OPOSA V. FACTORAN JR.

Facts: Petitioners are filing a motion for certiorari and for the SC to set aside the dismissal order of the RTC on the ground that the Judge gravely abused his discretion. Petitioners were seeking for the cancellation of all existing Timber Licensing Agreements (TLAs) in the country and (2) cease and desist from receiving, accepting, renewing and approving new TLAs RTC dismissed the motion because (1) plaintiffs have no specific cause of action because there was no specific right violated, (2) the issue raised by the plaintiffs is a political question and (3) granting the relief prayed for by petitioners would result in the impairment of contracts prohibited by the Constitution. Issues: 1. WON petitioners have locus standi 2. WON TC erred in ruling that there is no cause of action because the plaintiffs presented vague statements about environmental rights, nothing specific. 3. WON it is primarily a political question. 4. WON the non-impairment clause applies. Held: YES, YES, NO, NO. Ratio: LOCUS STANDI ISSUE The case is a taxpayers' class suit because the subject matter is of common and general interest to all citizens of the Philippines. The minors, represented by their parents: Their personality to sue is based on the concept of intergenerational responsibility. Their assertion of their right to a sound environment constitutes as a performance of their obligation to ensure the protection of that right for the generations to come. HELD: they have legal standing. CAUSE OF ACTION; VAGUENESS TC erred in ruling that plaintiffsfailed to invoke a specfic right. The complaint actually focused on: a. right to a balanced and healthful ecology. Sec 16, Art II carries the correlative duty to refrain from imparing the environment. b. EO 192 creation of the DENR duty to protect & ensure the welfare of present and future generations. c. Administrative code, sec 1 basis of DENR's policy formulation policies should be consistent with the necessity to maintain a sound ecological balance.

HELD: these are enough to show the claimed violation of rights. Denial of these rights give rise to a valid cause of action CASE BEING A POLITICAL QUESTION It is not. What is involved is the enforcement of a right vis a vis policies already formulated and expressed in legislation THE APPLICATION OF THE NON-IMPAIRMENT CLAUSE. It does not apply. The act of applying such clause is an act of utmost infidelity to government by providing undue and unwarranted advantages to timber license holders. TLA is not a right but a privilege. Sec 20 of the Forestry Code: all licenses may be revoked by executive action. Tan v. Director of Forestry: Timber license is a privilege which can be validly withdrawn whenever dictated by public interest or welfare. Since TLAs are not contracts, non-impairment clause cannot be invoked. Even assuming that it is a contract: it is still limited by the exercise of the police power of the State in the interest of public health, safety, moral and general welfare. Nebia v. New York: Neither property nor contract rights are absolute; for government cannot exist if the citizen may at will use his property to the detriment of his fellows or exercise hi freedom of contract to work them harm.

PETITION TO SET ASIDE RTC ORDER IS GRANTED