Case Digest: Kilosbayan, Incorporated, et. al. vs. Teofisto Guingona, PCSO and PGMC

05 May 1994                       G.R. No. 113375

Ponente: Davide, JR., J.

FACTS:

The PCSO decided to establish an online lottery system for the purpose of increasing its revenue base and diversifying its sources of funds.  Sometime before March 1993, after learning that the PCSO was interested in operating on an online lottery system, the Berjaya Group Berhad, with its affiliate, the International Totalizator Systems, Inc. became interested to offer its services and resources to PCSO.  Considering the citizenship requirement, the PGMC claims that Berjaya Group undertook to reduce its equity stakes in PGMC to 40% by selling 35% out of the original 75% foreign stockholdings to local investors.  An open letter was sent to President Ramos strongly opposing the setting up of an online lottery system due to ethical and moral concerns, however the project pushed through.

ISSUES:

1. Whether the petitioners have locus standi (legal standing); and
2. Whether the Contract of Lease is legal and valid in light of Sec. 1 of R.A. 1169 as amended by B.P. Blg. 42.

RULING:

1. The petitioners have locus standi due to the transcendental importance to the public that the case demands.  The ramifications of such issues immeasurably affect the social, economic and moral well-being of the people.  The legal standing then of the petitioners deserves recognition, and in the exercise of its sound discretion, the Court brushes aside the procedural barrier.
2. Sec. 1 of R.A. No. 1169, as amended by B.P. Blg. 42, prohibits the PCSO from holding and conducting lotteries “in collaboration, association or joint venture with any person, association, company, or entity, whether domestic or foreign.”  The language of the section is clear that with respect to its franchise or privilege “to hold and conduct charity sweepstakes races, lotteries and other similar activities,” the PCSO cannot exercise it “in collaboration, association or joint venture” with any other party.  This is the unequivocal meaning and import of the phrase. By the exception explicitly made, the PCSO cannot share its franchise with another by way of the methods mentioned, nor can it transfer, assign or lease such franchise.  

Case Digest: Oposa v. Factoran, Jr.

G.R. No. 101083                                                July 30, 1993

En Banc

PONENTE:  Davide, Jr., J

FACTS:

The petitioners, all minors duly represented and joined by their respective parents, filed a petition to cancel 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.  This case is filed not only on the appellants’ right as taxpayers, but they are also suing in behalf of succeeding generations based on the concept of “intergenerational responsibility” in so far as the right to a balanced and healthful ecology is concerned.

Together with the Philippine Ecological Network, Inc. (PENI), the petitioners presented scientific evidence that deforestation have resulted in a host of environmental tragedies.  One of these is the reduction of the earth’s capacity to process carbon dioxide, otherwise known as the “greenhouse effect”. 

Continued issuance by the defendant of TLAs to cut and deforest the remaining forest stands will work great damage and irreparable injury to the plaintiffs.  Appellants have exhausted all administrative remedies with the defendant’s office regarding the plea to cancel the said TLAs.  The defendant, however, fails and refuses to cancel existing TLAs.

ISSUES:

1. Whether or not the petitioners have legal standing on the said case
2. Admitting that all facts presented are true, whether or not the court can render a valid judgement in accordance to the prayer of the complaints
3.  Whether or not the TLAs may be revoked despite the respondents standing that these cancellation of these TLAs are against the non-impairment clause of the Constitution

HELD:

1. The petitioners have locus standi (legal standing) on the case as a taxpayers’ (class) suit.  The subject matter of complaint is of common and general interest to all the citizens of the Philippines.  The court found difficulty in ruling that the appellants can, for themselves, and for others file a class suit.
2. The right of the petitioners to a balanced and healthful ecology has been clearly stated.  A denial or violation of that right by the other who has the correlative duty or obligation to respect or protect the same gives rise to a cause of action.  The granting of the TLAs, as the petitioners claim to be done with grave abuse of discretion, violated their right to a balanced and healthful ecology hence, the full protection thereof requires that no TLAs should be renewed or granted. The appellants have also submitted a document with the sub-header CAUSE OF ACTION which is adequate enough to show, prima facie, the violation of their rights.  On this basis, these actions must therefore be granted, wholly or partially.
3. Despite the Constitution’s non-impairment clause, TLAs are not contracts, rather licenses; thus, the said clause cannot be invoked.  Even if these are protected by the said clause, these can be revoked if the public interest so required as stated in Section 20 of the Forestry Reform Code (P.D. No. 705).  Furthermore, Section 16 of Article II of the 1987 Constitution explicitly provides that: “The State shall protect the right of the people to a balanced and healthful ecology in accord with the rhythm and harmony of nature.”  The right to a balanced and healthful ecology carries with it the correlative duty to refrain from impairing the government.  The said right is also clear as the DENR’s duty – under its mandate and by virtue of its powers and functions under Executive Order No. 192 and the Administrative Code of 1987 to protect and advance the said right.

Needless to say, all licenses may thus be revoked or rescinded.  It is not a contract, property or property right protected by the due process clause of the Constitution.