Digest Author: Ma-yr-zar Martin Teruel

Oposa vs. Factoran

G.R. No. 101083
Petition: Special Civil Action for certiorari of the dismissal order of RTC of Makati, Br. 66.
Petitioner: Oposa Law office
Respondent: The Solicitor General
Ponente: Davide, JR., J
Date: July 30, 1993

Facts:
Petitioners pray to the court that judgement be rendered ordering the defendant, his
agents, and other persons who are involved to cancel existing timber license agreements in
the country and to stop issuing the said timber licence agreements. Secretary Factoran Jr.,
filed a motion to dismiss because there was no cause of action and it was a political question
for the executive and legislative branches of government to ponder on. Respondents argue
that the timber licensing agreements are contracts and not to comply with these contracts
would be illegal. Petitioners on the other hand maintain that the TLAs are not contracts and
may be revoked by the state when the public demands so. Another argument by the
respondent is that because their allegations fail to specify a legal right that is being violated
by the TLAs thus they should have lobbied in congress instead of filing a case in court.

Issue:
1) W/N the petitioners have specified a legal right in their allegations that would
render the TLAs as unconstitutional.
2) W/N the prayer of plaintiffs result in the impairments of contracts.

Ruling:

1) Yes, the allegations focuses on one specific fundamental right and that is the right
to a balanced and healthful ecology which is Section 16, Article II of the 1987
constitution.
Sec 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.
Although the said right is found in the declaration of principles and state policies and
not under the Bill of Rights, it does not follow that it is less important than any of the
civil and political rights enumerated in the latter. In fact, the basic rights does not
need to be proven because it is assumed that they have existed from the beginning of
humankind.

2) No, the court held that the TLAs is an instrument by which the state regulates the
utilization and disposition of forest resources to the end that public welfare is
promoted. The TLAs are not considered contracts and that is why the non-
impairment clause cannot be invoked. The granting of these TLAs does not create
irrevocable rights, neither is it property rights.