You are on page 1of 6

PAGES 13-24

PAGES 41-59
PAGES 257 TILL THE END
RPEC.

Oposa vs Factoran
Natural and Environmental Laws; Constitutional Law: Intergenerational Responsibility
GR No. 101083; July 30 1993

FACTS:
A taxpayer’s class suit was filed by minors Juan Antonio Oposa, et al., representing their
generation and generations yet unborn, and represented by their parents against Fulgencio
Factoran Jr., Secretary of DENR. They prayed that judgment be rendered ordering the defendant,
his agents, representatives and other persons acting in his behalf to:

1. Cancel all existing Timber Licensing Agreements (TLA) in the country;


2. Cease and desist from receiving, accepting, processing, renewing, or appraising new
TLAs;

and granting the plaintiffs “such other reliefs just and equitable under the premises.” They alleged
that they have a clear and constitutional right to a balanced and healthful ecology and are entitled
to protection by the State in its capacity as parens patriae. Furthermore, they claim that the act of
the defendant in allowing TLA holders to cut and deforest the remaining forests constitutes a
misappropriation and/or impairment of the natural resources property he holds in trust for the
benefit of the plaintiff minors and succeeding generations.
The defendant filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on the following grounds:

1. Plaintiffs have no cause of action against him;


2. The issues raised by the plaintiffs is a political question which properly pertains to the
legislative or executive branches of the government.

ISSUE:
Do the petitioner-minors have a cause of action in filing a class suit to “prevent the
misappropriation or impairment of Philippine rainforests?”

HELD:
Yes. Petitioner-minors assert that they represent their generation as well as generations to come.
The Supreme Court ruled that they can, for themselves, for others of their generation, and for the
succeeding generation, file a class suit. Their personality to sue in behalf of succeeding
generations is based on the concept of intergenerational responsibility insofar as the right to a
balanced and healthful ecology is concerned. Such a right considers the “rhythm and harmony of
nature” which indispensably include, inter alia, the judicious disposition, utilization,
management, renewal and conservation of the country’s forest, mineral, land, waters, fisheries,
wildlife, offshore areas and other natural resources to the end that their exploration, development,
and utilization be equitably accessible to the present as well as the future generations.
Needless to say, every generation has a responsibility to the next to preserve that rhythm and
harmony for the full enjoyment of a balanced and healthful ecology. Put a little differently, the
minor’s 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.

MMDA v Concerned Residents of Manila Bay (Environmental Law)

FACTS:

The complaint by the residents alleged that the water quality of the Manila Bay had
fallen way below the allowable standards set by law, specifically Presidential Decree
No. (PD) 1152 or the Philippine Environment Code and that ALL defendants (public
officials) must be jointly and/or solidarily liable and collectively ordered to clean up Manila
Bay and to restore its water quality to class B, waters fit for swimming, diving, and other
forms of contact recreation.

ISSUES:

(1) WON Sections 17 and 20 of PD 1152 under the headings, Upgrading of Water Quality
and Clean-up Operations, envisage a cleanup in general or are they limited only to
the cleanup of specific pollution incidents;

(2) WON petitioners be compel led by mandamus to clean up and rehabilitate the Manila
Bay.

APPLICABLE LAWS:

PD 1152 Philippine Environmental Code Section 17. Upgrading of Water Quality.––


Where the quality of water has deteriorated t o a degree where it s state will
adversely affect its best u sage, the government agencies concerned shall take such
measures as may be necessary to upgrade the quality of such water to meet the
prescribed water quality standards. Section 20. Clean-up Operations.––It shall be the
responsibility of the polluter to contain , remove and clean - up water pollution
incidents at his own expense. In case of his failure to do so, the government
agencies concerned shall undertake containment, removal and clean-up operations and
expenses incurred in said operation shall be charged against the persons and/ or entities
responsible for such pollution.

HELD:

(1) Sec. 17 does not in any way state that the government agencies concerned ought
to confine themselves to the containment, removal, and cleaning operations when a
specific pollution incident occurs. On the contrary, Sec. 17 requires them to act even
in the absence of a specific pollution incident, as long as water quality “has
deteriorated to a degree where its state will adversely affect its best usage.” Section 17 &
20 are of general application and are not for specific pollution incidents only. The fact that
the pollution of the Manila Bay is of such magnitude and scope that it is well -nigh
impossible to draw the line between a specific and a general pollution incident.
(2) The Cleaning or Rehabilitation of Manila Bay Can be Compelled by Mandamus. While
the implementation of the MMDA's mandated tasks may entail a decision-making
process, the enforcement of the law or the very act of doing what the law exacts to be
done is ministerial in nature and may be compelled by mandamus. Under what other
judicial discipline describes as “continuing mandamus ,” the Court may, under
extraordinary circumstances, issue directives with the end in view of ensuring that its
decision would not be set to naught by administrative inaction or indifference.

NOTE: This continuing mandamus is no longer applicable, since this is institutionalized in


the rules of procedure for environmental cases.

20 days – Temporary restraining order

RPEC governs procedure in all civil criminal and all special involving enforcement or
violation of environmental or other related laws

Can a court issue TRO or Writ of Preliminary Injunction…?


NO
Am No. 09-
No court can
TRO vs TEPO

TEPO - to prevent violations of environmental law

RULES OF PROCEDURE FOR ENVIRONMENTAL CASES


When does pre-trial commence → within 2 days after filing the answer in cross claim or
counterclaim

Is mediation mandatory? Yes. Court will ask of they have settle the case.

What is a consent decree?


...based on publoc interest… to protect and conderve the envi

Prohibited pñeadings and motions


MTD
MEXTENSION
MOTION TO REVIEW OF PARTICULARS
MOTION TOOOO

Temporary Environmental Protection Order


When should this be issued?
If there is extreme danger or urgency, a tepo may be issued ex parte because it is an ___
Environmental Protection Order
Citizen’s suit
Oposa vs Factoran
No need for publication

What are the remedies


Protection, rehabilitation
Cause of suit, attorney’s fees, trust fund

Immediately executory.

Writ of Continuing Mandamus


Definition
Order of the court Directing any agency or instrumentality of the govt… acts or series of acts
for the preservation of the govt
Perform or desist in order to preserve the environment
Court may by itself lr agency monitor the execution of judgment and require the party
concerned…

STRATEGIC LAWSUIT AGAINST PUBLIC PARTICIPATION (SLAPP) SUIT

- A legal action filed to harass, vex, exert undue pressure or stifle any legal recourse
that any person, institution or the government has taken or may take in the
enforcement of environmental laws, protection of the environment or assertion of
environmental rights shall be treated as a SLAPP and shall be governed by these
Rules.

Can a defendant file an answer that….


yes

Quantum of Proof required.


Substantial evidence only

Civil cases
Yes. Slapp may be used as evidence

Criminal cases
Yes. Slapp may be used as evidence
WRIT OF KALIKASAN

- The writ is a remedy available to a natural or juridical person, entity authorized by


law, people’s organization, non-governmental organization, or any public interest
group accredited by or registered with any government agency, on behalf of persons
whose constitutional right to a balanced and healthful ecology is violated, or
threatened with violation by an unlawful act or omission of a public official or
employee, or private individual or entity, involving environmental damage of such
magnitude as to prejudice the life, health or property of inhabitants in two or more
cities or provinces.

Special remedy available to… NGO, registered group… Involving


ENVIRONMENTAL DAMAGE OF SUCH MAGNITUDE AS TO
AFFECT/PREJUDICE THE LIVE AND THE PROPERTY OF THE INHABITANTS
TWO OR MORE CITIES.

Is docket fees required? Yes. Civil case.

Manchester Ruling:

Asuncion Ruling: Yes

Docket fees not required in Writ of Kalikasan.

Ocular inspection

Requisites for granting ocular inspection (SEARCH EXACT REQUISITES)


There must be a motion for leave
Two or more cities are involved

WRIT OF CONTINUING MANDAMUS


MMDA VS THE CONCERNED RESIDENTS OF MANILA BAY (DEC. 2008)

Mandamus - Ministerial; directing officer to comply with his ministerial duty.


Docket fees not required
Venue: RTC exercising over the territory
Jurisdiction: File in the RTC, CA or SC
Court may extradite proceedings
Summary in Nature
Petition must be resolved within 60 days lang
Court shall require to submit periodic reports

MEMORIZE ANG 2 CASES FACTS - ISSUES - RULING


As a Rule, may civil actions arising from delict/crime be filed independently?
No, that’s why there is an independent action
Art. 31, 32, 33 (Civil Code)

Is warrant of arrest required? Yes.


Exceptions: hot pursuit, escaped, committed/has committed/is committing [political
law]

Personal knowledge - ok ra wala ang officer basta naay PK


In flagrante delicto - dapat naa ang officer

Bailable offenses.

When shall the court set arraignment? _____

EVIDENCE
Precautionary Principle*
The court in upholding the rights of the people…. Benefit of the doubt… (SEARCH)
Court shall give.. the benefit of the doubt

Photographs_______ admissible in envi procedures


It must be authenticated

You might also like