100%(1)1 out of 1 people found this document helpful
This preview shows page 183 - 186 out of 199 pages.
BALANCE AND HEALTHFUL ECOLOGY
In the landmark case of Oposa v. Factoran, Jr., we recognized the “public right” of citizens to “abalanced and healthful ecology which, for the first time in our constitutional history, is solemnlyincorporated in the fundamental law.” We declared that the right to a balanced and healthful ecologyneed not be written in the Constitution for it is assumed, like other civil and political rightsguaranteed in the Bill of Rights, to exist from the inception of mankind and it is an issue of
transcendental importance with intergenerational implications. Such right carries with it thecorrelative duty to refrain from impairing the environment.On the novel element in the class suit filed by the petitioners minors in Oposa, this Court ruled thatnot only do ordinary citizens have legal standing to sue for the enforcement of environmental rights,they can do so in representation of their own and future generations. Thus: Petitioners minorsassert that they represent their generation as well as generations yet unborn. We find no difficultyin ruling that they can, for themselves, for others of their generation and for the succeedinggenerations, file a class suit. Their personality to sue in behalf of the succeeding generations canonly be based on the concept of intergenerational responsibility insofar as the right to a balancedand healthful ecology is concerned. Such a right, as hereinafter expounded, considers the “rhythmand harmony of nature.” Nature means the created world in its entirety. Such rhythm and harmonyindispensably include, inter alia, the judicious disposition, utilization, management, renewal andconservation of the country’s forest, mineral, land, waters, fisheries, wildlife, off-shore areas andother natural resources to the end that their exploration, development and utilization be equitablyaccessible to the present as well as future generations. Needless to say, every generation has aresponsibility to the next to preserve that rhythm and harmony for the full enjoyment of a balancedand healthful ecology. PEDRO ARIGO v. SCOTT SWIFT, G.R. 206510, September 16, 2014GOVERNMENTCONTRACTA government contract is essentially similar to a private contract contemplated under the Civil Code.The legal requisites of consent of the contracting parties, an object certain which is the subjectmatter, and cause or consideration of the obligation must likewise concur. Otherwise, there is nogovernment contract to speak of. SARGASSO CONSTRUCTION & DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION,et al. v. PHILIPPINE PORTS AUTHORITY, G.R. No. 170530. July 5, 2010Competitive bidding is an essential element of a public bidding. It has been held in a long line ofcases that a contract granted without the competitive bidding required by law is void and the partyto whom it is awarded cannot benefit from it. PHILIPPINE SPORTS COMMISSION, et al. v. DEARJOHN SERVICES, INC., G.R. No. 183260. July 4, 2012A mere operator, under an operating agreement, cannot file a Mineral Product Sharing Agreement