Oposa v Factoran 224 SCRA 792

Facts: Principal petitioners, are all minors duly represented and

joined by their respective parents. Impleaded as an additional plaintif
is the Philippine Ecological Network, Inc. (PENI, a domestic, non!
stock and non!pro"t corporation organi#ed $or the purpose o$, inter
alia, engaging in concerted action geared $or the protection o$ our
environment and natural resources. %he original de$endant was the
&onorable 'ulgencio (. 'actoran, )r., then (ecretary o$ the
*epartment o$ Environment and Natural +esources (*EN+.
&is substitution in thispetition by the new (ecretary, the &onorable
,ngel -. ,lcala, was subse.uently ordered upon proper motion by the
petitioners. %he complaint was instituted as a ta/payers0 class suit and
alleges that the plaintifs 1are all citi#ens o$ the +epublic o$ the
Philippines, ta/payers, and entitled to the $ull bene"t, use and
enjoyment o$ thenatural resource treasure that is the country0s virgin
tropical $orests.1 %he same was "led $or themselves and others who
are e.ually concerned about the preservation o$ said resource but are
1so numerous that it is impracticable to bring them all be$ore the
-ourt.1
2n 33 )une 4556, the original de$endant, (ecretary 'actoran, )r., "led
a 7otion to *ismiss the complaint based on two grounds, namely8 the
plaintifs have no cause o$ action against him and, the issue raised by
the plaintifs is a political .uestion which properly pertains to the
legislative or e/ecutive branches o$ 9overnment. In their 43 )uly 4556
2pposition to the 7otion, the petitioners maintain that, the complaint
shows a clear and unmistakable cause o$ action, the motion is dilatory
and the action presents a justiciable .uestion as it involves the
de$endant0s abuse o$ discretion.
2n 4: )uly 4554, respondent )udge issued an order granting the
a$orementioned motion to dismiss. In the said order, not only was the
de$endant0s claim that the complaint states no cause o$ action against
him and that it raises a political .uestion sustained, the respondent
)udge $urther ruled that the granting o$ the relie$ prayed $or would
result in the impairment o$ contracts which is prohibited by
the$undamental law o$ the land.
Plaintifs thus "led the instant special civil action $or certiorari under
+ule ;< o$ the +evised +ules o$ -ourt and ask this -ourt to rescind
and set aside the dismissal order on the ground that the respondent
)udge gravely abused his discretion in dismissing the action. ,gain,
the parents o$ the plaintifs!minors not only represent their children,
but have also joined the latter in this case.
Petitioners contend that the complaint clearly and unmistakably states
a cause o$ action as it contains suficient allegations concerning their
right to a sound environment based on ,rticles 45, 36 and 34 o$ the
-ivil -ode (&uman +elations, (ection = o$ E/ecutive 2rder (E.2. No.
453 creating the *EN+, (ection > o$ Presidential *ecree (P.*. No.
44<4 (Philippine Environmental Policy, (ection 4;, ,rticle II o$
the45:? -onstitution recogni#ing the right o$ the people to a balanced
and health$ul ecology, the concept o$ generational genocide in
-riminal @aw and the concept o$ man0s inalienable right to sel$!
preservation and sel$!perpetuation embodied in natural law.
Petitioners likewise rely on the respondent0s correlative obligation per
(ection = o$ E.2. No. 453, to sa$eguard the people0s right to a
health$ul environment.
It is $urther claimed that the issue o$ the respondent
(ecretary0salleged grave abuse o$ discretion in granting %imber
@icense ,greements (%@,s to cover more areas $or logging than what
is available involves a judicial .uestion.
,nent the invocation by the respondent )udge o$ the -onstitution0s
non!impairment clause, petitioners maintain that the same does not
apply in this case because %@,s are not contracts. %hey likewise
submit that even i$ %@,s may be considered protected by the said
clause, it is well settled that they may still be revoked by the (tate
when the public interest so re.uires.
Issues:
(4 Ahether or not the petitioners have locus standi.
(3 Ahether or not the petiton is in a $orm o$ a class suit.
(> Ahether or not the %@,Bs can be out rightly cancelled.
(= Ahether or not the petition should be dismissed.
Held: ,s to the matter o$ the cancellation o$ the %@,s, respondents
submit that the same cannot be done by the (tate without due
process o$ law. 2nce issued, a %@, remains efective $or a certain
period o$ time C usually $or twenty!"ve (3< years. *uring its
efectivity, the same can neither be revised nor cancelled unless the
holder has been $ound, a$ter due notice and hearing, to have violated
the terms o$ the agreement or other $orestry laws and regulations.
Petitioners0 proposition to have all the %@,s indiscriminately cancelled
without the re.uisite hearing would be violative o$ the re.uirements
o$due process.
%he subject matter o$ the complaint is o$ common and general interest
not just to several, but to all citi#ens o$ the Philippines. -onse.uently,
since the parties are so numerous, it, becomes impracticable, i$ not
totally impossible, to bring all o$ them be$ore the court. %he plaintifs
therein are numerous and representative enough to ensure the $ull
protection o$ all concerned interests. &ence, all the re.uisites $or the
"ling o$ a valid class suit under (ection 43, +ule > o$ the +evised
+ules o$ -ourt are present both in the said civil case and in the
instantpetition, the latter being but an incident to the $ormer.
Petitioners minors assert that they represent their generation as well
as generations yet unborn. %heir personality to sue in behal$ o$ the
succeeding generations can only be based on the concept o$
intergenerational responsibility inso$ar as the right to a balanced and
health$ul ecology is concerned. Nature means the created world in its
entirety. Every generation has a responsibility to the ne/t to preserve
that rhythm and harmony $or the $ull enjoyment o$ a balanced and
health$ul ecology. %he minors0 assertion o$ their right to a sound
environment constitutes, at the same time, the per$ormance o$ their
obligation to ensure the protection o$ that right $or the generations to
come.
%he complaint $ocuses on one speci"c $undamental legal right the
right to a balanced and health$ul ecology which, $or the "rst time in
our nation0s constitutional history, is solemnly incorporated in
the$undamental law. (ection 4;, ,rticle II o$ the 45:? -onstitution.
Ahile the right to a balanced and health$ul ecology is to be $ound
under the *eclaration o$ Principles and (tate Policies and not
underthe Dill o$ +ights, it does not $ollow that it is less important than
any o$ the civil and political rights enumerated in the latter. (uch a
right belongs to a diferent category o$ rights altogether $or it
concerns nothing less than sel$!preservation and sel$!perpetuation C
aptly and "ttingly stressed by the petitioners the advancement o$
which may even be said to predate all governments and constitutions.
,s a matter o$ $act, these basic rights need not even be written in the
-onstitution $or they are assumed to e/ist $rom the inception o$
humankind. I$ they are now e/plicitly mentioned in the $undamental
charter, it is because o$ the well!$ounded $ear o$ its $ramers that
unless the rights to a balanced and health$ul ecology and to health are
mandated as state policies by the -onstitution itsel$, thereby
highlighting their continuing importance and imposing upon the state
a solemn obligation to preserve the "rst and protect and advance the
second, the day would not be too $ar when all else would be lost not
only $or the present generation, but also $or those to come
generations which stand to inherit nothing but parched earth
incapable o$ sustaining li$e.
-on$ormably with the enunciated right to a balanced and health$ul
ecology and the right to health, as well as the other related provisions
o$ the -onstitution concerning the conservation, development and
utili#ation o$ the country0s natural resources, then President -ora#on
-. ,.uino promulgated on 46 )une 45:? E.2. No. 453, (ection = o$
which e/pressly mandates that the *epartment o$ Environment and
Natural +esources 1shall be the primary government agency
responsible $or the conservation, management, development and
proper use o$ the country0s environment and natural resources,
speci"cally $orest and gra#ing lands, mineral, resources, including
those in reservation and watershed areas, and lands o$ the public
domain, as well as the licensing and regulation o$ all natural
resources as may be provided $or by law in order to ensure e.uitable
sharing o$ the bene"ts derived there$rom $or the wel$are o$ the
present and $uture generations o$ 'ilipinos.1 (ection > thereo$ makes
the $ollowing statement o$ policy8
%he above provision stresses 1the necessity o$ maintaining a sound
ecological balance and protecting and enhancing the .uality o$ the
environment.1 (ection 3 o$ the same %itle, on the other hand,
speci"cally speaks o$ the mandate o$ the *EN+E however, it makes
particular re$erence to the $act o$ the agency0s being subject to law
and higher authority.
It may, however, be recalled that even be$ore the rati"cation o$ the
45:? -onstitution, speci"c statutes already paid special attention to
the 1environmental right1 o$ the present and $uture generations. 2n ;
)une 45??, P.*. No. 44<4 and P.*. No. 44<3 were issued. %hus, the
right o$ the petitioners to a balanced and health$ul ecology is as clear
as the *EN+0s duty under its mandate and by virtue o$ its powers and
$unctions under E.2. No. 453 and the ,dministrative -ode o$ 45:? to
protect and advance the said right.
, denial or violation o$ that right by the other who has the correlative
duty or obligation to respect or protect the same gives rise to a cause
o$ action. Petitioners maintain that the granting o$ the %@,s, which
they claim was done with grave abuse o$ discretion, violated their
right to a balanced and health$ul ecologyE hence, the $ull protection
thereo$ re.uires that no $urther %@,s should be renewed or granted.
It is settled in this jurisdiction that in a motion to dismiss based on the
ground that the complaint $ails to state a cause o$ actionE the .uestion
submitted to the court $or resolution involves the suficiency o$ the
$acts alleged in the complaint itsel$. No other matter should be
consideredE $urthermore, the truth o$ $alsity o$ the said allegations is
beside the point $or the truth thereo$ is deemed hypothetically
admitted. Policy $ormulation or determination by the e/ecutive or
legislative branches o$ 9overnment is not s.uarely put in issue. Ahat
is principally involved is the en$orcement o$ a right vis!a!vis policies
already $ormulated and e/pressed in legislation. It must, nonetheless,
be emphasi#ed that the political .uestion doctrine is no longer, the
insurmountable obstacle to the e/ercise o$ judicial power or the
impenetrable shield that protects e/ecutive and legislative actions
$rom judicial in.uiry or review.
In the second place, even i$ it is to be assumed that the same are
contracts, the instant case does not involve a law or even an e/ecutive
issuance declaring the cancellation or modi"cation o$ e/isting timber
licenses. &ence, the non!impairment clause cannot as yet be invoked.
Nevertheless, granting $urther that a law has actually been passed
mandating cancellations or modi"cations, the same cannot still be
stigmati#ed as a violation o$ the non!impairment clause. %his is
because by its very nature and purpose, such as law could have only
been passed in the e/ercise o$ the police power o$ the state $or the
purpose o$ advancing the right o$ the people to a balanced and
health$ul ecology, promoting their health and enhancing the general
wel$are.
'inally, it is dificult to imagine, as the trial court did, how the non!
impairment clause could apply with respect to the prayer to enjoin the
respondent (ecretary $rom receiving, accepting, processing, renewing
or approving new timber licenses $or, save in cases o$ renewal, no
contract would have as o$ yet e/isted in the other instances.
7oreover, with respect to renewal, the holder is not entitled to it as a
matter o$ right.
Petition is hereby 9+,N%E*, and the challenged 2rder o$ respondent
)udge o$ 4: )uly 4554 dismissing -ivil -ase No. 56!??? is hereby set
aside. %he petitioners may there$ore amend their complaint to
implead as de$endants the holders or grantees o$ the .uestioned
timber license agreements.
Fsmael v *eputy E/ec (econd 456 v;?>, ;:= ('ull %e/t
9.+. No. ?5<>: 2ctober 4:, 4556
'E@IPE F(7,E@, )+. G -2., IN-., petitioner,
vs.
%&E *EPH%F EIE-H%IJE (E-+E%,+F, %&E (E-+E%,+F 2'
ENJI+2N7EN% ,N* N,%H+,@ +E(2H+-E(, %&E *I+E-%2+ 2'
%&E DH+E,H 2' '2+E(% *EJE@2P7EN% and %AIN PE,K(
*EJE@2P7EN% ,N* +E,@%F -2+P2+,%I2N, respondents.
%aLada, Jivo G %an $or petitioner.
,ntonio E. Escober and )urado @aw 2fice $or respondent %win Peaks
*evelopment -orporation.

-2H+%(, ).8
(oon a$ter the change o$ government in 'ebruary 45:;, petitioner
sent a letter dated 7arch 4?, 45:; to the 2fice o$ the President, and
another letter dated ,pril 3, 45:; to 7inister Ernesto 7aceda o$ the
7inistry o$ Natural +esources M7N+N, seeking8 (4 the reinstatement
o$ its timber license agreement which was cancelled in ,ugust 45:>
during the 7arcos administrationE (3 the revocation o$ %@, No. ><;
which was issued to %win Peaks *evelopment and +ealty -orporation
without public bidding and in violation o$ $orestry laws, rules and
regulationsE and, (> the issuance o$ an order allowing petitioner to
take possession o$ all logs $ound in the concession area M,nne/es 1;1
and 1?1 o$ the PetitionE +ollo, pp. <=!;>N.
Petitioner made the $ollowing allegations8
(a %hat on 2ctober 43, 45;<, it entered into a timber license
agreement designated as %@, No. :? with the *epartment o$
,griculture and Natural +esources, represented by then (ecretary
)ose 'eliciano, wherein it was issued an e/clusive license to cut,
collect and remove timber e/cept prohibited species within a speci"ed
portion o$ public $orest land with an area o$ <=,536 hectares located
in the municipality o$ 7addela, province o$ Nueva Ji#caya O $rom
2ctober 43, 45;< until )une >6, 4556E
(b %hat on ,ugust 4:, 45:>, the *irector o$ the Dureau o$ 'orest
*evelopment Mhereina$ter re$erred to as 1Dureau1N, *irector Edmundo
-ortes, issued a memorandum order stopping all logging operations in
Nueva Ji#caya and Puirino provinces, and cancelling the logging
concession o$ petitioner and nine other $orest concessionaires,
pursuant to presidential instructions and a memorandum order o$ the
7inister o$ Natural +esources %eodoro Pena M,nne/ 1<1 o$ the
PetitionE +ollo, p. =5NE
(c that on ,ugust 3<, 45:>, petitioner received a telegram $rom
the Dureau, the contents o$ which were as $ollows8
PH+(H,N% %2 %&E IN(%+H-%I2N( 2' %&E P+E(I*EN% F2H ,+E
+EPHE(%E* %2 (%2P ,@@ @299IN9 2PE+,%I2N( %2 -2N(E+JE
+E7,ININ9 '2+E(%( P@E,(E -2N*H-% %&E 2+*E+@F PH@@!
2H% 2' @299IN9 7,-&INE+IE( ,N* EPHIP7EN% ,N*
-22+*IN,%E AI%& %&E +E(PE-%IJE *I(%+I-% '2+E(%E+( '2+
%&E INJEN%2+F 2' @29( -H% P+I2+ %2 %&I( 2+*E+ %&E
(HD7I((I2N 2' , -27P@I,N-E +EP2+% AI%&IN %&I+%F *,F(
(&,@@ DE ,PP+E-I,%E* C M,nne/ 1=1 o$ the PetitionE +ollo, p. =:NE
(d %hat a$ter the cancellation o$ its timber license agreement, it
immediately sent a letter addressed to then President 'erdinand
7arcos which sought reconsideration o$ the Dureau0s directive, citing
in support thereo$ its contributions to alleging that it was not given
the $orest conservation and opportunity to be heard prior to the
cancellation o$ its logging <>4, but no operations (,nne/ 1;1 o$ the
PetitionE +ollo, pp. <6 $avorable action was taken on this letterE
(e %hat barely one year therea$ter, appro/imately one!hal$ or
3;,666 hectares o$ the area $ormerly covered by %@, No. :? was re!
awarded to %win Peaks *evelopment and +eality -orporation under
%@, No. ><; which was set to e/pire on )uly >4, 3665, while the other
hal$ was allowed to be logged by 'ilipinas @oggers, Inc. without the
bene"t o$ a $ormal award or licenseE and,
($ %hat the latter entities were controlled or owned by relatives or
cronies o$ deposed President 'erdinand 7arcos. ,cting on petitioner0s
letter, the 7N+ through then 7inister Ernesto 7aceda issued an
order dated )uly 33, 45:; denying petitioner0s re.uest. %he 7inistry
ruled that a timber license was not a contract within the due process
clause o$ the -onstitution, but only a privilege which could be
withdrawn whenever public interest or wel$are so demands, and that
petitioner was not discriminated against in view o$ the $act that it was
among ten concessionaires whose licenses were revoked in 45:>.
7oreover, emphasis was made o$ the total ban o$ logging operations
in the provinces o$ Nueva Ecija, Nueva Ji#caya, Puirino and I$ugao
imposed on ,pril 3, 45:;, thus8
/// /// ///
It should be recalled that Mpetitioner0sN earlier re.uest $or
reinstatement has been denied in view o$ the total ban o$ all logging
operations in the provinces o$ Nueva Ecija, Nueva Ji#caya, Puirino
and I$ugao which was imposed $or reasons o$ conservation and
national security.
%he 7inistry imposed the ban because it reali#es the great
responsibility it bear MsicN in respect to $orest t considers itsel$ the
trustee thereo$. %his being the case, it has to ensure the availability o$
$orest resources not only $or the present, but also $or the $uture
generations o$ 'ilipinos.
2n the other hand, the activities o$ the insurgents in these parts o$ the
country are well documented. %heir "nancial demands on logging
concessionaires are well known. %he government, there$ore, is well
within its right to deprive its enemy o$ sources o$ $unds in order to
preserve itsel$, its established institutions and the liberty and
democratic way o$ li$e o$ its people.
/// /// ///
M,nne/ 151 o$ the Petition, pp. 3!=E +ollo, pp. ;<!;?.N
Petitioner moved $or reconsideration o$ the a$orestated order
reiterating, among others. its re.uest that %@, No. ><; issued to
private respondent be declared null and void. %he 7N+ however
denied this motion in an order dated (eptember 4<, 45:;. stating in
part8
/// /// ///
+egarding Mpetitioner0sN re.uest that the award o$ a 3;,666 hectare
portion o$ %@, No. :? to %win Peaks +ealty *evelopment -orporation
under %@, No. ><; be declared null and void, sufice it to say that the
7inistry is now in the process o$ reviewing all contracts, permits or
other $orm o$ privileges $or the e/ploration, development, e/ploitation,
or utili#ation o$ natural resources entered into, granted, issued or
ac.uired be$ore the issuance o$ Proclamation No. >, otherwise known
as the 'reedom -onstitution $or the purpose o$ amending, modi$ying
or revoking them when the national interest so re.uires.
/// /// ///
%he 7inistry, through the Dureau o$ 'orest *evelopment, has
jurisdiction and authority over all $orest lands. 2n the basis o$ this
authority, the 7inistry issued the order banning all logging
operationsQactivities in Puirino province, among others, where
movant0s $ormer concession area is located. %here$ore, the issuance o$
an order disallowing any person or entity $rom removing cut or uncut
logs $rom the portion o$ %@, No. :?, now under %@, No. ><;, would
constitute an unnecessary or superRuous act on the part o$ the
7inistry.
/// /// ///
M,nne/ 1441 o$ the Petition, pp. >!=E +ollo, pp. ??!?:.N
2n November 3;, 45:;, petitioner0s supplemental motion $or
reconsideration was likewise denied. 7eanwhile, per 7N+
,dministrative 2rder No. <=, series o$ 45:;, issued on November 3;,
45:;, the logging ban in the province o$ Puirino was li$ted.
Petitioner subse.uently appealed $rom the orders o$ the 7N+ to the
2fice o$ the President. In a resolution dated )uly ;, 45:?, the 2fice o$
the President, acting through then *eputy E/ecutive (ecretary
-atalino 7acaraig, denied petitioner0s appeal $or lack o$ merit. %he
2fice o$ the President ruled that the appeal o$ petitioner was
prematurely "led, the matter not having been terminated in the 7N+.
Petitioner0s motion $or reconsideration was denied on ,ugust 4=,
45:?.
&ence, petitioner "led directly with this -ourt a petition $or certiorari,
with prayer $or the issuance o$ a restraining order or writ o$
preliminary injunction, on ,ugust 3?, 45:?. 2n 2ctober 4>, 45:?, it
"led a supplement to its petition $or certiorari. %herea$ter, public and
private respondents submitted their respective comments, and
petitioner "led its consolidated reply thereto. In a resolution dated
7ay 33, 45:5, the -ourt resolved to give due course to the petition.
,$ter a care$ul study o$ the circumstances in the case at bar, the -ourt
"nds several $actors which militate against the issuance o$ a writ o$
certiorari in $avor o$ petitioner.
4. 'irstly, the re$usal o$ public respondents herein to reverse "nal
and e/ecutory administrative orders does not constitute grave abuse
o$ discretion amounting to lack or e/cess o$ jurisdiction.
It is an established doctrine in this jurisdiction that the decisions and
orders o$ administrative agencies have upon their "nality, the $orce
and binding efect o$ a "nal judgment within the purview o$ the
doctrine o$ res judicata. %hese decisions and orders are as conclusive
upon the rights o$ the afected parties as though the same had been
rendered by a court o$ general jurisdiction. %he rule o$ res judicata
thus $orbids the reopening o$ a matter once determined by competent
authority acting within their e/clusive jurisdiction M(ee Drillantes v.
-astro, 55 Phil. =5? (45<;E Ipekdjian 7erchandising -o., Inc. v. -ourt
o$ %a/ ,ppeals, 9.+. No. @!4<=>6, (eptember >6, 45;>, 5 (-+, ?3E
(an @uis v. -ourt o$ ,ppeals, 9.+. No. :64;6, )une 3;, 45:5N.
In the case at bar, petitioner0s letters to the 2fice o$ the President
and the 7N+ Mnow the *epartment o$ Environment and Natural
+esources (*EN+ dated 7arch 4?, 45:; and ,pril 3, 45:;,
respectively, sought the reconsideration o$ a memorandum order
issued by the Dureau o$ 'orest *evelopment which cancelled its
timber license agreement in 45:>, as well as the revocation o$ %@,
No. ><; subse.uently issued by the Dureau to private respondents in
45:=.
Dut as gleaned $rom the record, petitioner did not avail o$ its remedies
under the law, i.e. (ection : o$ Pres. *ec. No. ?6< as amended, $or
attacking the validity o$ these administrative actions until a$ter 45:;.
Dy the time petitioner sent its letter dated ,pril 3, 45:; to the newly
appointed 7inister o$ the 7N+ re.uesting reconsideration o$ the
above Dureau actions, these were already settled matters as $ar as
petitioner was concerned M(ee +ueda v. -ourt o$ ,grarian +elations,
46; Phil. >66 (45<5E *anan v. ,spillera 9.+. No. @!4?>6<, November
3:, 45;3, ; (-+, ;65E 2campo v. ,rboleda 9.+. No. @!=:456, ,ugust
>4, 45:?, 4<> (-+, >?=N.
No particular signi"cance can be attached to petitioner0s letter dated
(eptember 45, 45:> which petitioner claimed to have sent to then
President 7arcos M,nne/ 1;1 o$ Petition, +ollo, pp. <6!<>N, seeking the
reconsideration o$ the 45:> order issued by *irector -ortes o$ the
Dureau. It must be pointed out that the averments in this letter are
entirely diferent $rom the charges o$ $raud against oficials under the
previous regime made by petitioner in its letters to public respondents
herein. In the letter to then President 7arcos, petitioner simply
contested its inclusion in the list o$ concessionaires, whose licenses
were cancelled, by de$ending its record o$ selective logging and
re$orestation practices in the subject concession area. Fet, no other
administrative steps appear to have been taken by petitioner until
45:;, despite the $act that the alleged $raudulent scheme became
apparent in 45:= as evidenced by the awarding o$ the subject timber
concession area to other entities in that year.
3. 7oreover, petitioner is precluded $rom availing o$ the bene"ts o$
a writ o$ certiorari in the present case because he $ailed to "le his
petition within a reasonable period.
%he principal issue ostensibly presented $or resolution in the instant
petition is whether or not public respondents herein acted with grave
abuse o$ discretion amounting to lack or e/cess o$ jurisdiction in
re$using to overturn administrative orders issued by their
predecessors in the past regime. Fet, what the petition ultimately
seeks is the nulli"cation o$ the Dureau orders cancelling %@, No. :?
and granting %@, No. ><; to private respondent, which were issued
way back in 45:> and 45:=, respectively.
2nce again, the $act that petitioner $ailed to seasonably take judicial
recourse to have the earlier administrative actions reviewed by the
courts through a petition $or certiorari is prejudicial to its cause. 'or
although no speci"c time $rame is "/ed $or the institution o$ a special
civil action $or certiorari under +ule ;< o$ the +evised +ules o$ -ourt,
the same must nevertheless be done within a 1reasonable time1. %he
yardstick to measure the timeliness o$ a petition $or certiorari is the
1reasonableness o$ the length o$ time that had e/pired $rom the
commission o$ the acts complained o$ up to the institution o$ the
proceeding to annul the same1 M%oledo v. Pardo, 9.+. No. <;?;4,
November 45, 45:3, 44: (-+, <;;, <?4N. ,nd $ailure to "le the
petition $or certiorari within a reasonable period o$ time renders the
petitioner susceptible to the adverse legal conse.uences o$ laches
M7unicipality o$ -arcar v. -ourt o$ 'irst Instance o$ -ebu, 9.+. No. @!
>4;3:, *ecember 3?, 45:3, 445 (-+, >53.
@aches is de"ned as the $ailure or neglect $or an unreasonable and
une/plained length o$ time to do that which by e/ercising due
diligence, could or should have been done earlier, or to assert a right
within a reasonable time, warranting a presumption that the party
entitled thereto has either abandoned it or declined to assert it M%ijam
v. (ibonghanoy, 9.+. No. @!34=<6, ,pril 4<, 45;:, 3> (-+, 35E (eno v.
7angubat, 9.+. No. @!==>>5, *ecember 3, 45:?, 4<; (-+, 44>N. %he
rule is that unreasonable delay on the part o$ a plaintif in seeking to
en$orce an alleged right may, depending upon the circumstances, be
destructive o$ the right itsel$. Jerily, the laws aid those who are
vigilant, not those who sleep upon their rights (Jigilantibus et non
dormientibus jura subveniunt M(ee Duenaventura v. *avid, >? Phil.
=>< (454:N.
In the case at bar, petitioner waited $or at least three years be$ore it
"nally "led a petition $or certiorari with the -ourt attacking the
validity o$ the assailed Dureau actions in 45:> and 45:=. -onsidering
that petitioner, throughout the period o$ its inaction, was not deprived
o$ the opportunity to seek relie$ $rom the courts which were normally
operating at the time, its delay constitutes unreasonable and
ine/cusable neglect, tantamount to laches. ,ccordingly, the writ o$
certiorari re.uiring the reversal o$ these orders will not lie.
>. 'inally, there is a more signi"cant $actor which bars the
issuance o$ a writ o$ certiorari in $avor o$ petitioner and against public
respondents herein. It is precisely this $or which prevents the -ourt
$rom departing $rom the general application o$ the rules enunciated
above.
, cursory reading o$ the assailed orders issued by public respondent
7inister 7aceda o$ the 7N+ which were ed by the 2fice o$ the
President, will disclose public policy consideration which efectively
$orestall judicial inter$erence in the case at bar,
Public respondents herein, upon whose shoulders rests the task o$
implementing the policy to develop and conserve the country0s natural
resources, have indicated an ongoing department evaluation o$ all
timber license agreements entered into, and permits or licenses
issued, under the previous dispensation. In $act, both the e/ecutive
and legislative departments o$ the incumbent administration are
presently taking stock o$ its environmental policies with regard to the
utili#ation o$ timber lands and developing an agenda $or $uture
programs $or their conservation and rehabilitation.
%he ongoing administrative reassessment is apparently in response to
the renewed and growing global concern over the despoliation o$
$orest lands and the utter disregard o$ their crucial role in sustaining
a balanced ecological system. %he legitimacy o$ such concern can
hardly be disputed, most especially in this country. %he -ourt takes
judicial notice o$ the proRigate waste o$ the country0s $orest resources
which has not only resulted in the irreversible loss o$ Rora and $auna
peculiar to the region, but has produced even more disastrous and
lasting economic and social efects. %he delicate balance o$ nature
having been upset, a vicious cycle o$ Roods and droughts has been
triggered and the supply o$ $ood and energy resources re.uired by the
people seriously depleted.
Ahile there is a desire to harness natural resources to amass pro"t
and to meet the country0s immediate "nancial re.uirements, the more
essential need to ensure $uture generations o$ 'ilipinos o$ their
survival in a viable environment demands efective and circumspect
action $rom the government to check $urther denudation o$ whatever
remains o$ the $orest lands. Nothing less is e/pected o$ the
government, in view o$ the clear constitutional command to maintain
a balanced and health$ul ecology. (ection 4; o$ ,rticle II o$ the 45:?
-onstitution provides8
(E-. 4;. %he (tate shall protect and promote the right o$ the people
to a balanced and health$ul ecology in accord with the rhythm and
harmony o$ nature.
%hus, while the administration grapples with the comple/ and
multi$arious problems caused by unbridled e/ploitation o$ these
resources, the judiciary will stand clear. , long line o$ cases establish
the basic rule that the courts will not inter$ere in matters which are
addressed to the sound discretion o$ government agencies entrusted
with the regulation o$ activities coming under the special technical
knowledge and training o$ such agencies M(ee Espinosa v. 7akalintal,
?5 Phil. 4>= (45=?E -oloso v. Doard o$ ,ccountancy, 53 Phil. 5>:
(45<>E Pajo v. ,go, 46: Phil. 56< (45;6E (uare# v. +eyes, 9.+. No. @!
45:3:, 'ebruary 3:, 45;>, ? (-+, =;4E 9anitano v. (ecretary o$
,griculture and Natural +esources, 9. +. No. @!344;?, 7arch >4,
45;;, 4; (-+, <=>E Jillegas v. ,uditor 9eneral, 9.+. No. @!34><3,
November 35, 45;;, 4: (-+, :??E 7anuel v. Jillena, 9.+. No. @!
3:34:, 'ebruary 3?, 45?4, >? (-+, ?=<E @acuesta v. &errera, 9.+.
No. @!>>;=;, )anuary 3:, 45?<, ;3 (-+, 44<E @ianga Day @ogging
-o., Inc. v. Enage, 9.+. No. @!>6;>?, )uly 4;, 45:?, 4<3 (-+, :6N.
7ore so where, as in the present case, the interests o$ a private
logging company are pitted against that o$ the public at large on the
pressing public policy issue o$ $orest conservation. 'or this -ourt
recogni#es the wide latitude o$ discretion possessed by the
government in determining the appropriate actions to be taken to
preserve and manage natural resources, and the proper parties who
should enjoy the privilege o$ utili#ing these resources M*irector o$
'orestry v. 7uno#, 9.+. No. @!3=?5;, )une 3:, 45;:, 3> (-+, 44:>E
@im, (r. v. %he (ecretary o$ ,griculture and Natural +esources, 9.+.
No. @!3;556, ,ugust >4, 45?6, >= (-+, ?<4N. %imber licenses,
permits and license agreements are the principal instruments by
which the (tate regulates the utili#ation and disposition o$ $orest
resources to the end that public wel$are is promoted. ,nd it can
hardly be gainsaid that they merely evidence a privilege granted by
the (tate to .uali"ed entities, and do not vest in the latter a
permanent or irrevocable right to the particular concession area and
the $orest products therein. %hey may be validly amended, modi"ed,
replaced or rescinded by the -hie$ E/ecutive when national interests
so re.uire. %hus, they are not deemed contracts within the purview o$
the due process o$ law clause M(ee (ections > (ee and 36 o$ Pres.
*ecree No. ?6<, as amended. ,lso, %an v. *irector o$ 'orestry, 9.+.
No. @!3=<=:, 2ctober 3?, 45:>, 43< (-+, >63N.
In "ne, the legal precepts highlighted in the $oregoing discussion
more than sufice to justi$y the -ourt0s re$usal to inter$ere in the
*EN+ evaluation o$ timber licenses and permits issued under the
previous regime, or to pre!empt the adoption o$ appropriate
corrective measures by the department.
Nevertheless, the -ourt cannot help but e/press its concern regarding
alleged irregularities in the issuance o$ timber license agreements to
a number o$ logging concessionaires.
%he grant o$ licenses or permits to e/ploit the country0s timber
resources, i$ done in contravention o$ the procedure outlined in the
law, or as a result o$ $raud and undue inRuence e/erted on department
oficials, is indicative o$ an arbitrary and whimsical e/ercise o$ the
(tate0s power to regulate the use and e/ploitation o$ $orest resources.
%he alleged practice o$ bestowing 1special $avors1 to pre$erred
individuals, regardless o$ merit, would be an abuse o$ this power. ,nd
this -ourt will not be a party to a Ragrant mockery o$ the avowed
public policy o$ conservation enshrined in the 45:? -onstitution.
%here$ore, should the appropriate case be brought showing a clear
grave abuse o$ discretion on the part o$ oficials in the *EN+ and
related bureaus with respect to the implementation o$ this public
policy, the -ourt win not hesitate to step in and wield its authority,
when invoked, in the e/ercise o$ judicial powers under the
-onstitution M(ection 4, ,rticle JIIIN.
&owever, petitioner having $ailed to make out a case showing grave
abuse o$ discretion on the part o$ public respondents herein, the -ourt
"nds no basis to issue a writ o$ certiorari and to grant any o$ the
afirmative relie$s sought.
A&E+E'2+E, the present petition is *I(7I((E*.
(2 2+*E+E*.
'ernan, -.)., 9utierre# )r. and Didin, ))., concur.
'eliciano, )., is on leave.
Paat v CA 226 SCRA 167
'acts8
2n 7ay 45, 45:5, the truck o$ private respondent Jictoria de
9u#man while on its way toDulacan $rom -agayan, was sei#ed by
the *EN+ personnel in Nueva Ji#caya because the driver could
notproduce the re.uired documents $or the $orest products
$ound concealed in the truck. Petitioner )ovito@ayugan, the
-ommunity Environment and Natural +esources 2ficer
(-EN+2 in -agayan, issued on7ay 3>, 45:5 an order o$
con"scation o$ the truck and gave the owner there o$ 4< days
within which tosubmit an e/planation why the truck should not
be $or$eited.2n )une 33, 45:5, +egional E/ecutive *irector
+ogelio Daggayan o$ *EN+ sustained petitioner@ayugans
action and ordered the $or$eiture o$ the truck invoking (ec. ;:!,
o$ P.*. ?6< as amended byE.2. No. 3??.Private respondents "led
a letter $or reconsideration o$ the order o$ E/ecutive
*irectorDaggayan, which was however, denied in a subse.uent
order o$ )uly 43, 45:5.(ubse.uently, the case was brought by the
petitioners to the (ecretary o$ *EN+ pursuant toprivate
respondentsstatements in their letter dated )une 3:, 45:5 that
in case their letter $orreconsideration would be denied then this
letter should be considered as an appeal to the
(ecretary.Pending resolution however o$ the appeal, a suit o$
replevin was "led by private respondentsagainst petitioner.%he
+%- issued a writ ordering the return o$ the truck to private
respondents.@ayugan and E/ecutive *irector Daggayan "led a
motion to dismiss with the trial courtcontending that private
respondents had no cause o$ action $or their $ailure to e/haust
administrativeremedies. %he trial court, however, denied the
motion on *ecember 3:, 45:5. 7oreover, the -,sustained trial
court decision, hence, the motion $or reconsideration was
likewise denied.Invoking the doctrine o$ e/haustion o$
administrative remedies, petitioners argued that the +%-could
not legally entertain the suit $or replevin because the truck was
under administrative sei#ureproceedings pursuant to (ec. ;:!,
o$ P.*. ?6< as amended by E.2. 3??. In opposition,
respondentsmaintained the instant case $alls within the
e/ception o$ the doctrine on two ways8 4 *ue process
wasviolated because they were not given the chance to be heard.
3 %he sei#ure and $or$eiture was unlaw$ulon the grounds8 that
the (ecretary o$ *EN+ and his representatives have no authority
to con"scate and$or$eit conveyances utili#ed in transporting
illegal $orest products, and (b that the truck was admittedby
petitioners was not used in the commission o$ the crime.
Issues8 4.
Aithout violating the principled o$ e/haustion o$ administrative
remedies, may an action $orreplevin prosper to recover a
movable property which is the subject matter o$ an
administrative$or$eiture proceeding in the *epartment o$
Environment and Natural +esources (*EN+ pursuant to(ection
;:!, o$ P.*. ?6<, as amended, entitled %he +evised 'orestry
-ode o$ the PhilippinesS
7ustang @umber Inc v -, 3<? ( =>6( -heck on *ropbo/ $or the
other *igests
7H(%,N9 @H7DE+, IN- J(. -,
(*avide, )r., 455;
, search warrant has a li$etime o$ 46 days. It could be served at any
timewithin 46 days. I$ its object or purpose cannot be accomplished in
4 day, thesame may be continued the $ollowing day or days until
completed, provided it is within the 46 day period.
',-%(8 2n 4 ,pril 4556, (pecial ,ctions and Investigation *ivision
((,I*,acting on in$ormation that a huge pile o$ narra Ritches, shorts,
and slabs wereseen inside the lumberyard o$ 7ustang @umber,
conducted a surveillance at7ustang lumberyard. %he team saw a
truck loaded with lauan and almacigalumber coming out o$ the
lumberyard. (ince the driver could not produce there.uired invoices
and transport documents, the team sei#ed the truck together with its
cargo and impounded them at *EN+ compound. 2n > ,pril 4556,+%-
Jalen#uela issued a search warrant. 2n same day, the team
sei#ed$rom the lumberyard narra shorts, trimmings and slabs, narra
lumber, andvarious species o$ lumber and shorts. 2n = ,pril 4556,
team returned tolumberyard and placed under administrative sei#ure
(owner retains physicalpossession o$ sei#ed articles, only an inventory
is taken the remaining lumber because 7ustang @umber $ailed to
produce re.uired documents upondemand. Hpon recommendation o$
(,I* -hie$ +obles, *EN+ (ec 'actoransuspended 7ustang @umberTs
permit and con"scated in $avor o$ the govTt thesei#ed articles.
7ustang @umber "led $or a %+2 against 'actoran and +obles,and
.uestioned the validity o$ the ,pril 4 and = sei#ure. +%- held that
thewarrantless sei#ure on ,pril 4 is valid as it comes within the
e/ceptions wherewarrantless sei#ure is justi"ed (search o$ a moving
vehicle, and ,pril =sei#ure was also valid pursuant to the search
warrant issued on ,pril >. -,afirmed. 7ustang lumber "led a
petition $or review on certiorari.I((HE(8 a A2N the search and
sei#ure on ,pril = was valid.&E@*8 Fes. %he search and sei#ures made
on ,pril 4, >, = were all valid.valid. (4 ,pril 4 search was conducted
on a moving vehicle, which could belaw$ully conducted without a
search warrant. (
3O
%he search on ,pril = was acontinuation o$ the search on ,pril >
done under and by virtue o$ the searchwarrant issued on > ,pril 4556
by E/ec )udge 2sorio. Hnder +2- +ule 43;(ec 5, a search warrant
ahs a li$etime o$ 46 days. &ence, it could be served.