ChanRobles Virtual law Library
[G.R. No. 164450.
INHABITANTS OF THE PHILISLANDS vs. GOV'T OF PHILS.
EN BANC
Gentlemen:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this
Court dated
G.R. No. 164450 (Inhabitants of the Philippine Islands, both flora and fauna, including the human inhabitants in the persons of and represented by Antonio A. Oposa, Roberto Oliva, Donna Gasgonia, Bienvenido I. Somera, Jr., Karen E. Baydo, Rita Linda Jimeno, Ma. Arlene Mendoza, Manuel Monzon, Gloria Ramos, Paz Luna, Nicanor, Perlas, Benedicta Baladad, Rolando Tulay, Bayani Jacinto, et al. vs. The Government of the Philippines, in its capacity as public trustee of the country's natural wealth, represented by the Congress through Senate President Franklin Drilon; House Speaker Jose de Venecia, Office of the President, represented by Executive Secretary Alberto Romulo, Department of Environment and Natural Resources, represented by Secretary Elisea Gozun, Department of Budget and Management, represented by Secretary Emilia Boncodin.)
Under consideration is the Motion for Reconsideration and the
Supplemental Motion for Reconsideration with Urgent Motion to Resolve the
Petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration filed by the petitioners. They seek the
reversal of our Resolution dated
"... to DISMISS the petition for being premature, as it failed to show that the petitioners have exhausted all remedies within Congress."
The movants urge us to reconsider our dismissal of their petition in view of the fact that petitioner Oposa has been an accredited lobbyist in both the House of Representatives and in the Senate for a very long time, making it appear, without further proof of his efforts to necessitate Congress to comply with its Constitutional mandate [1] cralaw , that his attempts are enough to illustrate that they have indeed "exhausted" all remedies available to them therein. They further posit that the doctrine of exhaustion of remedies applies only to administrative agencies and officers and not to Congress.
Taking note of the petitioners' annexes [2] cralaw attached to their motions, however, it appears that there is already a bill [3] cralaw filed in the House of Representatives seeking for the enactment of the same law that they are clamoring for, a law delineating the specific area of forestlands, and, an Executive Order that has already been signed [4] cralaw by President Macapagal-Arroyo calling for the delineation of the final forest lines of the country. It is, thus, but premature for this Court to make any pronouncements on whatever actions its co-equal body may take on the matter.
ACCORDINGLY, the Court hereby resolves to DENY WITH FINALITY the Motion for Reconsideration, as well as the Supplemental Motion for Reconsideration with Urgent Motion to Resolve the Petitioners' Motion for Reconsideration of the petitioners.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.)
LUZVIMINDA D. PUNO
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] cralaw 1987 Constitution, Article XII, Section 4. The Congress shall, as soon as possible, determine by law the specific limits of forest lands and national parks, marking clearly their boundaries on the ground. Thereafter, such forest lands and national parks shall be conserved and may not be increased nor diminished, except by law. The Congress shall provide, for such period as it may determine, measures to prohibit logging in endangered forests and watershed areas.
[2] cralaw Annexes "B-1" & "C" of the Motion for Reconsideration dated September 2, 2004.
[3] cralaw House Bill No. 301, filed by Hon. Jesli A. Lapus, Thirteenth Congress of the Republic of the Philippines.
[4] cralaw Dated June 9, 2004.
HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
QUICK SEARCH
