Oposa v. Factoran, Jr.

G.R. No. 101083. July 30, 1993.

Facts: 

 Principal petitioners, all minors, are duly represented by their parents in filing Civil Case No. 90-
777, which is a class suit, before the RTC Branch 66 of Makati City originally against Sec.
Fulgeciano S. Factoran, Jr. (former DENR Secretary).Original respondent was subsequently
replaced by the current DENR Secretary Angel C. Alcala upon order of the court. Impleaded as
an additional plaintiff is the Philippine Ecological Network, Inc. (PENI).
 The minors asseverate that they represent their generation as well as generation yet unborn.
The civil case prays for judgment to be rendered ordering defendant, his agents, representatives
and other persons acting in his behalf to : 1. Cancel all existing timber license agreements in the
country;2. Cease and desist from receiving, accepting, processing, renewing or approving new
timber license agreements.
 Plaintiffs further assert that the adverse and detrimental consequences of continued and
deforestation are so capable of unquestionable demonstration that the same may be submitted
as a matter of judicial notice.
 As their cause of action, plaintiffs specifically allege among other things that they have a clear
and constitutional right to a balanced and healthful ecology and are entitled to protection by the
State in its capacity as the parens patriae.
ISSUE:

1. WON the petitioners (children) have legal standing to file a case.

Yes. The petitioners have legal standing to file a case by virtue of Section 25 and 16 of Article II of the
Constitution.

The said provisions of the Constitution, although found under the Declaration of Principles and State
Policies, confer enforceable rights as it concerns nothing less than self-preservation and self-
perpetuation. The right to a balanced and healthful ecology carries with it the correlative duty to refrain
from impairing the environment. Moreover, 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 is concerned. The right of the petitioners is also as clear as the DENR’s
duty — under its mandate and by virtue of its powers and functions under E.O. No. 192 and
Administrative Code of 1987 —to protectand advance the said right.

WHEREFORE, the instant Petition is hereby GRANTED, and the challenged Order of Respondent Judge of
July18, 1991 dismissing Civil Case No. 90-777 is hereby set aside.
((((((((SIDE NOTE!!!!!!)))))))

TRIVIA ABOUT THIS CASE:

The case of  Oposa vs. Factoran has been widely cited worldwide for its concept of intergenerational
responsibility, particularly in cases related to ecology and the environment. For example:
 Oposa vs. Factoran's concept of "intergenerational responsibility" was cited in a case in
Bangladesh.
 The United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP) considers Oposa vs. Factoran a
landmark case in judicial thinking for environmental governance.
 In the book Public Health Law and Ethics by Larry O. Gostin, Oposa vs. Factoran is cited as a
significant example of the justiciability of the right to health.
 In the book The Law of Energy for Sustainable Development by the IUCN Academy
of Environmental Law Research Studies, a study cites Oposa vs. Factoran as basis for asserting
that the right to breathe is part of the right to life as an acknowledged human right.

Nature of the case

Class action seeking the cancellation and non-issuance of timber licence agreements which allegedly
infringed the constitutional right to a balanced and healthfull ecology (Section 16); non-impairment of
contracts; Environmental law; judicial review and the political question doctrine; inter-generational
responsibility ;Remedial law: cause of action and standing; Directive principles; Negative obligation on
State

Summary
An action was filed by several minors represented by their parents against the Department of
Environment and Natural Resources to cancel existing timber license agreements in the country and to
stop issuance of new ones. It was claimed that the resultant deforestation and damage to the
environment violated their constitutional rights to a balanced and healthful ecology and to
health(Sections 16 and 15, Article II of the Constitution). The petitioners asserted that they represented
others of their generation as well as generations yet unborn. Finding for the petitioners, the Court
stated that even though the right to a balanced and healthful ecology is under the Declaration of
Principles and State Policies of the Constitution and not under the Bill of Rights, it does not follow that it
is less important than any of the rights enumerated in the latter: “[it] concerns nothing less than self-
preservation and self-perpetuation, the advancement of which may even be said to predate
all governments and constitutions”.

The right is linked to the constitutional right to health, is “fundamental”, “constitutionalised”, “self-
executing” and “judicially enforceable”. It imposes the correlative duty to refrain from impairing the
environment. The court stated that the petitioners were able to file a class suit both for others of their
generation and for succeeding generations as “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.” 

Significance of the case
This case has been widely-cited in jurisprudence worldwide, particularly in cases relating to forest/
timber licensing. However, the approach of the Philippine Supreme Court to economic, social and
cultural rights has proved somewhat inconsistent, with some judgments resulting in the enforcement of
such rights (e.g., Del Rosario v Bangzon, 180 SCRA 521 (1989); Manila Prince Hotel v Government Service
Insurance System , G. R. No.122156 (3 February, 1997) but at least one instance in which the Court
made a statement that economic, social and cultural rights are not real rights (see, Brigido Simon v
Commission on Human Rights,G. R. No. 100150, 5 January 1994).