04/02/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly legally in cancelling FLGLA No. 542 and in ordering petitioner to vacate the subject land. The public respondents merely acted to implement the COSLAP decision as upheld by the Supreme Court. Thus, petitioner is left to prove only whether the public respondents acted with grave abuse of discretion in their execution of COSLAP's decision. There was no grave abuse of discretion in public respondents' implementation of the COSLAP decision. The Court finds that no grave abuse of discretion was committed by respondent DENR officials in their implementation of the COSLAP decision. It must be emphasized that FLGLA No. 542 is a mere license or privilege granted by the State to petitioner for the use or exploitation of natural resources and public lands over which the State has sovereign ownership under the Regalian Doctrine.[56] Like timber or mining licenses, a forest land grazing lease agreement is a mere permit which, by executive action, can be revoked, rescinded, cancelled, amended or modified, whenever public welfare or public interest so requires.[57] The determination of what is in the public interest is necessarily vested in the State as owner of the country's natural resources.[58] Thus, a privilege or license is not in the nature of a contract that enjoys protection under the due process and nonimpairment clauses of the Constitution.[59] In cases in which the license or privilege is in conflict with the people's welfare, the license or privilege must yield to the supremacy of the latter, as well as to the police power of the State.[60] Such a privilege or license is not even a property or property right, nor does it create a vested right; as such, no irrevocable rights are created in its issuance.[61] FLGLA No. 542 has not only been withdrawn by executive action to further the public welfare, it has also been declared illegal or unlawful by judicial authorities for clearly violating actual provisions of law. Thus, the DENR was under obligation to effect the cancellation accordingly. We likewise find no irregularity in the procedure followed by respondent DENR officials in their cancellation of FLGLA No. 542 and their orders for petitioner to vacate the subject land. Petitioner claims that the public respondents were "haphazard" in their cancellation of the FLGLA, thus denying him due process.[62] Contrary to the portrayals by the petitioner, however, the officials were not precipitate in their cancellation of the license and in ordering petitioner to vacate the land. Instead of immediately cancelling FLGLA No. 542, Sec. Alvarez first ordered the Regional Executive Director of DENR to conduct a review and investigation of FLGLA No. 542.[63] Following that investigation, attended by petitioner's representative, it was found that petitioner committed several violations of the terms of the FLGLA.[64] It was only then that Sec. Alvarez issued the cancellation order. It is clear from the investigation report that petitioner's FLGLA No. 542 is not only illegal per se, for having been issued contrary to the provisions of P.D. No. 410; it elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/46133 10/15