Content area
Full Text
I. INTRODUCTION
The primary function of the courts in any legal system is to adjudicate specific cases or controversies arising from the violation or interaction of enforceable rights or obligations among the parties to a dispute. Furthermore, in a legal system characterized by the separation of powers between different branches of government, such as that of the Philippines and the United States, the judiciary also acts as a check against any possible excesses in the exercise of the powers allocated to the other two branches of government. These functions are clearly expressed in, for example, the 1987 Philippine Constitution:
Judicial power includes the duty of the courts of justice to settle actual controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable, and to determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the Government.1
The exercise of judicial power in the Philippines is subject to the constitutional stricture that court decisions must be based on facts and the law.2 While courts are duty-bound to apply the law in cases where the law is specific, clear or unambiguous, they are as duty-bound to interpret the law - using tools such as jurisprudential precedents, statutory construction, and legal hermeneutics - in cases where the law itself is unclear or ambiguous so as to arrive at a decision and thereby clarify the exact meaning of the law as enacted by the legislature. Hence, the value of any jurisprudential pronouncement, such as the case of Oposa v. Factoran3 discussed by Professor Gatmaytan, lies not only in the positive outcomes for the plaintiff or the respondent that may arise as a result of the decision. It also lies in the extent to which the decision advances the state of the law in the pursuit of the public welfare.
II. EFFECTS OF OPOSA
A. PRACTICAL EFFECTS
As Professor Gatmaytan rightly points out, the Supreme Court's decision in Oposa has had minimal practical effect. It did not result in the outright cancellation of Timber License Agreements (TLAs), as petitioners had sought. The Supreme Court merely remanded the case back to the trial court for further proceedings. No further proceedings in the trial...