Oposa vs.

Factoran GR 101083
- 44 children fled a petition through their
parents assisted by tty. Oposa
- gainst !"#R $ecretary Factoran
- %o stop de&orestation by cancelling all %i'ber
(icense gree'ents
- For a balanced and health&ul ecology
- )n the na'e o& *their generation as +ell as
those generations yet unborn,
- W/N the children had legal standing
- -es
- .ased on the concept o& *intergenerational
responsibility,
- %he right to sue on behal& o& the succeeding
generations
/illarin vs. 0eople GR 112384
- 0 decided to repair the i'passable .atinay
bridge in 5!O
- %he pro6ect +as approved by the barangay
council
- 0 as7ed &or the availability o& ti'ber to the
.arangay 5aptain +ithout consulting the city
engineer
- 0 +ere given specifcations and proceeded in
procuring ti'ber
- %he ti'ber 8itches +ere sei9ed by !"#R during
transportation in violation o& 0! 102 &or having
no legal docu'ents
- W/N mere possession of timber without
criminal intent is punishable
- -es
- 0! 102 $ec :8
- ;ere possession o& &orest products +ithout
proper docu'ents even +ithout cri'inal intent
- "ven i& it +as not &or personal gain <
Revaldo vs. 0eople
- 0olice received a report that 0 +as in
possession o& lu'ber +ithout proper docu'ent
- 0olice +ent to the house o& 0 to search but
+ithout a +arrant
- 0olice +ere able to confscate 30 pieces o&
lu'ber lying around in the vicinity o& 0=s house
- 0 contends that police cannot sei9e the lu'ber
+ithout a proper +arrant
- W/N possession of lumber without legal
documents is a criminal ofense
- -es
- /iolation o& $ec :8 o& &orestry code &or
possession o& &orestry products +ithout legal
docu'ents
- $ec 80 stipulates that the police 'ay arrest
even +ithout +arrant any person +ho has or is
co''itting any o& the o>enses in the &orestry
code
rriola vs. $andiganbayan
- 0? .arangay captain rriola and 5hie& %anod
Radan had under their custody and control
appro@i'ately 44 pieces or illegally sa+n
lu'ber
- 5onfscated by !"#R and turned over to the'
- #egligently per'itted any other person to ta7e
the lu'ber sei9ed
- W/N are accountable for the loss through
negligence
- -es
- Ae signed a sei9ure receipt +hich stated that 0
obliges hi'sel& to &aith&ully 7eep and protect
the sei9ed articles
- Ae 'ay be called upon to ta7e custody even i&
it is not his usual duty
l'uente vs. 0eople GR 114:11
- 0 +ere accused o& violating 0! 102 sec :8
other+ise 7no+n as the Revised Forestry 5ode
- they +ere sentenced by to su>er penalty o&
reclusion te'poral 'ini'u' to reclusion
perpetua in its 'a@i'u'
- 0 Buestioned the sentence
- W/N the penalty 2 degrees higher should
be imposed as prescribed in Art 310 of
R!
- #o
- #one o& the circu'stances to Buali&y rt 310 is
present
- 0enalty is 11 years 8 'onths and one day o&
pricion 'ayor to 13 years o& reclusion te'poral
- %he pri'ordial duty o& the court is to render
6ustice
(alican vs. /ergara
- 0 +as caught in the possession o& 1?800 board
&eet o& lu'ber boarder on 3 passenger 6eeps
+ithout the proper docu'ents in violation o&
0! 102
- 0 contend that the la+ prescribes only to
ti'ber and not to lu'ber
- W/N lumber and timber difers as
described in " #0$
- #o
- Cord and phrases should be given their plain?
ordinary? and co''on usage 'eaning
- "@cluding lu'ber +ould e'asculate the la+
itsel&
- 0! 102 'a7es no distinction bet+een ra+ or
processed ti'ber
- (a+ should not be construed to be interpreted
as to a>ord an opportunity to de&eat
co'pliance
;iners vs. Factoran GR 48333
- 0resident 5ory Buino issued "O 311 and 314
+hich prescribes the procedures in processing
an approval &or e@ploration? utili9ation? and
develop'ent o& 'inerals and the authority o&
the !"#R $ecretary to negotiate product-
sharing agree'ents in relation to the latter.
- 0 Buestions the constitutionality o& the t+o
!Os issued by the !"#R $ec converting all
e@isting 'ining agree'ents to product-sharing
agree'ents
- W/N "%NR &ec acted with gra'e abuse of
discretion in the issuance of the two
"A(s
- #o
- $ec : o& "O 314 specifcally authori9es hi' to
pro'ulgate such supple'entary rules
- %he t+o !Os are reasonably directed to the
acco'plish'ent o& the purposes o& the la+ to
secure the para'ount interest o& the public.
!idipio "arth $avers ;ultipurpose ssociation vs. !"#R
$ec
GR 121883
- 0resident 5ory issued R 314 e'po+ering
!"#R to stipulate +ith large scale e@ploration
or 'ining
- 0resident Ra'os issued R 1434 o& the
0hilippine ;ining ct and authori9ed a &oreign
co'pany to e@plore 31hecatres o& land +hich
also covered .rgy !ipidio
- !ipidio petitioned to have the R 1443 and its
i'ple'enting rules declared unconstitutional
asserting it is unla+&ul ta7ing o& property
+ithout 6ust co'pensation
- W/N RA #)*2 and the rules of "%NR are
'alid
- -es
- !ipidio &ailed to prove other+ise that it +as an
invalid e@ercise o& e'inent do'ain
- %he govern'ent regulation involves the
ad6ust'ent o& rights &or the public good.
- $ec 1: o& R 1443 provided that any da'age
to the property during the operations shall be
properly co'pensated
pe@ ;ining 5o. vs. $outheast ;indanao Gold 'ining
corp
Gr 123:13 and 123:38
- $"; fled &or reconsideration in a decision held
+herein $"; violated one o& the stipulations o&
the "@ploration per'it and did e@piration o&
per'it.
- %he 5ourt ruled that R 1443 provided that
'ining operations shall be underta7en directly
by the $tate +hich gives the $tate o+nership
o& priority right over the contested !i+al+al
Gold Rush rea
- "@ecutive depart'ent +as given prerogative to
underta7e 'ining operations or to a+ard
private entities over the disputed area
- pe@ and .alite as7s that ;G. accept their
application
- W/N &%+ ac,uired 'ested right o'er
disputed lands
- #o. $";=s right +as e@tinguished by the
e@piration o& the per'it and its violation o& the
condition prohibiting the assign'ent o& such
per'it.
- "ven assu'ing that $"; has a valid
e@ploration per'it? such is a 'ere license can
be +ithdra+n by the state
- Only the $tate can grant the per'its o& pe@
and .alite and not ;G.