Dissenting Opinion
10
G.R. No. 224469
It must be noted that property rights are always subject to the State's police
power, or the authority to enact legislation that may interfere with personal liberty
or property to promote the general welfare. 20 Indeed, when the conditions so
demand as determined by the legislature, property rights must bow to the primacy
of policy power because property rights, though sneltered by due process, must
yield to general welfare. 21
I understand that the conviction of the petitioners may be viewed as harsh
considering their customs and way of life, and that what was involved was a lone
dita tree. But compassion should not deter us from faithfully enforcing our
criminal and environmental laws to their full extent. In any case, under Article 522
of the Revised Penal Code, the Court may recommend executive clemency when
the penalty is excessive. 23
In sum, the strict application of PD No. 705 amounts to nothing more than
the Court's fealty to uphold the people's right to a balanced and healthful
ecology, a basic right assumed to exist from the inception of humankind,24
characterized as no less important than any of the civil and political rights
mentioned under the Bill of Rights, 25 the advancement of which may even be
said to predate all governments and constitutions26 - for the benefit of the
present and future generations, including tl_iat of the lraya Mangyans and
other indigenous people all across the archipelago.
Lest it be forgotten, PD No. 705 is a special law enacted to regulate the
"management, utilization, protection, rehabilitation, and development of forest
20
21
22
23
24
2s
26
Acosta v. Ochoa, G.R. Nos. 211559, 211567, 212570 & 215634, October 15, 2019.
Manila Memorial Park, Inc. v. Sec. of the Dep't. ofSocial Welfare and Dev't., 722 Phil. 538,568 (2013).
Art. 5. Duty of the Court in Connection with Acts Which Should Be Repressed but Which are Not Covered by
the Law, and in Cases of Excessive Penalties. - Whenever a court has knowledge of any act which it may
deem proper to repress and which is not punishable by law, it shall render the proper decision, and shall report
to the Chief Executive, through the Department of Justice, the reasons which induce the court to believe that
said act should be made the subject of penal legislation.
~
In the same way the court shall submit to the Chief Executive, through the Department of Justice, such
statement as may be deemed proper, without suspending the execution of the sentence, when a strict
enforcement of the provisions of this Code would result in the imposition of a clearly excessive penalty, taking
into consideration the degree of malice and the injury caused by the offense.
Idanan v. People, 783 Phil. 429,440 (2016).
The Court, in the landmark case of Oposa v. Hon. Factoran, Jr, 296 Phil. 694 (l 993), pronounced:
"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 cf Rights, it does not follow that it is less important than any of the
civil and political rights enumerated in the lattl'!r. Such a right belongs to a different category ofrights altogether
for it concerns nothing less than self-preservation and self-perpetuation -- aptly and fittingly stressed by the
petitioners - the advancement of which may even be said to predate all governments and constitutions. As a
matter of fact, these basic rights need not ewn be written in the Constitution for they are assumed to exist from
the inception of humankind.xx x." Jd. at 713.
Id.
Id.
I