Preliminaries for Article II

• Not self-executing
• The Supreme Court has made it clear that most of its provisions are to be considered as “mere
legislative guides, which absent enabling legislation, do not embody enforceable constitutional
rights” (Magallona vs. Ermita, GR no. 187167, 655 SCRA 476)

Why sections 15 and 16 are special, with respect

to Article II
 Contained in section 15 and 16 are the right to health and the right to a healthful ecology,
respectively.
 Unlike the other provisions in Article II of the 1987 constitution, the Supreme Court has
acknowledged that these rights “need not even be written in the Constitution for they are
assumed to exist from the inception of humankind.” (Oposa vs. Factoran, GR No.
101083, 224 SCRA 792)
 This means that the right to health and the right to a healthful ecology are nonetheless
enforceable constitutional rights

Section 15: The Right to Health

“The state shall protect and promote the right to health of the people and instill health
consciousness among them.”
 Section 15 is bolstered by sections 11-13 of Article XIII of the Constitution on Social
Justice and Human Rights
 In Sections 11-13 lay down the specifics in how the health issues of the Filipino
people are to be addressed. Examples of which are:
1. An integrated and comprehensive approach to health development
2. Free medical care to paupers
3. The establishment of a food and drug regulatory system
4. The undertaking of appropriate health manpower development and research
5. The establishment of a special agency for disabled persons
What is meant by an integrated and
comprehensive health delivery system?
• Integration, in terms of medicine and health, requires that a health delivery system be one
where the public and private sector go hand in hand, where the conventional western
medicine goes hand in hand with the more alternative eastern medicine
• Comprehensiveness includes health promotion, disease prevention, education, and
planning. This is opposed to merely administering medicine when one gets inflicted with
disease.
• Likewise, these two qualities of the health delivery system have the aim of making
healthcare more affordable as well. An example of an effort towards this direction would
be the Generics Act.

The National Feeding Program Law

(Philippine Daily Inquirer Article, July 3, 2018)
 The chief executive approved Republic Act 11037 or the “Masustansyang Pagkain para sa Batang
Pilipino Act” last June 20.
 The national feeding program will be institutionalized for undernourished children in public day care,
kindergarten and elementary schools.
 Under the law, the national government agencies concerned will provide micronutrient supplements,
conduct health examinations, deworming and vaccination, among others, to program beneficiaries.
 orders creation of a National Nutrition Information System, which will harmonize all existing national
and local nutrition databases from relevant government agencies.
 the law will safeguard the children from the ill effects of undernourishment and enhance their learning
capacities.
 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”

• the Supreme Court held that this provision “need not be written in the Constitution for
they are assumed to exist even from the inception of humankind.” (Oposa v Factoran,
G.R. No 101083, 224 SCRA 792)
• Key concepts include the following are:

1) the right to a healthful ecology

2) the correlative duty to refrain from impairing the environment, and
3) intergenerational responsibility

• Best embodied in jurisprudence to be explained in the succeeding slides

Oposa vs. Factoran

Parties to the case
Plaintiffs-Appelants

• Minors – principal plaintiffs, represented and joined by their parents

• Philippine Ecological Network, Inc. (PENI) – additional plaintiffs, a non-stock, non-
profit, corporation

Both are engaging in concerted action for the protection of the environment

Defendants-Respondents

• Hon. Eugenio S. Factoran – Former DENR Secretary

Substituted by,

• Hon. Angel C. Alcala – New DENR Secretary

Action filed
• Taxpayer’s suit
• A class suit

Petitioners represent:
 • “Individuals so numerous that it would be impractical to bring them all to court”
• Entire generation and the unborn generation

Petitioners allege that they are “all citizens of the Republic of the Philippines and are entitled to
the full benefit, use, enjoyment to the virgin tropical rainforests of the Philippines”

Prayer
To order respondent, agents, and his representatives to To order respondent, agents, and his
representatives to:

• Cancel all existing Timber License Agreements (TLA’s)

• Cease and desist from renewing, producing, and receiving new TLA’s
• Other reliefs just and equitable under the premises

Cause of Action
• 25 Years ago, there was 16M hectares of forest covers = 52% of land area
• As of 1987 1.2M hectares = 4% of land area
• More recent (as of petition) = 850K hectares or 2.8% of land area
• Public records – TLA’s for 3.89M hectares were granted
• At the rate of 200 hectares (based on present rate of deforestation) – no more rainforests
in the next decade, if not earlier
• Damage and injury – sustained by plaintiffs and unborn
• Plaintiffs have a right to a balanced and healthful ecology – state must protect as parens
patriae
• Plaintiffs have exhausted all remedies and have demanded respondent DENR to cancel
all TLA’s
• Defendant refused – and such act is contrary to the Constitution
• “There is no other plain, speedy and adequate remedy in law other than the instant action
to arrest the unabated hemorrhage of the country's vital life-support systems and
continued rape of Mother Earth."

Ruling of Court a Quo

Upheld motion to dismiss filed by Factoran, added the issue of the action being in violation
of the non-impairment clause

Direct Appeal to Supreme Court

Certiorari under rule 65 – grave abuse of discretion by the RTC Judge
Issues
• Civil case or class suit
• Locus standi
• Demandable right
• Cause of action
• Political question
• Non-impairment clause

First Issue

• SC Ruled:
• Indeed a class suit – subject matter: common and general interest not just to several but to
all citizens of the Philippines
• Since parties are so numerous, it becomes totally impossible to bring them all to court
• Declared that the plaintiffs are numerous and representative enough to ensure full
protection of all concerned interests

Second Issue

SC Ruled:

• Petitioners have standing to sue in behalf of next generations insofar as the right
to a balanced and healthful ecology is concerned
• Cited intergenerational responsibility as basis
• Such a right considers the “rhythm and harmony of nature”
• Nature – entire world, rhythm and harmony – judicious disposition of natural
resources
• In short, the act of asserting the right is at the same time the performance of the
obligation to ensure that right for generations to come

Third Issue

SC Ruled:

• The right to a balanced and healthful ecology, while found Art. II, is no less important
than any of the civil and political rights
• Based on the fact that it concerns for self-preservation and self-perpetuation
• “need not even be written in the constitution as it is assumed to exist from the inception
of humankind”
• Intent of framers: “imposing upon the state a solemn obligation to preserve the first
(healthful ecology) and protect and advance the second (health)”
• There is a correlative duty to refrain from impairing the environment

The right of the plaintiffs and the duty of DENR should go hand-in-hand
Fourth Issue

SC Ruled:

• Statements found in introductory affirmative allegations, as well as specific

averments under CAUSE OF ACTION are sufficient to show, prima facie, a
violation of their rights
• They must be granted, wholly or partially, the reliefs prayed for

Fifth Issue

SC Ruled:

• Justiciable – grave abuse of discretion

• “As worded, the new provision vests in the judiciary, and particularly the supreme court
the power to rule upon even the wisdom of the decisions of the executive and legislature
and to declare their acts invalid for lack or excess of jurisdiction because it is tainted with
grave abuse of discretion”

Final Issue

SC Ruled:

• TLA’s are not contracts, property, or property rights

• May be revoked without due process
• Only a mere privilege
• Section 20 of the Forestry Reform Code – “when national interest so requires, the
President may… rescind any… licenses or any form of privilege granted herein”

Court Order

 Petition is granted
 Petitioners may implead as defendants the holders or grantees of the questioned TLA’s
Ysmael vs. Deputy Executive Secretary
Parties to the Case
Petitioners

• Felipe Ysmael, Jr & Co. – Issued a TLA with the Department of Agriculture and Natural
Resources
• 54,920 hectares – Maddela, Nueva Viscaya

Respondents

• Secretary of Environment and Natural Resources

• Director of Bureau of Forest Development – Issued memo stopping all loggin operations
• Twin Peaks Development and Realty Corporation – Was issued TLA which covered
same area as petitioner before his TLA was cancelled

Facts
- Change of government in 1986 (Marcos to Aquino Administration)
- Petitioner wrote a letter to the Office of the President and the Ministry of Natural
Resources, praying for:

• Reinstatement of its TLA No. 87 which was cancelled 1983

• Revocation of TLA No. 356 which was issued to Twin Peaks
• Issuance of an order to take possession of logs in concession area

Allegations of Petitioner
1. Oct. 12, 1965 – TLA 87 w/ DAR, exclusive license to cut, collect, and remove timber.
Land area – 54,920 hectares
2. Aug. 18, 1983 – Edmundo Cortes (Director of Bureau of Forest Development) – issued
memo to stop all logging operations
3. Aug. 25, 1983 – Telegram from Bureau – ordering petitioners to pull out of the area
4. He wrote a letter to then President Marcos for reinstatement of TLA
5. TLA was granted to Twin Peaks and Filipino Lumber
6. Entities were controlled by Marcos family members and cronies

Procedural History of the Case

• Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) – denied request
• Reconsideration (MNR) – denied
• Supplemental MR (MNR) – denied
 • Appealed to office of the President - Deputy Executive Secretary denied the petition for
lack of merit
• Certiorari to the Supreme Court

Issues
• Whether or not the act of refusing to reverse the decisions of administrative agencies
constitutes a grave abuse of discretion
• Timeliness of the petition
• Supreme Court added the issue of environmental considerations

Grave abuse of discretion

• SC Ruled:
• No grave abuse
• Citing res judicata, the Supreme Court held that the decisions and orders are as
conclusive as the rights of the affected parties as though the same had been
rendered by a court of jurisdiction
• Forbids reopening once determined by a competent authority acting within their
jurisdiction
• Petitioner failed to prove that such abuse exists

Timeliness
SC Ruled:

• Petitioner failed to act within a reasonable time, which is prescribed by the Rules of
Court under Rule 65
• The yardstick is the commission of the act complained of and the institution of the
suit/action
• Petitioner waited 3 years before it filed a petition for certiorari

Environmental Considerations
SC Ruled:

• That there is a more significant factor which bars him from availing of the benefits of a
writ of certiorari
• Public respondents are currently undergoing a department evaluation of all TLA’s
• The administrative reassessment was said to be in response to the growing global concern
over the despoliation of forest lands
Closing Statement
“Thus, while the administration grapples with the complex and multifarious problems caused by
unbridled exploitation of these resources, the judiciary will stand clear. 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. “

“Nevertheless, the Court cannot help but express its concern regarding alleged irregularities in
the issuance of timber license agreements to a number of logging concessionaires…

The alleged practice of bestowing "special favors" to preferred individuals, regardless of merit,
would be an abuse of this power. And this Court will not be a party to a flagrant mockery of the
avowed public policy of conservation enshrined in the 1987 Constitution.”

However, petitioner having failed to make out a case showing grave abuse of discretion on the
part of public respondents herein, the Court finds no basis to issue a writ of certiorari and to
grant any of the affirmative reliefs sought”

Henares vs. LTFRB

Facts:
This is a case where petitioners challenge the Court to issue a writ of mandamus to compel the
Land Transportation and Regulatory Board (LTFRB) and the Department of Transportation of
Communication (DOTC) to require public utility vehicles (PUVs) to use compressed natural gas
(CNG)

Arguments of the Petitioners

Citing statistics from the following:

• the Metro Manila Transportation and Traffic Situation Study of 1996

• the Environmental Management Bureau of the NCR
• a study of the Asia Development Bank
• the Department of Environment and Natural Resources,

the petitioners attempt to present a compelling case for judicial action against the bane of air
pollution and related environmental hazards.
 • They allege that particulate matters – a complex mixture of dust, dirt, smoke, and liquid
droplets – have caused detrimental effects on health, productivity, and infrastructure and
the overall quality of life

Basis for mandamus

• Petitioners assert their right to clean air as the basis for the writ, as part of the right to a
healthful ecology found in Section 16, the Oposa Ruling, as well as the Clean Air Act
• *The DOTC was impleaded as additional respondent at this point

Arguments of the Two Parties

Solicitor General:

1. Mandamus: incorrect remedy- discretionary act vs. ministerial act

2. Nothing in the Clean Air Act prohibits the use of petrol and diesel, does not mention
anything about CNG
3. DENR is the one tasked to implement the said Act

Petitioners:

1. They have no other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy

2. Under the Clean Air Act, and the information provided by DOE on the benefits of CNG,
the respondents cannot ignore the use of CNG as an alternative fuel
3. LTFRB and DOTC possess the administrative and regulatory power mandated by the said
Act

Issues
1. Whether the petitioners have standing to bring the instant petition before the court
2. Whether mandamus is the proper remedy

Locus standi
SC Ruled:

• No dispute that petitioners have legal standing

• “Undeniably the right to clean air is not only an issue of paramount importance to
petitioners, but is also impressed with public interest”
• Court cited transcendental importance and brushed aside the procedural aspect required
so that the case may be decided promptly
Mandamus
SC Ruled:

• The instant petition was considered mooted, to a certain extent, by the issuance of
EO 290, which is the Natural Gas Vehicle Program for Public Transport.
• That because the legal right which is sought to be enforced hinges on an official
act specifically enjoined by law as a duty, the writ cannot be availed of in the
current case

Closing statement:
“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.”