcendental importance to the
public, especially so if these cases demand that they be
settled promptly.
(2) NO. plain, speedy and adequate remedy herein
sought by petitioners, i.e., a writ of mandamus commanding
the respondents to require PUVs to use CNG, is unavailing.
Mandamus is available only to compel the doing of an act
specifically enjoined by law as a duty. Here, there is no law
that mandates the respondents LTFRB and the DOTC to order
owners of motor vehicles to use CNG. Mandamus will not
generally lie from one branch of government to a coordinate
branch, for the obvious reason that neither is inferior to the
other.
It appears that more properly, the legislature should
provide first the specific statutory remedy to the complex
environmental problems bared by herein petitioners before
any judicial recourse by mandamus is taken.
In the same manner that we have associated the
fundamental right to a balanced and healthful ecology with
the twin concepts of "inter-generational responsibility" and
"inter-generational justice" in Oposa, where we upheld the
right of future Filipinos to prevent the destruction of the
rainforests, so do we recognize, in this petition, the right of
petitioners and the future generation to clean air. In Oposa
we said that if the right to a balanced and healthful ecology is
now explicitly found in the Constitution even if the right is
"assumed to exist from the inception of humankind, it is
because of the well-founded fear of its framers [of the
Constitution] 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."
It is the firm belief of this Court that in this case, it is
timely to reaffirm the premium we have placed on the
protection of the environment in the landmark case of Oposa.
Yet, as serious as the statistics are on air pollution, with the
present fuels deemed toxic as they are to the environment,
as fatal as these pollutants are to the health of the citizens,
and urgently requiring resort to drastic measures to reduce
air pollutants emitted by motor vehicles, we must admit in
particular that petitioners are unable to pinpoint the law that
imposes an indubitable legal duty on respondents that will
justify a grant of the writ of mandamus compelling the use of
CNG for public utility vehicles. It appears to us that more
properly, the legislature should provide first the specific
statutory remedy to the complex environmental problems
bared by herein petitioners before any judicial recourse by
mandamus is taken
APPLICABLE LAWS:
• Section 16,Article II of the 1987 Constitution
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.
• Section 414 of Republic Act No. 8749 otherwise known as
the "Philippine Clean Air Act of 1999." SEC. 4. Recognition of
Rights. – Pursuant to the above-declared principles, the
following rights of citizens are hereby sought to be
recognized and the State shall seek to guarantee their
enjoyment:
a) The right to breathe clean air;
b) The right to utilize and enjoy all natural resources
according to the principle of sustainable development;
c) The right to participate in the formulation, planning,
implementation and monitoring of environmental policies
and programs and in the decision-making process;
d) The right to participate in the decision-making process
concerning development policies, plans and programs,
projects or activities that may have adverse impact on the
environment and public health;
e) The right to be informed of the nature and extent of the
potential hazard of any activity, undertaking or project and to
be served timely notice of any significant rise in the level of
pollution and the accidental or deliberate release into the
atmosphere of harmful or hazardous substances;
f) The right of access to public records which a citizen may
need to exercise his or her rights effectively under this Act;
g) The right to bring action in court or quasi-judicial bodies to
enjoin all activities in violation of environmental laws and
regulations, to compel the rehabilitation and cleanup of
affected area, and to seek the imposition of penal sanctions
against violators of environmental laws; and
h) The right to bring action in court for compensation of
personal damages resulting from the adverse environmental
and public health impact of a project or activity.
4. What was the nature of the action of Petitioner
Henares?
- The petitioners pray for the issuance of writ of
mandamus commanding LTFRB and DOTC to require
public utility vehicles to used compressed natural
gas as alternative fuel.
- Asserting their right to clean air.
5. What is the legal basis of the action of Petitioner
Henares?
- Asserting their right to clean air, petitioners contend
that the bases for their petition are:
 Section 16, Article II (right to a balanced
ecology).
“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. “
 Ruling in Oposa vs Factoran (the right to a
balanced and healthful ecology carries with it
the correlative duty to refrain from impairing
the environment).
 Section 4 of RA 8749 or Philippine Clean Air Act
of 1999
Pursuant to the above-declared principles, the
following rights of citizens are hereby sought to
be recognized and the State shall seek to
guarantee their enjoyment:
a) The right to breathe clean air;
b) The right to utilize and enjoy all natural
resources according to the principle of
sustainable development;
c) The right to participate in the formulation,
planning, implementation and monitoring of
environmental policies and programs and in the
decision-making process;
d) The right to participate in the decision-
making process concerning development
policies, plans and programs, projects or
activities that may have adverse impact on the
environment and public health;
e) The right to be informed of the nature and
extent of the potential hazard of any activity,
undertaking or project and to be served timely
notice of any significant rise in the level of
pollution and the accidental or deliberate
release into the atmosphere of harmful or
hazardous substances;
f) The right of access to public records which a
citizen may need to exercise his or her rights
effectively under this Act;
g) The right to bring action in court or quasi-
judicial bodies to enjoin all activities in violation
of environmental laws and regulations, to
compel the rehabilitation and cleanup of
affected area, and to seek the imposition of
penal sanctions against violators of
environmental laws; and
h) The right to bring action in court for
compensation of personal damages resulting
from the adverse environmental and public
health impact of a project or activity.
6. What is a Writ of Mandamus?
- Mandamus is employed to compel the performance,
when refused, of a ministerial duty, this being its
main objective.
- Does not lie to require anyone to fulfill contractual
obligation.
- Requires that a clear legal right to the thing
demanded and it must be the imperative duty of the
respondent to perform the act required.
- Neither confers powers nor imposes duties.
- A command to exercise a power already possessed
and to perform a duty already imposed.
- To compel a judge to issue a writ of execution when
the judgment had already become final and
executory and the prevailing party is entitled to the
same as a matter of right.
7. Did the Supreme Court issue a Writ of Mandamus to
Petitioner Henares? Why?
- No.
- Plain, speedy and adequate remedy herein sought by
petitioners, i.e., a writ of mandamus commanding
the respondents to require PUVs to use CNG, is
unavailing. Mandamus is available only to compel
the doing of an act specifically enjoined by law as a
duty.
- There is no law that mandates the respondents
LTFRB and the DOTC to order owners of motor
vehicles to use CNG.
Minors Oposa, et al. v. Factoran, G.R. 101083, July 30, 1993
Subject Matter: (Upheld the inter-generational responsibility
doctrine.)
FACTS:
This case is unique in that it is a class suit brought by
44 children, through their parents, claiming that they bring
the case in the name of “their generation as well as those
generations yet unborn.” Aiming to stop deforestation, it was
filed against the Secretary of the Department of Environment
and Natural Resources, seeking to have him cancel all the
timber license agreements (TLAs) in the country and to cease
and desist from accepting and approving more timber license
agreements. The children invoked their right to a balanced
and healthful ecology and to protection by the State in its
capacity as parens patriae. The petitioners claimed that the
DENR Secretary's refusal to cancel the TLAs and to stop
issuing them was "contrary to the highest law of humankind--
the natural law-- and violative of plaintiffs' right to self-
preservation and perpetuation." The case was dismissed in
the lower court, invoking the law on non-impairment of
contracts, so it was brought to the Supreme Court on
certiorari.
ISSUE:
Did the children have the legal standing to file the
case?
RULING:
Yes. The Supreme Court in granting the petition
ruled that the children had the legal standing to file the case
based on the concept of “intergenerational responsibility”.
Their right to a healthy environment carried with it an
obligation to preserve that environment for the succeeding
generations. In this, the Court recognized legal standing to
sue on behalf of future generations. Also, the Court said, the
law on non-impairment of contracts must give way to the
exercise of the police power of the state in the interest of
public welfare.
Relevance
The case of Oposa vs. Factoran has been widely cited
worldwide for its concept of intergenerational responsibility,
particularly in cases related to ecology and the environment.
For example:
 Oposa vs. Factoran's concept of "intergenerational
responsibility" was cited in a case in Bangladesh.[1]
 The United Nations Environmental Programme
(UNEP) considers Oposa vs. Factoran a landmark
case in judicial thinking for environmental
governance.[2]
 In the book Public Health Law and Ethics by Larry O.
Gostin, Oposa vs. Factoran is cited as a significant
example of the justiciability of the right to health. [3]
 In the book The Law of Energy for Sustainable
Development by the IUCN Academy of
Environmental Law Research Studies, a study cites
Oposa vs. Factoran as basis for asserting that the
right to breathe is part of the right to life as an
acknowledged human right.[4]
NATURE OF THE CASE:
Class action seeking the cancellation and non-
issuance of timber licence agreements which allegedly
infringed the constitutional right to a balanced and healthful
ecology (Section 16); non-impairment of contracts;
Environmental law; judicial review and the political question
doctrine; inter-generational responsibility; Remedial law:
cause of action and standing; Directive principles; Negative
obligation on State
SUMMARY:
An action was filed by several minors represented by
their parents against the Department of Environment and
Natural Resources to cancel existing timber license
agreements in the country and to stop issuance of new ones.
It was claimed that the resultant deforestation and damage
to the environment violated their constitutional rights to a
balanced and healthful ecology and to health (Sections 16
and 15, Article II of the Constitution). The petitioners
asserted that they represented others of their generation as
well as generations yet unborn.
Finding for the petitioners, the Court stated that
even though the right to a balanced and healthful ecology is
under the Declaration of Principles and State Policies of the
Constitution and not under the Bill of Rights, it does not
follow that it is less important than any of the rights
enumerated in the latter: “[it] concerns nothing less than self-
preservation and self-perpetuation, the advancement of
which may even be said to predate all governments and
constitutions”. The right is linked to the constitutional right
to health, is “fundamental”, “constitutionalised”, “self-
executing” and “judicially enforceable”. It imposes the
correlative duty to refrain from impairing the environment.
The court stated that the petitioners were able to
file a class suit both for others of their generation and for
succeeding generations as “the minors' assertion of their right
to a sound environment constitutes, at the same time, the
performance of their obligation to ensure the protection of
that right for the generations to come.”
SIGNIFICANCE OF THE CASE:
This case has been widely-cited in jurisprudence
worldwide, particularly in cases relating to forest/timber
licensing. However, the approach of the Philippino Supreme
Court to economic, social and cultural rights has proved
somewhat inconsistent, with some judgments resulting in the
enforcement of such rights (e.g., Del Rosario v Bangzon, 180
SCRA 521 (1989); Manila Prince Hotel v Government Service
Insurance System, G. R. No. 122156 (3 February, 1997) but at
least one instance in which the Court made a statement that
economic, social and cultural rights are not real rights (see,
Brigido Simon v Commission on Human Rights, G. R. No.
100150, 5 January 1994).
Review Questions:
1. Can minors obtain legal standing in a case before the
Supreme Court?
- Yes.
- In this case, the Supreme Court held 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.
- Every generation has a responsibility to the next to
preserve that rhythm and harmony for the full
enjoyment of a balanced and healthful ecology.
- The minor’s assertion of their right to a sound
environment constitutes, as the same time, the
performance of their obligation to ensure the
protection of that right for the generations to come.
2. What reliefs did the Petitioners ask from the Court?
- Order defendant, his agents, representatives and
other persons acting in his behalf to:
 Cancel all existing timber license
agreements in the country.
 Cease and desist from receiving, accepting,
processing, renewing or approving new
timber license agreements.
- They asked for these reliefs because the
consequences of deforestation include distortion
and disturbance of a balanced ecology.
 Water shortages, salinization of the water table,
massive erosion and consequential loss of soil
fertility, endangering and extinction of flora and
fauna, disturbance and dislocation of cultural
 communities, siltation of rivers and seabeds and
consequential destruction of corals and aquatic
life, recent spells of drought
3. What is sustainable development?
- Development that meets the needs of the present
without compromising the ability of future
generation to meet their own needs.
4. What is intergenerational responsibility?
- The right to a sound environment constitutes the
performance of their obligation to ensure the
protection of that right for the generations to come.
- Every generation has a responsibility to the next to
preserve that rhythm and harmony for the full
enjoyment of a balanced and healthful ecology.
Ysmael, Jr. v. DENR Secretary, G.R. No. 79538, October 18,
1990
Subject Matter: (Grant of Timber Licensing Agreement is not a
right but only a privilege.)
FACTS:
On October 12, 1965, petitioner entered into a
timber license agreement with the Department of Agriculture
and Natural Resources, represented by then Secretary Jose
Feliciano, wherein it was issued an exclusive license to cut,
collect and remove timber except prohibited species within a
specified portion of public forest land with an area of 54,920
hectares located in the municipality of Maddela, province of
Nueva Vizcaya from October 12, 1965 until June 30, 1990.
However, on August 18, 1983, the Director of the
Bureau of Forest Development (Bureau), Director Edmundo
Cortes, issued a memorandum order stopping all logging
operations in Nueva Vizcaya and Quirino provinces, and
cancelling the logging concession of petitioner and nine other
forest concessionaires, pursuant to presidential instructions
and a memorandum order of the Minister of Natural
Resources Teodoro Pena.
Subsequently, petitioner’s timber license agreement
was cancelled. He sent a letter addressed to then President
Ferdinand Marcos which sought reconsideration of the
Bureau's directive, citing in support thereof its contributions
to forest conservation and alleging that it was not given the
opportunity to be heard prior to the cancellation of its logging
operations, but no favorable action was taken on his letter;
Barely one year thereafter, approximately one-half
of the area formerly covered by petitioner’s TLA was re-
awarded to Twin Peaks Development and Realty Corporation
under a new TLA which was set to expire on July 31, 2009,
while the other half was allowed to be logged by Filipinas
Loggers, Inc. without the benefit of a formal award or license.
The latter entities were controlled or owned by relatives or
cronies of deposed President Ferdinand Marcos.
Soon after the change of government in February
1986, petitioner sent a letter dated March 17, 1986 to the
Office of the President, and another letter dated April 2, 1986
to Minister Ernesto Maceda of the Ministry of Natural
Resources [MNR], seeking: (1) the reinstatement of its
timber license agreement which was cancelled in August
1983 during the Marcos administration; (2) the revocation of
TLA No. 356 which was issued to Twin Peaks Development
and Realty Corporation without public bidding and in
violation of forestry laws, rules and regulations; and, (3) the
issuance of an order allowing petitioner to take possession of
all logs found in the concession area. However, petitioner's
request was denied. Petitioner moved for reconsideration
reiterating, among others, its request that the timber license
agreement issued to private respondent be declared null and
void. The MNR however denied this motion. Petitioner
subsequently appealed from the orders of the MNR to the
Office of the President. The Office of the President, acting
through then Deputy Executive Secretary Catalino Macaraig,
denied petitioner's appeal for lack of merit. Petitioner filed
with the Court a petition for certiorari, with prayer for the
issuance of a restraining order or writ of preliminary
injunction,
ISSUE:
Whether or not petitioner has the right to seek the
nullification of the Bureau orders cancelling his timber license
agreement and the granting of TLA to private respondent,
which were issued way back in 1983 and 1984, respectively.
HELD:
NO. The failure of petitioner to file the petition for
certiorari within a reasonable period of time renders the
petitioner susceptible to the adverse legal consequences of
laches. Laches is defined as the failure or neglect for an
unreasonable and unexplained length of time to do that
which by exercising due diligence, could or should have been
done earlier, or to assert a right within a reasonable time,
warranting a presumption that the party entitled thereto has
either abandoned it of declined to assert it. The rule is that
unreasonable delay on the part of a plaintiff in seeking to
enforce an alleged right may, depending upon the
circumstances, be destructive of the right itself. Verily, the
laws did these who are vigilant, not those who sleep upon
their rights. In the case at bar, petitioner waited for at least
three years before it finally filed a petition for certiorari with
the Court attacking the validity of the assailed Bureau actions
in 1983 and 1984. Considering that petitioner, throughout
the period of its inaction, was not deprived of the
opportunity to seek relief from the courts which were
normally operating at the time, its delay constitutes
unreasonable and inexcusable neglect, tantamount to
laches. Accordingly, the writ of certiorari requiring the
reversal of these orders will not lie. There is a more
significant factor which bars the issuance of a writ of
certiorari in favor of petitioner and against public
respondents herein. A long line of cases establish the basic
rule that the courts will not interfere in matters which are
addressed to the sound discretion of government agencies
entrusted with the regulation of activities coming under the
special technical knowledge and training of such agencies.
More so where, as in the present case, the interests of a
private logging company are pitted against that of the public
at large on the pressing public policy issue of forest
conservation. For this Court recognizes the wide latitude of
discretion possessed by the government in determining the
appropriate actions to be taken to preserve and manage
natural resources, and the proper parties who should enjoy
the privilege of utilizing these resources. 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.
SUMMARY:
This case dealt with the cancellation of a timber
license and the question whether a court could interfere in
matters which were addressed to the discretion of
government agencies. The petitioner sought the
reinstatement of its timber license agreement which was
cancelled in August 1983 during the Marcos administration.
He stated that after the Government had made an order
canceling his logging concession pursuant to presidential
instructions, a part of the area was allowed to be logged by
Filipino companies without a license; and, that the latter
entities were controlled or owned by relatives or cronies of
deposed President Ferdinand Marcos. The Ministry refused to
reverse the order, ruling that a timber license was only a
privilege which could be withdrawn whenever public interest
or welfare so demanded. The court held that the refusal of
the respondents to reverse the final administrative orders did
not constitute grave abuse of discretion. It was an established
doctrine in its jurisdiction that the orders of administrative
agencies had upon their finality, the force of a final judgment
within the purview of the doctrine of res judicata. These
decisions and orders were as conclusive upon the rights of
the affected parties as though the same had been rendered
by a court of general jurisdiction. Besides that, the
administrative actions were apparently in response to the
growing global concern over the despoliation of forest lands
and the utter disregard of their crucial role in sustaining a
balanced ecological system. The legitimacy of such concern
could hardly be disputed. While there was a desire to harness
natural resources to amass profit and to meet the country’s
immediate financial requirements, the more essential need to
ensure future generations of Filipinos of their survival in a
viable environment demanded effective Government action
to check further denudation of whatever remained of the
forest lands. There was a basic rule that the courts would not
interfere in matters which were addressed to the sound
discretion of government agencies entrusted with the
regulation of activities coming under the special technical
knowledge of such agencies. Timber licenses could be validly
amended, modified, replaced or rescinded by the Chief
Executive when national interests so required. The petition
was dismissed. Nevertheless, the Court expressed its concern
regarding alleged irregularities in the issuance of timber
license agreements to a number of logging concessionaires.
Review Questions:
1. May the state allow private parties concession in the
exploitation of natural resources?
- Yes.
- The State may allow private parties concession in the
exploitation of natural resources under its power to
regulate the use and exploitation of forest resources.
2. What environmental law is applied in the grant of
Timber Licensing Agreement?
- PD No. 705 or revising PD NO. 389 (The Forestry
Reform Code of the Philippines)
3. Is the grant of concession by the government
absolute? Why?
- No.
- 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.
- Privilege granted by the State to qualified entities
and do not vest in the latter a permanent or
irrevocable right to the particular concession are and
the forest products therein.
- PD 705, Section 3 (ee): “Permit is a short-term
privilege or authority granted by the State to a
person to utilize any limited forest resources or
undertake a limited activity with any forest land
without any right of occupation and possession
therein.
- PD 705, Section 20: No person may utilize, exploit,
occupy, possess or conduct any activity within any
forest land or establish and operate any wood-
processing plant, unless he has been authorized to
do so under a license agreement, lease, license or
permit.
- They may be validly amended, modified, replaced or
rescinded by the Chief Executive when national
interests so require.
Hernandez et al. v. NAPOCOR, G.R. No. 145328, March 23,
2006
Subject Matter: (TRO can be issued against a government
project as a matter of exception because the protection of
people’s health enjoys a preferential treatment based on a
constitutional mandate.)
FACTS:
NAPOCOR began the construction of steel towers to
support overhead high tension cables in connection with its
230 kilovolt Sucat-Araneta-Balintawak Power Transmission
Project, which passes through petitioners’ homes. This
alarmed the petitioners for their research showed that said
steel towers could expose them to electromagnetic fields,
which could cause illnesses like cancer or leukemia. When
negotiations between the parties failed, petitioners filed a
complaint for damages and TRO or writ of preliminary
injunction against NAPOCOR, but the latter sought for
dismissal for lack of jurisdiction, citing PD 1818, which
provides that no court in the Philippines shall have
jurisdiction to issue any restraining order or injunction in any
case, dispute, or controversy involving government
infrastructure project. The trial court was of the view that PD
1818 is not applicable in the present case due to the health
risks involved.
ISSUE:
Should PD 1818 be applied?
RULING:
No. The prohibition of any court from issuing
injunctions in cases involving infrastructure projects extends
only to the issuance of injunctions or restraining orders
against administrative acts in controversies involving facts or
the exercise of discretion in technical cases. On issues clearly
outside this dimension and involving questions of law, courts
could not be prevented from exercising their power to
restrain or prohibit administrative acts. In the case at bar,
petitioners sought issuance of preliminary injunction on the
ground that NAPOCOR impinged on their right to health as
enshrined in Art. II, Sec. 15 of the Constitution. Respondent
also failed to conduct a prior consultation with petitioners, as
the affected community, a requirement embodied in Sec. 27
of the Local Government Code. These questions of law thus
divest the case from the protective mantle of PD 1818. In the
present case, the far-reaching irreversible effects to human
safety should be the primordial concerns over presumed
economic benefits as alleged by the NAPOCOR. For what use
will modernization serve if it proves to be a scourge on an
individual’s fundamental right, not just to health and safety,
but, ostensibly, to life preservation itself, in all of its desired
quality?
Review Questions:
1. What is a Temporary Restraining Order (“TRO”)?

2. What was the basis of the Petitioners in asking the

Court to enjoin the NAPOCOR from pursuing its
project?

3. What law did the NAPOCOR cite to defeat the action

of the Petitioners?

4. What is the concept of hierarchy of laws?

5. Did the Court grant the Petition? Why?