Oposa v. Factoran (G.R. No. 101083, July 30, 1993)
Who were the principal petitioners in this case and how were they represented?
Show Answer
The principal petitioners were a group of minors: Juan Antonio, Anna Rosario and Jose Alfonso Oposa (and many other minors listed in the complaint), who were all represented by their parents. They were joined by additional minors represented by their respective parents and by the Philippine Ecological Network, Inc. (PENI), a domestic non-stock, non-profit corporation organized to protect the environment. The minors filed the underlying Civil Case No. 90-777 as plaintiffs, with their parents both representing and joining them, which the Supreme Court recognized as the parties who instituted the suit on behalf of themselves, others of their generation, and succeeding generations.
Against whom was the complaint filed and who were the respondents in the certiorari petition?
Show Answer
The original defendant named in Civil Case No. 90-777 was Fulgencio S. Factoran, Jr., then Secretary of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR). In the subsequent certiorari petition filed with the Supreme Court, the Secretary of DENR (after substitution) and the Presiding Judge of Branch 66, Regional Trial Court, Makati (the judge who dismissed the complaint) were respondents. The Secretary was the administrative respondent; the judge who issued the dismissal order was the judicial respondent whose order was challenged via certiorari for grave abuse of discretion.
What reliefs did the plaintiffs pray for in their complaint?
Show Answer
The plaintiffs prayed that judgment be rendered ordering the defendant, his agents and other persons acting on his behalf to: (1) cancel all existing timber license agreements in the country; and (2) cease and desist from receiving, accepting, processing, renewing or approving new timber license agreements. They also asked for such other reliefs as are just and equitable under the premises. The prayed reliefs were broad, aiming at stopping further issuance/processing of TLAs and revoking existing ones to prevent the alleged misappropriation and impairment of the country's rainforests.
Summarize the primary factual allegations concerning the state of Philippine forests made by the plaintiffs.
Show Answer
The plaintiffs alleged that the Philippines once had about 16 million hectares of rainforests (roughly 53% of land area). By 1987 satellite images purportedly showed only 1.2 million hectares (4% of land area) remaining, and more recent surveys allegedly revealed merely 850,000 hectares of virgin old-growth rainforests (about 2.8%). They also mentioned approximately 3.0 million hectares of secondary growth forest. They alleged that TLAs covered aggregate areas of about 3.89 million hectares. The complaint asserted a deforestation rate of about 200,000 hectares per year (25 hectares per hour) and predicted that, at that rate, the Philippines would be bereft of forest resources within the decade. The plaintiffs linked deforestation to a cascade of environmental harms — water shortages, salinization, massive erosion and soil loss, extinction of flora and fauna, cultural dislocation of indigenous peoples, siltation of rivers and dams, recurrent droughts, increased typhoon velocity, flooding, and contribution to global warming — and contended these harms affected the petitioners and future generations.
On what legal basis did the plaintiffs assert their cause of action?
Show Answer
The plaintiffs grounded their cause of action on the constitutional right to a balanced and healthful ecology (Section 16, Article II of the 1987 Constitution), the DENR's mandate (E.O. No. 192, Section 4), related provisions such as Articles 19–21 of the Civil Code (human relations), Presidential Decree No. 1151 (Philippine Environmental Policy), and the concept of intergenerational responsibility. They characterized the DENR Secretary's alleged continued granting, processing or renewing of TLAs as a violation of their right to a balanced and healthful ecology and of the DENR's correlative duty. They also alleged exhaustion of administrative remedies by serving a final demand to cancel all logging permits and contended the Secretary failed and refused to act.
What procedural action did the Secretary of DENR take in response to the complaint?
Show Answer
The Secretary of DENR filed a Motion to Dismiss on 22 June 1990. The motion raised two principal grounds: (1) the plaintiffs had no cause of action against him, and (2) the issue raised was a political question proper for the executive or legislative branches and not for the courts. The motion was granted by the presiding RTC judge, who dismissed the complaint on 18 July 1991 for lack of a cause of action and for raising a political question, and also commented that granting the relief prayed for would impair contracts in violation of the Constitution.
How did the trial court justify dismissing the complaint?
Show Answer
The trial court found that the plaintiffs did not allege with sufficient definiteness a specific legal right they sought to enforce, nor a specific legal wrong to be redressed. It characterized the complaint as replete with vague assumptions and unverified data. Additionally, the court concluded the matter was impregnated with political color and involved public policy — a political question unsuitable for judicial resolution without violating separation of powers. Finally, the court believed that granting the reliefs sought (cancellation of TLAs and cessation of new TLAs) would amount to impairment of contracts, which the Constitution forbids.
What remedy did the petitioners seek from the Supreme Court after the RTC dismissal?
Show Answer
The petitioners filed a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court, asking the Supreme Court to rescind and set aside the RTC's dismissal order on the ground that the respondent judge had gravely abused his discretion in dismissing the action. They sought reversal of the dismissal so the underlying case could proceed.
Did the Supreme Court grant the petition for certiorari? What was the outcome?
Show Answer
Yes. The Supreme Court granted the petition. It held that the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction in dismissing the complaint. The Court set aside the RTC's 18 July 1991 dismissal order and allowed the petitioners to amend their complaint to implead the holders or grantees of the questioned timber license agreements as indispensable parties. The Court did not decide on the merits of cancellation of TLAs but permitted the action to proceed.
How did the Supreme Court rule on the petitioners’ locus standi (standing) to bring the suit?
Show Answer
The Supreme Court affirmed that the suit was a valid class suit and that the petitioners — minors represented by their parents and PENI — had locus standi. The Court emphasized the common and general interest in the subject matter (the preservation of forests/environment) and found the plaintiffs numerous and representative enough to protect the interests involved. Importantly, the Court recognized a novel element: the minors asserted they represent succeeding generations as well, and the Court accepted their personality to sue on behalf of future generations based on the concept of intergenerational responsibility in relation to the right to a balanced and healthful ecology.
What is the constitutional provision at the center of this case and how did the Court interpret it?
Show Answer
The central constitutional provision is Section 16, Article II of the 1987 Constitution: "The State shall protect and advance the right of the people to a balanced and healthful ecology in accord with the rhythm and harmony of nature." The Court interpreted this right as fundamental and connected it to the right to health. It held that this constitutional provision embodies the concept of intergenerational responsibility: present generations have an obligation to preserve natural resources and ecological balance for future generations. The Court found that violation or denial of this right by those who have correlative duties (like the DENR) gives rise to a cause of action.
On what statutory and executive authorities did the Court rely to define DENR’s duty?
Show Answer
The Court referred to Executive Order No. 192 (the Reorganization Act of the DENR), particularly Section 4 which mandates DENR as the primary government agency responsible for conservation, management, development and proper use of the country's environment and natural resources, and Section 3 declaring the policy of sustainable use and equitable access for present and future generations. The Court also cited Title XIV, Book IV of the Administrative Code of 1987, which reiterates the State's policy to ensure judicious disposition and conservation of natural resources and designates DENR to implement this policy "subject to law and higher authority." The Court also noted earlier statutes: P.D. No. 1151 (Philippine Environmental Policy) and P.D. No. 1152 (Philippine Environment Code), which declared continuing state policy and provided more specific environment management standards.
How did the Court apply the concept of “cause of action” to the petitioners’ complaint?
Show Answer
The Court recalled that a cause of action consists of the plaintiff's legal right, the defendant's correlative obligation, and the defendant's act or omission violating that right. Applying this to the complaint, the Court found that the petitioners alleged a clear legal right — the right to a balanced and healthful ecology — and a correlative obligation on the DENR to protect and conserve the environment. The complaint alleged the DENR's acts or omissions (granting/renewing TLAs leading to deforestation) that allegedly violated that right. The Court emphasized that in a motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action, the court must assume the complaint's factual allegations are true and determine only whether, if true, they would support the relief prayed for. Finding they could, the Court held the complaint sufficiently alleged a cause of action prima facie.
Why did the Supreme Court disagree with the RTC’s characterization of the complaint as vague and based on unverified data?
Show Answer
The Supreme Court reviewed the allegations in the complaint and concluded that they were adequate to show a prima facie violation of the constitutional right to a balanced and healthful ecology. The Court emphasized the rule that, on a motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action, the truth of the complaint's allegations is hypothetically admitted and extraneous matters should not be considered. Given the specific allegations about forest cover decline, the existence of TLAs covering large areas, the environmental harms described, and the legal and policy framework cited, the Court found that the complaint was not so vague as to warrant dismissal and that the petitioners had stated sufficient facts to proceed to trial and present evidence.
How did the Court handle the RTC’s invocation of the political question doctrine?
Show Answer
The Supreme Court rejected the notion that the case presented a non-justiciable political question. It distinguished policy formulation (which is generally for the executive and legislature) from the enforcement of rights against policies already formulated in legislation and executive issuances. The Court noted the expanded judicial power under Section 1, Article VIII of the Constitution, which allows courts to determine whether there has been grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction by other branches. The Court held that the political question doctrine is no longer an absolute bar and that this case raised a justiciable controversy over enforcement of a constitutional right and alleged grave abuse of discretion, matters appropriate for judicial review.
What did the RTC say about impairment of contracts, and how did the Supreme Court respond?
Show Answer
The RTC expressed concern that granting the relief prayed for — canceling TLAs and stopping issuance/processing of new TLAs — would impair contracts in violation of the constitutional non-impairment clause ("No law impairing the obligation of contracts shall be passed"). The Supreme Court rebuffed this reasoning on several grounds: first, the Secretary had not even invoked the non-impairment clause in his motion to dismiss; second, timber licenses (TLAs) are not contracts within the sense of the non-impairment clause but are privileges or licenses which the State can amend, modify or rescind when national interest requires; third, even if TLAs were contracts, the case did not involve any law or executive act cancelling them yet, so the clause was not triggered; and fourth, even a law cancelling contracts could be valid under the exercise of the police power in the interest of public health, safety, and welfare. The Court cited precedent holding that timber licenses are not property rights or contracts and may be withdrawn for public welfare.
What authorities did the Court cite to support the proposition that timber license agreements are not contracts?
Show Answer
The Court cited earlier decisions, notably Tan v. Director of Forestry and Felipe Ysmael, Jr. & Co., Inc. v. Deputy Executive Secretary, which held that timber licenses are instruments by which the State regulates utilization of forest resources and that they are privileges or licenses rather than contracts that create vested property rights. The Court also referenced Section 20 of the Forestry Reform Code (P.D. No. 705) which permits the President to amend, modify, replace or rescind any contract, concession, permit or license when national interest requires. Based on these authorities, the Court reiterated that TLAs do not create irrevocable contractual rights protected by the non-impairment clause.
What did the Court say about the necessity to implead timber license holders?
Show Answer
The Court held that insofar as the relief of cancelling TLAs was sought, the holders of those timber license agreements were indispensable parties who must be impleaded. The Court allowed the petitioners to amend their complaint to add as defendants the grantees or holders of the questioned TLAs. The Court thereby recognized that the cancellation of TLAs would directly affect those holders and they must be given notice and opportunity to defend their interests in the proceeding.
How did the Court treat the petitioners’ argument that administrative remedies were exhausted?
Show Answer
The complaint alleged plaintiffs had exhausted administrative remedies by serving a final demand (letter dated March 1, 1990) requesting cancellation of all logging permits, and that the DENR refused to cancel them. The Supreme Court accepted those factual averments as part of the complaint for purposes of the motion-to-dismiss standard, noting exhaustion was alleged. However, the Court did not rest its decision solely on exhaustion but rather on the sufficiency of the complaint to state a cause of action and the impropriety of the RTC's dismissal. The Court therefore permitted the case to proceed so the factual claims, including exhaustion and any due process issues, could be developed at trial with impleaded parties.
Explain the significance of the Court’s recognition of “intergenerational responsibility” in this decision.
Show Answer
The Court's recognition of "intergenerational responsibility" was seminal. It accepted that the minors could sue not only for themselves but also for succeeding generations, grounded in the constitutional right to a balanced and healthful ecology and the State policies emphasizing conservation for future generations. The decision articulated that each generation has the duty to preserve ecological balance and natural resources for the next, and that the right to a balanced and healthful ecology implies corresponding duties on public officials and agencies to manage resources judiciously. This doctrine provided a foundation for allowing current minors to vindicate the environmental interests of future persons, and thus broadened locus standi in environmental cases.
How did the Court reconcile judicial review with separation of powers concerns?
Show Answer
The Court acknowledged separation of powers but emphasized the judiciary's constitutionally expanded role to review exercises of discretion by political departments for grave abuse amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction (second paragraph, Section 1, Article VIII). It reasoned that while policy formulation is the realm of the executive and legislature, enforcement of constitutional and statutory rights and determination of grave abuse of discretion are within judicial purview. Therefore, the political question doctrine could not be used as an absolute bar to judicial review where rights are legally demandable and enforceable or where abuse of discretion is alleged — the case presented justiciable issues appropriate for the courts to decide.
What did the concurring opinion of Justice Feliciano emphasize or caution about the Court’s ruling?
Show Answer
Justice Feliciano concurred in the result but offered cautionary remarks. He agreed the petitioners had locus standi and that the case raised the right to a balanced and healthful ecology but warned against treating such constitutional policy statements as "specific" legal rights without further specification. He stressed the breadth and generality of the right and suggested petitioners should, before the trial court, demonstrate a more specific, operable legal right or provision under existing laws (e.g., provisions in the Philippine Environment Code) that was violated. He expressed concern about courts venturing into broad policy making without specific standards and noted due process and technical competence issues, urging that more specific allegations be pled so defendants can fairly defend themselves and the trial court can apply operational norms rather than broad constitutional policy alone.
According to the Court, what is the standard when deciding a motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action?
Show Answer
The Court reiterated that in deciding a motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action, the trial court must confine its inquiry to the sufficiency of the facts alleged in the complaint. All factual allegations are to be treated as hypothetically true, and the truth or falsity of those allegations is not to be considered at that stage. The sole inquiry is whether, assuming the allegations are true, the complaint states facts that would entitle the plaintiffs to the relief prayed for. The Court cited prior pronouncements cautioning courts against carelessly dismissing complaints on this ground because doing so could nullify rights recognized by law.
How did the Court apply the police power doctrine in the context of potential impairment of contracts?
Show Answer
The Court explained that even if TLAs were treated as contracts (though it held they were not), the non-impairment clause would still not necessarily block actions taken in the public interest because the police power can constitutionally regulate or limit private contractual and property rights for public health, safety, morals, and general welfare. The Court emphasized precedent recognizing that the freedom of contract is not absolute and may be subject to reasonable legislative regulation under police power. Therefore, laws or executive actions required to protect the environment, public health, or welfare — including revocation or modification of licenses or concessions in the national interest — would not necessarily violate the non-impairment clause.
What specific statutory provision did the Court reference that allows the President to amend or rescind licenses when national interest requires?
Show Answer
The Court referred to Section 20 of the Forestry Reform Code (P.D. No. 705), which provides that when the national interest so requires, the President may amend, modify, replace or rescind any contract, concession, permit, license or any other form of privilege granted. The Court used this provision to illustrate that licenses related to forest resources are subject to executive modification or cancellation in the public interest and therefore are not immutable contractual property rights.
What did the Court mean by saying some matters are “already formulated and expressed in legislation” in relation to the political question doctrine?
Show Answer
The Court meant that this case principally concerned enforcement of rights against policies already articulated in existing legislation and executive acts (for example, the Constitution itself, E.O. No. 192, Administrative Code provisions, and P.D. No. 1151). In other words, the dispute was not about whether policy should be made, but whether existing policies and duties were being performed or were being abused by the DENR. Because these policies and duties were already set down in statutes and executive issuances, judicial review to enforce those rights and to determine whether there was grave abuse of discretion was appropriate and not precluded by the political question doctrine.
Did the Supreme Court rule on whether TLAs should be cancelled?
Show Answer
No. The Supreme Court did not make a substantive ruling ordering the cancellation of TLAs. Instead, the Court set aside the RTC's dismissal order for grave abuse of discretion and allowed the petitioners to amend their complaint to implead TLA holders. The Court's ruling was procedural and jurisdictional in nature — it restored the case to the trial court so the substantive issues, proof, defenses (including by TLA holders), due process contentions, and remedies could be properly litigated and resolved at trial.
What procedural direction did the Supreme Court give to the petitioners after granting certiorari?
Show Answer
The Court allowed the petitioners to amend their complaint to implead as defendants the holders or grantees of the timber license agreements they questioned. This direction recognizes the indispensability of those parties if cancellation of TLAs is to be sought, and it effectively reversed the premature dismissal so the case could proceed with proper parties before the trial court.
How is P.D. No. 1151 (Philippine Environmental Policy) used in the Court’s reasoning?
Show Answer
P.D. No. 1151 was cited by the Court as historical statutory expression of the State's environmental policy, declaring the continuing policy to create, maintain and improve conditions where man and nature can thrive, to fulfill the requirements of present and future generations, and to ensure attainment of environmental quality conducive to a life of dignity and well-being. The Court used P.D. No. 1151 to show that statutory policies existed even before the 1987 Constitution that supported the concept of each generation being a trustee of the environment for succeeding generations, thereby reinforcing the legal basis for the petitioners' asserted rights and the DENR's duties.
What evidentiary posture did the Court insist upon at the motion-to-dismiss stage?
Show Answer
The Court insisted that at the motion-to-dismiss stage, the court must assume the factual allegations in the complaint are true (hypothetically admitted) and refrain from weighing evidence or resolving factual disputes. The only question is whether those alleged facts, if true, constitute a cause of action entitling the plaintiffs to the relief prayed for. Thus, unverified data or factual disputes are not proper grounds for dismissal at that preliminary stage.
How did the Court view the scope of judicial power under Article VIII regarding review of political department actions?
Show Answer
The Court emphasized that Article VIII's expansion of judicial power includes the duty to determine whether there has been grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction by any branch or instrumentality of government. The Court read this as empowering the judiciary to review discretionary acts of the political departments in proper cases, thereby narrowing the protective ambit of the political question doctrine and permitting judicial inquiry into alleged abuses of discretionary authority when rights are legally demandable and enforceable.
What concerns did the majority address about courts entering technical policy terrain?
Show Answer
While the majority permitted judicial review, it recognized implicitly that courts should be cautious and that the scope of judicial intervention is not unlimited. The Court distinguished policy formulation (a legislative/executive function) from enforcement and review for grave abuse. The majority did not purport to resolve technical environmental policy issues at the dismissal stage and instead allowed the factual and legal claims to be developed in the trial court, with necessary parties impleaded so technical defenses, evidence, and due process concerns could be properly considered.
What prior cases were cited to support the proposition that timber licenses are revocable privileges?
Show Answer
The Court cited Tan v. Director of Forestry and Felipe Ysmael, Jr. & Co., Inc. v. Deputy Executive Secretary as precedent for the proposition that timber licenses are not contracts but are revocable privileges or permits controlled by the State for public welfare. These cases were used to demonstrate that TLAs do not create permanent property rights that would invoke the constitutional non-impairment clause.
How did the Court characterize the remedial role of the judiciary in environmental disputes?
Show Answer
The Court characterized the judiciary's remedial role as one of settling actual controversies involving legally demandable and enforceable rights, including determining whether there has been grave abuse of discretion by other government branches. In environmental disputes, the Court indicated that when statutory or constitutional duties exist, courts can be called upon to enforce rights or review abuse of discretion; however, the judiciary should exercise caution and not usurp policy-making functions. The remedial role thus includes hearing suits brought to protect constitutional and statutory environmental rights and overseeing whether public agencies have acted within their lawful discretion.
What does the decision say about the nature of the plaintiffs’ claim — is it purely private, public, or mixed?
Show Answer
The Court treated the plaintiffs' claim as involving matters of public interest with private standing invoked to vindicate public rights. The complaint was filed as a class suit on behalf of the petitioners and those similarly situated, addressing a subject of general and common interest to all citizens — the preservation of forests and ecological balance. Thus, while individuals (minors and their parents) brought the suit, the right asserted (balanced and healthful ecology) is a public right with broad societal implications, and the suit was structured as a class action to represent that public interest.
What is the significance of allowing minors to represent succeeding generations in this case?
Show Answer
The Court's allowance for minors to represent succeeding generations is a doctrinal development underscoring intergenerational equity. It recognizes that future persons cannot sue now and that present minors are appropriate representatives to protect future environmental interests. This grants standing to a class of plaintiffs who can assert rights of unborn and future generations, strengthening legal mechanisms to prevent irreversible environmental harms that would affect those not yet able to advocate for themselves. The decision thus expands access to the courts for environmental protection on behalf of posterity.
What limits or caveats did the Court (or concurring opinion) suggest regarding the use of broad constitutional policy provisions as standalone causes of action?
Show Answer
Justice Feliciano, in his concurrence, cautioned that constitutional policy statements like the right to a balanced and healthful ecology are broad and general, and that plaintiffs should be expected to specify more concrete, operable legal rights or statutory provisions (for example, particular provisions of the Philippine Environment Code) that have been violated. He warned against allowing vague, sweeping constitutional language to stand alone as an actionable claim without more specific legal standards, because this could thrust courts into broad policy-making territory for which they lack technical expertise and could raise due process concerns by making it difficult for defendants to know precisely what to defend.
In light of the decision, what are the immediate procedural steps a trial court should follow when the amended complaint is filed?
Show Answer
Per the Supreme Court's direction, the petitioners are to be allowed to amend their complaint to implead the holders or grantees of the timber license agreements. The trial court should accept the amended complaint, ensure that the newly impleaded TLA holders are properly served and given opportunity to answer, and proceed to hear evidence on the factual allegations — including the extent of deforestation, the validity and terms of TLAs, any alleged abuse of discretion by DENR, and whether cancellation or injunction is appropriate. The court must also address due process claims and allow both the DENR and TLA holders to present defenses and evidence. Ultimately, the trial court will determine the merits based on developed facts and legal arguments.
What public policies and statutes did the Court draw on to conclude that the right to a balanced and healthful ecology is enforceable?
Show Answer
The Court relied on Section 16, Article II of the 1987 Constitution (right to a balanced and healthful ecology), Section 15 (right to health), Executive Order No. 192 and its declaration of policy sections, Title XIV of the Administrative Code (reiterating policy and DENR mandate), and P.D. Nos. 1151 and 1152 which articulated the Philippine Environmental Policy and environmental management standards. Together, these constitutional and statutory authorities established a legal and policy framework in which the right to a balanced and healthful ecology could be asserted and enforced, and in which DENR had a clearly defined duty to conserve, manage and regulate natural resources for present and future generations.
Reflect on how the Court’s disposition balances environmental protection with procedural fairness to the holders of TLAs.
Show Answer
The Court's disposition attempted to strike a balance: it protected the petitioners' right to seek judicial remedy by setting aside an improper dismissal and allowing the case to proceed, while recognizing that TLAs implicate interests of third parties who must be impleaded as indispensable defendants. By directing amendment to include TLA holders, the Court preserved the holders' procedural due process rights (notice, opportunity to be heard, ability to present defenses) even as it left open the possibility of cancelling TLAs if lawfully justified after a full hearing. The ruling thus preserved access to judicial review on the important public interest issue without foreclosing the procedural protections owed to licensees.
How did the Court treat the petitioners’ evidence assertions (e.g., satellite images, surveys) at the dismissal stage?
Show Answer
The Court treated such factual assertions (satellite images, surveys, figures about remaining forest cover and rates of deforestation) as allegations in the complaint that must be hypothetically admitted for purposes of the motion to dismiss. It held that the truth or falsity of those assertions could not be resolved at that preliminary stage. Therefore, the existence of such alleged evidence supported the conclusion that the complaint sufficiently alleged a cause of action and merited adjudication on the merits where evidence could be examined, tested, and weighed.
What is the broader legal importance of this case for environmental litigation in the Philippines, according to the Court’s opinion?
Show Answer
The Court's opinion is groundbreaking because it affirms that the constitutional right to a balanced and healthful ecology is a legal right enforceable in court, that persons (including minors) may sue to vindicate environmental rights on behalf of present and future generations, and that judges can review alleged abuses of discretion by administrative agencies in enforcing environmental laws and policies. The decision opens the door to private enforcement of public environmental rights through class actions and recognizes intergenerational responsibility as a basis for standing, thereby strengthening judicial remedies for environmental protection while outlining procedural safeguards for affected parties.
Final question — why was the RTC’s dismissal characterized by the Supreme Court as “grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction”?
Show Answer
The Supreme Court characterized the RTC's dismissal as a grave abuse of discretion and lack of jurisdiction because the trial court improperly dismissed a complaint that, on its face, sufficiently alleged a cause of action based on the constitutional right to a balanced and healthful ecology, statutory mandates, and specific factual allegations. The RTC erred in weighing data and labeling allegations as vague at the motion-to-dismiss stage and in invoking the political question doctrine and non-impairment clause prematurely. By doing so, it precluded judicial consideration of legal claims properly before it, effectively overstepping its authority; hence, the Supreme Court concluded the dismissal amounted to grave abuse of discretion and set it aside, allowing the case to proceed with appropriate parties impleaded.