Author: Roge Ramirez
Oposa v. Factoran (1993) plaintiffs have no cause of action against him and b)
Petition: Writ of Certiorari
Petitioner: Oposa family (all minors duly represented
and joined by their respective parents)
Respondent: Hon. Fulgencio Factoran, Jr. (Sec. of
DENR)
Ponencia: Davide, Jr.
DOCTRINE: (Standard of care required)
The case touches on Sections 15 and 16 of Article II of
the 1987 Constitution.
It has been referred to worldwide because of its
intergenerational responsibility concept, particularly in
cases relating to ecology and the environment.
FACTS:
1. Controversy originated from Civil Case No. 90-777,
filed before the RTC1. The complaint was instituted
as a taxpayer’s class suit as they are “citizens of the
Republic of the Philippines, taxpayers, and entitled
to the full benefit, use, and enjoyment of the natural
resource treasure that is the country’s virgin tropical
rainforests.” They “represent their generation as well
as generations yet unborn.”
2. Plaintiffs state that the Philippine archipelago is
endowed with rich rainforests endowed with unique
species of flora and fauna. These rainforests contain
an irreplaceable genetic, biological, and chemical
pool. They also serve as habitat of indigenous
peoples since time immemorial.
3. Deforestation results to a host of environmental
tragedies such as water shortages from drying up of
rivers, massive erosion and loss of soil fertility, and
the endangering and extinction of some of the
country’s unique flora and fauna, among many
others as provided for by petitioner.
4. Because of the adverse and detrimental
consequences of continued deforestation, plaintiffs
wanted defendant to cancel all existing TLA’s2 in the
country and refrain from issuing new ones, in
protection of the forests and the environment, and to
grant them other reliefs that are just and equitable
under the premises. This was formally demanded on
March 2, 1990.
5. Defendant fails and refuses to cancel existing TLA’s.
On June 22, 1990, Factoran filed a Motion to
Dismiss the complaint based on two grounds: a)
1 Regional Trial Court
2 Timber License Agreements
issue raised by plaintiffs is a political question 3.
6. In the petitioners’ July 12, 1990 Opposition to the
Motion, they state that a) their complaint has a clear
cause of action, b) motion is dilatory4, c) action
presents justiciable question (as opposed to political)
since it involves defendant’s abuse of discretion.
7. On July 18, 1991, respondent Judge of the RTC
grants the motion to dismiss the case because
according to him, there is no cause of action, it
raises a political question, and the granting of reliefs
requested by petitioners would result in the
impairment of contracts.
8. Thus, petitioners file an instant special civil action for
certiorari for the respondent Judge gravely abused
his discretion in dismissing the action.
9. On May 14, 1992, SC resolves to give due course to
the petition. Petitioner and defendant’s gave the ff
claims to the SC:
Petitioners Respondents
Complaint has state of cause They fail to allege a specific legal
based on Articles 19, 20, 21 of right violated by the DENR
Civil Code, Section 4 of EO No Secretary for which any relief is
192, Section 3 of PD No 1151, provided by law
Section 16 Article 2 of the 1987
Constitution
The grave abuse of discretion of Cannot cancel TLA’s without due
DENR Secretary in granting process of law (TLA remains
TLA’s involves a judicial question effective for 25 years once
issued)
TLA’s are not contracts (No counterclaim on this one)
ISSUES:
1. WoN petitioners have locus standi
2. WoN petitioners have a cause of action to
“prevent the misappropriation or impairment” of
Philippine rainforests and “arrest the unabated
hemorrhage of the country’s vital life-support
systems and continued rape of Mother Earth”
3. WoN the TLA involves a judicial question rather
than a political question
4. WoN the TLA is protected by the provision on
non-impairment of contracts
PROVISION:
 Section II Article 16. 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.
3 Political question properly pertains to the legislative or
executive branches of the Government.
4 That which is intended for delay
Author: Roge Ramirez
 Section II Article 15. The State shall protect and
promote the right to health of the people and instill
health consciousness among them.
RULING + RATIO:
1. YES. Petitioners have locus standi/legal
standing on the case.
- The civil case is indeed a class suit since
subject matter of complaint is of common
and general interest to all citizens of the
country. Also, the parties are so numerous
and representative enough to ensure the full
protection of all concerned interests.
- Their personality to sue in behalf of the
succeeding generations can only be based
on the concept of intergenerational
responsibility insofar as the right to a
balanced and healthful ecology.
- Every generation has a responsibility to the
next to preserve the rhythm and harmony for
the full enjoyment of a balanced and
healthful ecology.
- The minors' assertion of their right to a
sound environment constitutes, at the same
time, the performance of their obligation to
ensure the protection of that right for the
generations to come.
2. YES. Petitioners have a clear and
unmistakable cause of action to “prevent the
misappropriation or impairment” of
Philippine rainforests and “arrest the
unabated hemorrhage of the country’s vital
life-support systems and continued rape of
Mother Earth” as it contains sufficient
allegations concerning their right to a sound
environment.
- The complaint focuses on one specific
fundamental legal right – the right to a
balanced and healthful ecology, which, for
the first time in our nation's constitutional
history, is solemnly incorporated in the
fundamental law and is explicitly stated in
Section 16 Article II of the 1987 Constitution
and united with the right to health provided
for in Section 15.
o Even if it is not under the Bill of
Rights, it does not follow that it is of
lesser importance. Such a right
belongs to a different category of
rights altogether for it concerns
nothing less than self-preservation
and self-perpetuation.
o These rights need not even be
written in the Constitution but they
are explicitly mentioned because of
the well-founded fear of its framers
that unless it is stated, the day
would not be too far when all else
would be lost not only for the
present generation but also for
those to come.
- The right to a balanced and healthful
ecology carries with it the correlative duty to
refrain from impairing the environment.
- President Corazon Aquino promulgated EO
No. 192 Sections 4 and 3.
o Section 4: expressly mandates that the
DENR "shall be the primary government
agency responsible for the conservation,
management, development and proper use of
the country's environment and natural
resources, specifically forest and grazing
lands, mineral resources, including those in
reservation and watershed areas, and lands
of the public domain, as well as the licensing
and regulation of all natural resources as may
be provided for by law in order to ensure
equitable sharing of the benefits derived
therefrom for the welfare of the present and
future generations of Filipinos."
o Section 3: “It is hereby declared the policy
of the State to ensure the sustainable use,
development, management, renewal, and
conservation of the country's forest, mineral,
land, off-shore areas and other natural
resources, including the protection and
enhancement of the quality of the
environment, and equitable access of the
different segments of the population to the
development and use of the country's natural
resources, not only for the present generation
but for future generations as well. It is also
the policy of the state to recognize and apply
a true value system including social and
environmental cost implications relative to
their utilization; development and
conservation of our natural resources."
- President Cory’s EO is substantially re-
stated in Title 14, Book 4, of the
Administrative Code of 1987.
o Section 1 stresses “the necessity of
maintaining a sound ecological
balance and protecting and
enhancing the quality of the
environment." Section 2 of the same
Title, on the other hand, specifically
speaks of the mandate of the
DENR; however, it makes particular
reference to the fact of the agency's
being subject to law and higher
authority.
- Both EO No 192 and the Administrative
Code have set the objectives which will
serve as the bases for policy formulation,
and have defined the powers and functions
of the DENR.
- Special Statutes also paid attention to the
“environmental right” of the present and
future generations. Philippine Environmental
Policy and Philippine Environmental Code
were issued.
o As its goal, it speaks of the
"responsibilities of each generation
as trustee and guardian of the
environment for succeeding
Author: Roge Ramirez
generations" and provides the
implementation of said policy.
- Thus, the right of the petitioners (and all
those they represent) to a balanced and
healthful ecology is as clear as the DENR's
duty — under its mandate and by virtue of
its powers and functions under E.O. No. 192
and the Administrative Code of 1987 — to
protect and advance the said right.
o Petitioners’ claim that the granting of
the TLAs, which they claim was
done with grave abuse of discretion,
violated their right to a balanced and
healthful ecology
- Cause of action is defined as:
o ". . . an act or omission of one party in
violation of the legal right or rights of the
other; and its essential elements are legal
right of the plaintiff, correlative obligation of
the defendant, and act or omission of the
defendant in violation of said legal right."
- The causes of action5 stated by petitioners
themselves are adequate enough to show,
prima facie, the claimed violation of their
rights
o There is a right in favor of plaintiff –
right to balanced and healthful
ecology
o There is an obligation on the part of
the defendant as stated by EO No
192 and Administrative Code
o There is clearly an act or omission
on part of defendant violative of the
right of plaintiff
3. YES. The TLA involves a judicial question. It
cannot be said to raise a political question.
- Policy formation or determination by the
executive and legislative branches is not the
issue. What is principally involved is the
enforcement of a right versus policies
already formulated and expressed in
legislation.
- Section 1 Article 8 of the 1987 Constitution
vests in the judiciary, and particularly the
Supreme Court, the power to rule upon even
the wisdom of the decisions of the executive
and the legislature and to declare their acts
invalid for lack or excess of jurisdiction
because tainted with grave abuse of
discretion.
o “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”
5 Causes of action as discussed by the Civil law/Persons
4. NO. The TLA is not protected by non-
impairment of contracts since TLA’s are not
contracts. Even if they may be considered
protected by non-impairment, it is well
settled that they may still be revoked by the
State when public interest so requires.
- All licenses may thus be revoked or
rescinded by executive action. It is not a
contract, property or a property right
protected by the due process clause of the
Constitution
o Section 20 of the Forestry Reform Code (PD
No 705) provides: “…that when the national
interest so requires, the President may
amend, modify, replace or rescind any
contract, concession, permit, licenses or any
other form of privilege granted herein…”
o “…Timber licenses, permits and license
agreements are the principal instruments by
which the State regulates the utilization and
disposition of forest resources to the end that
public welfare is promoted. And it can hardly
be gainsaid that they merely evidence a
privilege granted by the State to qualified
entities, and do not vest in the latter a
permanent or irrevocable right to the
particular concession area and the forest
products therein. They may be validly
amended, modified, replaced or rescinded by
the Chief Executive when national interests
so require. Thus, they are not deemed
contracts within the purview of the due
process of law clause
- Since TLA’s are not contracts, the non-
impairment clause cannot be invoked.
o Section 10: “No law impairing the obligation
of contracts shall be passed.”
- Even if it is assumed to be contracts, the
non-impairment clause must still yield to the
police power of the State.
DISPOSITION: Petition granted.
- SC, being impressed with merit, decides to
grant the instant petition. The challenged
order of the respondent judge of the RTC is
set aside. Petitioners may therefore amend
their complaint to implead as defendants the
holders or grantees of the questioned TLA’s.
No pronouncement as to costs.
Feliciano, concurring:
- In the issue of locus standi, the court is
recognizing a beneficiaries’ right of action as
everyone living in the country now or in the
future is to benefit from the course of action
petitioners seek to require public
respondents to take
- Specific legal right is really not that specific;
petitioners and court didn’t identify the
particular provision from the Philippine
Environment Code which give rise to a
specific legal right
- Also, Philippine Environment Code does not
contemplate action on the part of private
persons who are beneficiaries of the
implementation of that Code
Author: Roge Ramirez
- What petitioners can do with the court’s
decision:
o “they may seek to dispute the existence of
the specific legal right petitioners should
allege, as well as the reality of the claimed
factual nexus between petitioners' specific
legal right and the claimed wrongful acts or
failures to act of public respondent
administrative agency. They may also
controvert the appropriateness of the remedy
or remedies demanded by petitioners, under
all the circumstances which exist