Among the cases decided by the Supreme Court which granted victory to the

advocacy for environmental protection, the case of OPOSA VS. SECRETARY

FACTORAN (224 SCRA 792) stands out as most unique, and novel to the legal
world. Studded with new legal doctrines and principles relating to environmental
protection, the case has up to now been the inspiration of the warriors of mother
nature.

Case Summary

Facts: This case originating from the Regional Trial Court of Makati, Metro Manila
was initiated by several minors, as represented by their parents, including via
their representation the generations yet unborn. As the original defendant,
Secretary Factoran of the Department of Environment and Natural resources was
impleaded as such.

Plaintiffs herein anchor their claim on their right to the full benefit and enjoyment
of the countries natural resources, particularly of the virgin forests. They move
for the cancellation of the issued existing Timber License Agreements (TLA) as
well as the desistance of the Defendant and the officers so authorized from any
further issuance or renewal of the same.

They assert that they have the existing Constitutional right to a balanced and
healthful ecology.

Issue: Whether or not the Plaintiffs are real parties in interest.

Rule: Plaintiff has the standing. The complaint focuses on a fundamental natural
and legal right enshrined in the Constitution. The same right and source of
obligation can justify the claimed inter-generational responsibility. Hence, they
may bring the matter at hand to court and be granted the proper recognition.

Section 16, Article II which recognizes above all: THE STATE SHALL PROTECT
AND ADVANCE THE RIGHT TO A BALANCED AND HEALTHFUL ECOLOGY IN
ACCORD WITH THE RHYTHM AND HARMONY OF NATURE.

Said provision is recognized as self executory and hence may be a source of

obligation upon the state without need of further positive act from Congress.
 PEOPLE V. BURGOS - 144 SCRA 1
FACTS:
Due to an information given by a person, who allegedly was being forcibly recruited by
accused to the NPA, the members of the Constabulary went to the house of accused,
asked about his firearm and documents connected to subversive activities. Accused
pointed to where his firearm was as well as his other documents allegedly.
HELD:
The right of the person to be secure against any unreasonable seizure of his body and
any deprivation of liberty is a most basic and fundamental one. The statute or
rule, which s exceptions to the requirement of warrants of arrest is strictly
construed. Any exception must clearly fall within the situations when securing a
warrant would be absurd or is manifestly unnecessary as provided by the Rule.
We cannot liberally construe the rule on arrests without warrant or extend its
application
beyond the cases specifically provided by law. To do so would infringe upon
personal liberty and set back a basic right so often violated and so deserving of
full protection.

G.R. No. L-64261 December 26, 1984

JOSE BURGOS, SR vs. THE CHIEF OF STAFF- AFP, ET AL
Facts:
Assailed in this petition for certiorari prohibition and mandamus with
preliminary mandatory and prohibitory injunction is the validity of two [2]
search warrants issued on December 7, 1982 by Judge Ernani Cruz-Pano of the
then CFI of Rizal [Quezon City], under which the premises of the "Metropolitan
Mail" and "We Forum" newspapers, respectively, were searched, and office and
printing machines, equipment, paraphernalia, motor vehicles and other articles
used in the printing, publication and distribution of the said newspapers, as well
as numerous papers, documents, books and other written literature alleged to be
in the possession and control of petitioner Jose Burgos, Jr. publisher-editor of
the "We Forum" newspaper, were seized.
Petitioners further pray that a writ of preliminary mandatory and prohibitory
injunction be issued for the return of the seized articles, and that respondents be
enjoined from using the articles thus seized as evidence against petitioner Jose
Burgos, Jr. and the other accused in Criminal Case No. Q- 022782 of the Regional
Trial Court of Quezon City, entitled People v. Jose Burgos, Jr. et al.
Issue: Was the closure of WE Forum a case of prior restraint?
Ruling:
Yes. As heretofore stated, the premises searched were the business and printing
offices of the "Metropolitan Mail" and the "We Forum newspapers. As a
consequence of the search and seizure, these premises were padlocked and
sealed, with the further result that the printing and publication of said
newspapers were discontinued. Such closure is in the nature of previous restraint
or censorship abhorrent to the freedom of the press guaranteed under the
fundamental law, and constitutes a virtual denial of petitioners' freedom to
express themselves in print. This state of being is patently anathematic to a
democratic framework where a free, alert and even militant press is essential for
the political enlightenment and growth of the citizenry.

PEOPLE VS. MONTILLA

G. R. No. 123872
Jan. 30, 1998
Regalado, J.:
Facts:
Ruben Montilla, alias “Joy” was charged for violating Section 4, Article 2 of the
Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972, R. A. No. 6425, as amended by R. A. No. 7659 in an information
which alleges: “That on or about 20th day of June 1994, at Brgy. Salitran, Dasmarinas, Cavite,
xxx the above-named accused, not being authorized by law, did then and there wilfully,
unlawfully and feloniously, administer, transport and deliver 28 kilos of dried marijuana leaves
which are considered prohibited drugs.
Issue:
Whether the warrantless search conducted on appellant invalidates the evidence obtained
from him?
Ruling:
A legitimate warrantless arrest necessarily cloaks the arresting officer with authority to
validly search and seize from the offender (1) dangerous weapons; and (2) those that may be
used as proof of the commission of an offense. On the defense argument that the warrantless
search conducted on appellant invalidates the evidence obtained from him, still the search on his
belongings and the consequent confiscation of the illegal drugs as a result thereof was justified as
a search incidental to a lawful arrest under Section 5 (a) Rule 113 of the Rules of Court.

People v. Malmstedt [GR 91107, 19 June 1991]

En Banc, Padilla (J): 8 concur, 1 on leave
Facts: Mikael Malmstedt, a Swedish national, entered the Philippines for the 3rd time in
December 1988 as a tourist. He had visited the country sometime in 1982 and 1985. In the
evening of 7 May 1989, Malmstedt left for Baguio City. Upon his arrival thereat in the morning
of the following day, he took a bus to Sagada and stayed in that place for 2 days. On 11 May
1989, Capt. Alen Vasco of NARCOM, stationed at Camp Dangwa, ordered his men to set up a
temporary checkpoint at Kilometer 14, Acop, Tublay, Mountain Province, for the purpose of
checking all vehicles coming from the Cordillera Region. The order to establish a checkpoint in
the said area was prompted by persistent reports that vehicles coming from Sagada were
transporting marijuana and other prohibited drugs. Moreover, information was received by the
Commanding Officer of NARCOM, that same morning, that a Caucasian coming from Sagada
had in his possession prohibited drugs. At about 1:30 pm, the bus where Malmstedt was riding
was stopped. Sgt. Fider and CIC Galutan boarded the bus and announced that they were
members of the NARCOM and that they would conduct an inspection. During the inspection,
CIC Galutan noticed a bulge on Malmstedt’s waist. Suspecting the bulge on Malmstedt’s waist
to be a gun, the officer asked for Malmstedt’s passport and other identification papers. When
Malmstedt failed to comply, the officer required him to bring out whatever it was that was
bulging on his waist, which was a pouch bag. When Malmstedt opened the same bag, as ordered,
the officer noticed 4 suspicious-looking objects wrapped in brown packing tape, which turned
out to contain hashish, a derivative of marijuana, when opened. Malmstedt stopped to get 2
travelling bags from the luggage carrier, each containing a teddy bear, when he was invited
outside the bus for questioning. It was observed that there were also bulges inside the teddy bears
which did not feel like foam stuffing. Malmstedt was then brought to the headquarters of the
NARCOM at Camp Dangwa for further investigation. At the investigation room, the officers
opened the teddy bears and they were found to also contain hashish. Representative samples
were taken from the hashish found among the personal effects of Malmstedt and the same were
brought to the PC Crime Laboratory for chemical analysis, which established the objects
examined as hashish. Malmstedt claimed that the hashish was planted by the NARCOM officers
in his pouch bag and that the 2 travelling bags were not owned by him, but were merely
entrusted to him by an Australian couple whom he met in Sagada. He further claimed that the
Australian couple intended to take the same bus with him but because there were no more seats
available in said bus, they decided to take the next ride and asked Malmstedt to take charge of
the bags, and that they would meet each other at the Dangwa Station. An information was filed
against Malmstedt for violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act. During the arraignment, Malmstedt
entered a plea of “not guilty.” After trial and on 12 October 1989, the trial court found
Malmstedt guilty beyond reasonable doubt for violation of Section 4, Article II of RA 6425 and
sentenced him to life imprisonment and to pay a fine of P20,000. Malmstedt sought reversal of
the decision of the trial court.
Issue: Whether the personal effects of Malmstedt may be searched without an issued warrant.
Held: The Constitution guarantees the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses,
papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures. However, where the search is
made pursuant to a lawful arrest, there is no need to obtain a search warrant. A lawful arrest
without a warrant may be made by a peace officer or a private person under the following
circumstances. Section 5 provides that “a peace officer or a private person may, without a
warrant, arrest a person (a) When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is
actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense; (b) When an offense has in fact just
been committed, and he has personal knowledge of facts indicating that the person to be arrested
has committed it; and (c) When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from a
penal establishment or place where he is serving final judgment or temporarily confined while
his case is pending, or has escaped while being transferred from one confinement to another. In
cases falling under paragraphs (a) and (b) hereof, the person arrested without a warrant shall be
forthwith delivered to the nearest police station or jail, and he shall be proceeded against in
accordance with Rule 112, Section 7.” Herein, Malmstedt was caught in flagrante delicto, when
he was transporting prohibited drugs. Thus, the search made upon his personal effects falls
squarely under paragraph (1) of the foregoing provisions of law, which allow a warrantless
search incident to a lawful arrest.