Você está na página 1de 1

Opposa vs.

Factoran 224 SCRA 792, 1993 FACTS: The principal petitioners, who are all minors duly represented by their parents, instituted a taxpayers class suit, alleging that as citizens and taxpayers of the Philippines, they are entitled to the full benefit, use, and enjoyment of the countrys virgin tropical forests. The minors also asserted that they represent their generation and the generations to come, praying that all existing timber license agreements (TLA) be cancelled and to stop renewing or approving new ones. Defendant Fulgencio Factoran, DENR secretary, refused to cancel the TLAs and file motion to dismiss on the grounds that (1) plaintiffs have no cause of action against him and (2) the issue is a political question. The respondent judge granted the motion and further ruled that cancelling the TLAs would result in impairment of contracts. ISSUES: 1. Whether or not petitioners have locus standi. 2. Whether or not the cancellation of the TLAs would result to impairment of contracts. HELD: 1. Petitioners have locus standi. The SC found no difficulty in ruling that they can, for themselves, for others of their generation, and for succeeding generations, file a class suit. Their personality to sue in behalf of the succeeding generations can only be based on the concept of intergenerational responsibility insofar as the right to a balanced and healthful ecology is concerned. Every generation has a responsibility to the next to preserve that rhythm and harmony of nature for the full enjoyment of a balanced and healthful ecology. 2. The cancellation of the TLAs would not result to impairment of contracts, because a timber license is not a contract within the purview of the due process clause. It is only a license or privilege, which can be validly withdrawn whenever dictated by public interest or public welfare, as in the present case. Eduardo Hernandez, et al. vs. NAPOCOR G.R. No. 145328 March 23, 2006 FACTS: NAPOCOR began the construction of steel towers to support overhead high tension cables in connection with its 230 kilovolt SucatAraneta-Balintawak Power Transmission Project, which passes through petitioners homes. This alarmed the petitioners for their research showed that said steel towers could expose them to electromagnetic fields, which could cause illnesses like cancer or leukemia. When negotiations between the parties failed, petitioners filed a complaint for

damages and TRO or writ of preliminary injunction against NAPOCOR, but the latter sought for dismissal for lack of jurisdiction, citing PD 1818, which provides that no court in the Philippines shall have jurisdiction to issue any restraining order or injunction in any case, dispute, or controversy involving government infrastructure project. The trial court was of the view that PD 1818 is not applicable in the present case due to the health risks involved. ISSUE: Should PD 1818 be applied? RULING: No. The prohibition of any court from issuing injunctions in cases involving infrastructure projects extends only to the issuance of injunctions or restraining orders against administrative acts in controversies involving facts or the exercise of discretion in technical cases. On issues clearly outside this dimension and involving questions of law, courts could not be prevented from exercising their power to restrain or prohibit administrative acts. In the case at bar, petitioners sought issuance of preliminary injunction on the ground that NAPOCOR impinged on their right to health as enshrined in Art. II, Sec. 15 of the Constitution. Respondent also failed to conduct a prior consultation with petitioners, as the affected community, a requirement embodied in Sec. 27 of the Local Government Code. These questions of law thus divest the case from the protective mantle of PD 1818. In the present case, the far-reaching irreversible effects to human safety should be the primordial concerns over presumed economic benefits as alleged by the NAPOCOR. For what use will modernization serve if it proves to be a scourge on an individuals fundamental right, not just to health and safety, but, ostensibly, to life preservation itself, in all of its desired quality?