Minors of the Philippines vs DENR

Facts:
The principal plaintiffs therein, now the principal petitioners, are all
minors duly represented and joined by their respective parents. Impleaded
as an additional plaintiff is the Philippine Ecological Network, Inc., asserted
that there is a grave abuse of discretion by the respondent, DENR in the
granting of TLAs to companies involved in logging of virgin forests of the
country. The petitioner averred that their constitutional right specifically the
right to a balance and healthful ecology is violated. Hence, the latter prayed
that all existing TLAs in the country must be cancelled, and ordering
defendants to cease and desist from receiving, accepting,
renewing/approving TLAs. However the Court dismissed the case on 2
grounds: 1. The petitioners have no cause of action against the respondent
and 2. The issue raised by the petitioner is a political question which properly
pertains to the executive and legislative department of the government. And
that granting the prayer of the petitioner would constitute impairment of
contracts that is prohibited by the Constitution.
Issue/s:
1. WON the petitioners have cause of action to file a case against the
defendant representing their generations and the generations yet
unborn?
2. WON the case filed is a political question?
3. WON the relief sought would constitute an impairment to the contract?
Held:
1. Yes. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner has a locus standi and
that 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.
2. No. The civil case filed cannot be said to raise a political question. The
court held that policy formulation or determination by the executive or
legislative branches of government is not squarely put in issue. What is
principally involved is the enforcement of a right vis-a-vis policies
already formulated and expressed in legislation. The court mentioned
the Art 8 Section 1 of the Constitution which states that:
Judicial power includes the duty of the courts of justice to settle actual
controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable,
and to determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or
instrumentality of the Government.
 Thus, the political question doctrine is no longer the insurmountable
obstacle to the exercise of judicial power or the impenetrable shield
that protects executive and legislative actions from judicial inquiry or
review.
3. No. The court held that timber license is an instrument by which the
State regulates the utilization and disposition of forest resources to the
end that public welfare is promoted. 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 this case.