Hr Digests Nov 22 Hr Digests Nov 22 Hr Digests Nov 22 Hr Digests Nov 22Hr Digests Nov 22

8/12/2019 Hr Digests Nov 22 Hr Digests Nov 22 Hr Digests Nov 22 Hr Digests Nov 22Hr Digests Nov 22

1/7


2/7

justice, the CHR itself has no jurisdiction to issue the writ, for a writ of preliminary injunction may only

be issued by the Judge in any court in which the action is pending or by a Justice of the CA or of the SC.

The writ prayed for the petition is granted. The CHR is hereby prohibited from further proceeding with

CHR Case No. 90-1580.

OPOSA VS. FACTORAN

G.R. No. 1010183, July 30, 1993

FACTS:

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. (PENI), a domestic, non-stock and non-profit corporation organized for the purpose of, inter alia, engaging in concerted action

geared for the protection of our environment and natural resources. The original defendant was the

Honorable Fulgencio S. Factoran, Jr., then Secretary of the Department of Environment and Natural

Resources (DENR).

The complaint was instituted as a taxpayers' class suit and alleges that the plaintiffs "are all citizens of

the Republic of the Philippines, taxpayers, and entitled to the full benefit, use and enjoyment of the

natural resource treasure that is the country's virgin tropical forests." This instant petition was filed to

seek for the cancelation of all existing timber license agreements (TLAs) in the country and to cease and

desist from receiving, accepting, processing, renewing or approving new timber license agreements.

Minor petitioners contend that continued granting of timber license constitutes a misappropriation or

impairment of the natural resource property and violates their constitutional right to a balanced and

healthful ecology (Art. II, Sec. 16, 1987 Constitution) and the protection by the State in its capacity as

parens patriae. Petitioners likewise rely on the respondent's correlative obligation per Section 4 of E.O.

No. 192, to safeguard the people's right to a healthful environment.

ISSUES:

1. Whether or not the petitioners have locus standi.

2. Whether or not the petitioners failed to allege in their complaint a specific legal right violated by the

respondent Secretary for which any relief is provided by law.


3/7

HELD:

1. The Court finds no difficulty in ruling that they can file a class suit because they represent their

generation as well as generations yet unborn. 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. Such a right, as hereinafter expounded, considers the

"rhythm and harmony of nature." Nature means the created world in its entirety. Such rhythm and

harmony indispensably include, inter alia, the judicious disposition, utilization, management, renewal

and conservation of the country's forest, mineral, land, waters, fisheries, wildlife, off-shore areas and

other natural resources to the end that their exploration, development and utilization be equitably

accessible to the present as well as future generations. Every generation has a responsibility to the next

to preserve that rhythm and harmony for the full enjoyment of a balanced and healthful ecology. Put a

little differently, the minors' assertion of their right to a sound environment constitutes, at the same

time, the performance of their obligation to ensure the protection of that right for the generations to

come.

2. The Court does not agree with the trial court's conclusions that the plaintiffs failed to allege with

sufficient definiteness a specific legal right involved or a specific legal wrong committed, and that the

complaint is replete with vague assumptions and conclusions based on unverified data.

The complaint focuses on one specific fundamental legal right the right to a balanced and healthful

ecology which, for the first time in our nation's constitutional history, is solemnly incorporated in the

fundamental law (Section 16, Article II of the 1987 Constitution).

While the right to a balanced and healthful ecology is to be found under the Declaration of Principles

and State Policies and not under the Bill of Rights, it does not follow that it is less important than any of

the civil and political rights enumerated in the latter. Such a right belongs to a different category of

rights altogether for it concerns nothing less than self-preservation and self-perpetuationaptly and

fittingly stressed by the petitioners the advancement of which may even be said to predate all

governments and constitutions.

The right to a balanced and healthful ecology carries with it the correlative duty to refrain from

impairing the environment. EO 192 and Admin Code of 1987 define the powers and functions of DENR,

under whose authority and office the complaint falls. The petitioners right to a balanced and healthful

ecology is as clear as DENRs duty to protect and advance the said right. The petitioners personality to


4/7

sue in behalf of their own as well as the future generations behalf can only be based on the concept of

intergenerational esponsibility insofar as the said right is concerned.

Baldoza v. Dimaano (May 5, 1976)

Administrative Matter in the Supreme Court.Antonio, J.

Facts:

Municipal Secretary of Taal, Batangas, charges Municipal Judge Dimaano with abuse of authority

inrefusing to allow employees of the Municipal Mayor to examine the criminal docket records of

theMunicipal Court to secure data in connection with their contemplated report on peace andorderconditions of the municipality.

Respondent answered that there has never been an intention to refuse access to official courtrecords

but that the same is always subject to reasonable regulation as to who, when, where andhow they may

be inspected. He further asserted that a court has the power to prevent an improperuse or inspection of

its records and furnishing copies may be refuse when the motivation is notserious and legitimate

interest, out of whim or fancy or mere curiosity or to gratify private site orpromote public scandal.

In his answer, respondent observed;

o

Restrictions are imposed by the Court for fear of an abuse in the exercise of the right.

o

There has been recent tampering of padlocks of the door of the Court and with this, to allowan

indiscriminate and unlimited exercise of the right to free access, might do more harmthan good.

o

Request of such a magnitude cannot b immediately granted without adequate deliberationand

advisement

o


5/7

Authority should first be secured from the Supreme Court

Case was referred to Judge Riodique for investigation and report. At the preliminary hearing, TaalMayor

Corazon Caniza filed a motion to dismiss the complaint to preserve harmony and cooperationamong

officers. This motion was denied by Investigating Judge but he recommended theexoneration of

respondent.

Investigating Judges report avers that complainant was aware of the motion to dismiss and he wasin

conformity with it. Communications between complainant and respondent reveal that

respondentallowed the complainant to open and view the docket books of the respondent under

certainconditions and under his control and supervision.

Under the conditions, the Court found that the respondent has not committed any abuse of authority

Issue

: WON respondent acted arbitrarily in the premises (when he allowed the complainant to open andview

the docket books of respondent)

Held

: No. The respondent allowed the complainant to open and view the docket books of respondentunder

certain conditions and under his control and supervision. It has not been shown that the rulesandcondition imposed by the respondent were unreasonable. The access to public records is predicated

onthe right of the people to acquire information on public concern.

Rules/Principles:

In People ex rel. Title Guarantee & T. Co vs. Railly, the Court said:What the law expects and requires

from his is the exercise of an unbiased and impartial judgment, bywhich all persons resorting to the

office, under legal authority, and conducting themselves in an orderlymanner, shall be secured their

lawful rights and privileges, and that a corporation formed in the manner inwhich the relator has been,

shall be permitted to obtain all the information either by searches, abstracts,or copies, that the law has

entitled it to obtain.Except, perhaps, when it is clear that the purpose of the examination is unlawful, or

sheer, idle curiosityItis not their prerogative to see that the information which the records contain is

not flaunted before public gaze, or that scandal is not made of itIt is the legislature and not the

officials having custody thereof which is called upon to devise a remedy.

David vs. Macapagal Arroyo (May 6, 2006) Digest


6/7

Facts:

- Consists of 7 cases consolidated alleging that in issuing Presidential Proclamation No. 1017 (PP

1017) and General Order No. 5 (G.O. No. 5), President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo committed grave abuse

of discretion

- On February 24, 2006 issued PP 1017 declaring a state of national emergency saying that the

Communist insurgents are in a systematic conspiracy to bring down the government with Magdalo

Group and Gen. Lim and Marine Commander Ariel Querubin (clear and present danger); suppress

terrorism and lawless violence

- Pursuant to the order, warrantless arrests and take-over of facilities may be done

- During the dispersal of the rallyists along EDSA, police arrested (without warrant) petitioner

Randolf S. David, a professor at the University of the Philippines and newspaper columnist. Also arrested

was his companion, Ronald Llamas, president of party-list Akbayan

- At around 12:20 in the early morning of February 25, 2006, operatives of the Criminal

Investigation and Detection Group (CIDG) of the PNP, on the basis of PP 1017 and G.O. No. 5, raided the

Daily Tribune offices in Manila. The raiding team confiscated news stories by reporters, documents,

pictures, and mock-ups of the Saturday issue

- During the hearing, the Solicitor General narrated the events that led to the proclamation of the

Decree: from the discovery of bomb in the PMA Reunion Arroyo was suppose to attend to factual

documents seized from a Magdalo member detailing the military takeover of the government led by the

Philippine Marines

- The petitioners did not contend the facts stated by the Solicitor General

Issue:

WON the implementation of PP 1017 is unconstitutional

- It encroaches on the emergency powers of Congress/they arrogate unto President Arroyo the

power to enact laws and decrees

- It is a deception to avoid the constitutional requirements for the imposition of martial law

- It violates the constitutional guarantees of freedom of the press, of speech and of assembly

Ratio Decidendi:

- Generally, Congress is the repository of emergency powers. This is evident in the tenor of Section

23 (2), Article VI authorizing it to delegate such powers to the President. Certainly, a body cannot

delegate a power not reposed upon it. However, knowing that during grave emergencies, it may not be


7/7

Documents

Hr Digests Nov 22 Hr Digests Nov 22 Hr Digests Nov 22 Hr Digests Nov 22Hr Digests Nov 22