FACTS:

The RTC Judge sustained the motion to dismiss, further

ruling that granting of the relief prayed for would result in the

The plaintiffs in this case are all minors duly represented and

impairment

joined by their parents. The first complaint was filed as a

of

contracts

which

is

prohibited

by

the

Constitution.

taxpayer's class suit at the Branch 66 (Makati, Metro Manila),

of the Regional Trial Court, National capital Judicial Region

Plaintiffs (petitioners) thus filed the instant special civil action

against defendant (respondent) Secretary of the Department of

for certiorari and asked the court to rescind and set aside the

Environment and Natural Reasources (DENR). Plaintiffs

dismissal order on the ground that the respondent RTC Judge

alleged that they are entitled to the full benefit, use and

gravely abused his discretion in dismissing the action.

enjoyment of the natural resource treasure that is the

country's virgin tropical forests. They further asseverate that

ISSUES:

they represent their generation as well as generations yet

unborn and asserted that continued deforestation have

(1) Whether or not the plaintiffs have a cause of action.

caused a distortion and disturbance of the ecological balance

(2) Whether or not the complaint raises a political issue.

and have resulted in a host of environmental tragedies.

(3) Whether or not the original prayer of the plaintiffs result in

the impairment of contracts.

Plaintiffs prayed that judgement be rendered ordering the

respondent, his agents, representatives and other persons

RULING:

acting in his behalf to cancel all existing Timber License

Agreement (TLA) in the country and to cease and desist from

First Issue: Cause of Action.

receiving, accepting, processing, renewing or approving new

TLAs.

Respondents aver that the petitioners failed to allege in their

complaint a specific legal right violated by the respondent

Defendant, on the other hand, filed a motion to dismiss on the

Secretary for which any relief is provided by law. The Court

ground that the complaint had no cause of action against him

did not agree with this. The complaint focuses on one

and that it raises a political question.

fundamental legal right -- the right to a balanced and

healthful ecology which is incorporated in Section 16 Article II

After careful examination of the petitioners' complaint, the

of the Constitution. The said right carries with it the duty to

Court finds it to be adequate enough to show, prima facie, the

refrain from impairing the environment and implies, among

claimed violation of their rights.

many

other

things,

the

judicious

management

and

conservation of the country's forests. Section 4 of E.O. 192

expressly mandates the DENR to be the primary government

Second Issue: Political Issue.

agency responsible for the governing and supervising the

exploration, utilization, development and conservation of the

Second paragraph, Section 1 of Article VIII of the constitution

country's natural resources. The policy declaration of E.O.

provides for the expanded jurisdiction vested upon the

192 is also substantially re-stated in Title XIV Book IV of the

Supreme Court. It allows the Court to rule upon even on the

Administrative

and

wisdom of the decision of the Executive and Legislature and to

Administrative Code of 1987 have set the objectives which will

declare their acts as invalid for lack or excess of jurisdiction

serve as the bases for policy formation, and have defined the

because it is tainted with grave abuse of discretion.

Code

of

1987.

Both

E.O.

192

powers and functions of the DENR. Thus, right of the

petitioners (and all those they represent) to a balanced and
healthful ecology is as clear as DENR's duty to protect and

Third Issue: Violation of the non-impairment clause.

advance the said right.

The Court held that the Timber License Agreement is an
A denial or violation of that right by the other who has the

instrument by which the state regulates the utilization and

correlative duty or obligation to respect or protect or respect

disposition of forest resources to the end that public welfare is

the same gives rise to a cause of action. Petitioners maintain

promoted. It is not a contract within the purview of the due

that the granting of the TLA, which they claim was done with

process clause thus, the non-impairment clause cannot be

grave abuse of discretion, violated their right to a balance and

invoked. It can be validly withdraw whenever dictated by

healthful ecology. Hence, the full protection thereof requires

public interest or public welfare as in this case. The granting

that no further TLAs should be renewed or granted.

of license does not create irrevocable rights, neither is it

property or property rights.

document with the sub-header CAUSE OF ACTION

which is adequate enough to show, prima facie, the
violation of their rights. On this basis, these actions
must therefore be granted, wholly or partially.
3. Despite the Constitutions non-impairment clause,
TLAs are not contracts, rather licenses; thus, the said
clause cannot be invoked. Even if these are protected
by the said clause, these can be revoked if the public
interest so required as stated in Section 20 of the
Forestry Reform Code (P.D. No. 705). Furthermore,
Section 16 of Article II of the 1987 Constitution
explicitly provides that: The State shall protect the
right of the people to a balanced and healthful ecology
in accord with the rhythm and harmony of nature.
The right to a balanced and healthful ecology carries
with it the correlative duty to refrain from impairing
the government. The said right is also clear as the
DENRs duty under its mandate and by virtue of its
powers and functions under Executive Order No. 192
and the Administrative Code of 1987 to protect and
advance the said right.

Moreover, the constitutional guaranty of non-impairment of

obligations of contract is limit by the exercise by the police
power of the State, in the interest of public health, safety,
moral and general welfare. In short, the non-impairment
clause must yield to the police power of the State.
The instant petition, being impressed with merit, is hereby
GRANTED and the RTC decision is SET ASIDE.

HELD:

1. The petitioners have locus standi (legal standing) on

the case as a taxpayers (class) suit. The subject
matter of complaint is of common and general interest
to all the citizens of the Philippines. The court found
difficulty in ruling that the appellants can, for
themselves, and for others file a class suit.
2. The right of the petitioners to a balanced and healthful
ecology has been clearly stated. 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. The granting of the TLAs, as the
petitioners claim to be done with grave abuse of
discretion, violated their right to a balanced and
healthful ecology hence, the full protection thereof
requires that no TLAs should be renewed or
granted. The appellants have also submitted a