You are on page 1of 4

BALANUECO, Queen

OPOSA VS. FACTORAN

This is a class suit before the RTC Makati filed by a group of minors and their respective
parents concerned with the fast depletion of the country’s rainforests against the DENR
Secretary, hoping to compel the latter to cancel all existing Timber License Agreements
(TLA) and to cease and desist from granting new ones.

The RTC dismissed the complaint on three grounds: (1) lack of a cause of action, (2) the
issue being a political question, and (3) the TLAs being protected by the Constitution’s
non-impairment clause. Upon appeal, the SC belied all three of the RTC’s arguments, and
set aside the lower court’s dismissal.

FACTS

The plaintiff-petitioners are minors represented and joined by their respective parents.
Impleaded as additional plaintiff is Philippine Ecological Network, Inc. (PENI), a
domestic, non-stock, and non-profit corporation, engaged in the protection of the
environment and natural resources. The complaint was instituted as a taxpayers’’ class
suit and alleges that plaintiffs are “all 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”. The same was filed for
themselves and others who are equally concerned about the preservation of said resource
but are "so numerous that it is impracticable to bring them all before the Court." The
minors further asseverate that they "represent their generation as well as generations yet
unborn." The complaint (summary) included the following:
1.) Description of the Philippine rainforests and their ecological benefits;
2.) Scientific evidence revealing that a ratio of 54% forest cover and 46% agricultural,
residential, industrial, commercial, and other uses of land is needed to maintain a
balanced and healthful ecology;
3.) An enumeration of environmental tragedies that have resulted from deforestation
4.) Plaintiff’s assertion that the consequences of deforestation are so capable of
unquestionable demonstration that they may be submitted as a matter of judicial notice
5.) An intention to present expert witnesses, as well as documentary, photographic and film
evidence in the course of the trial.

Under the Cause of Action (mentioned few only):

1.) Plaintiffs replead by reference the foregoing allegations.


2.) Records showing adverse effects, disastrous consequences, irreparable damage
of continued deforestation to the minor’s generation and to generations yet
unborn are evident and incontrovertible.
3.) Plaintiffs have exhausted all administrative remedies with the defendant’s office.
PRAYER

Asking the court to order the defendant, then DENR Secretary Factoran (DENR Secretary
when the class suit was filed) to:

1. Cancel all existing Timber License Agreements (TLA) in the country; and
2. Cease and desist from receiving, accepting, processing, renewing or approving
new TLAs

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

22 June 1990 Original Defendant, Secretary Factoran,


filed an MTD

Grounds:

1. Plaintiffs have no cause of action


against him
2. The issue raised by the plaintiffs is
a political question which properly
pertains to the legislative or
executive branches of government

12 July 1990 Petitioners filed Opposition to the Motion


maintaining:

1. Complaint shows a clear and


unmistakable cause of action
2. Motion is dilatory; and
3. The action presents a justiciable
question as it involves the
defendant’s abuse of discretion

18 July 1991 Respondent Judge issues an order


granting MTD.

Ruling: Not only the defendant’s claim


sustained, but also the complaint states no
cause of action against him and that it
raises a political question. Further ruled
that the granting of the reliefs prayed for
would result in the impairment of
contracts which is prohibited by the
fundamental law of the land.
Plaintiff then filed instant special civil
action for certiorari under Rule 65 of the
Revised Rules of Court asked the Court to
rescind and set aside the dismissal order

Ground: Respondent Judge gravely


abused his discretion in dismissing the
action.

The parents of the plaintiffs-minors not


only represent their children, but have
also joined the latter in this case
14 May 1992 SC resolved to give due course to the
petition and required parties to submit
their respective Memoranda. Parties
argued:
Plaintiff-Petitioners Defendant-Respondents
The complaint clearly and Petitioners failed to allege in their
unmistakably states a cause of action complaint a specific legal right
as it contains sufficient allegations violated by the Secretary. The
concerning their right to a sound allegations concerning environmental
environment, right of people to a right which supposedly entitles
balanced and healthful ecology, the petitioners to the protection by the
safeguard of the people’s right to a state as parens patriae are vague and
healthful environment. nebulous, not revealing a valid cause
of action.

PRODECURAL MATTERS:

CLASS SUIT

Petitioners instituted civil case as a class suit. Subject matter of complaint is of common
and general interest not just to several, but to all citizens of the Philippines. Plaintiffs are
numerous and representative enough to ensure the full protection of all concerned
interests. HENCE, all the requisites for filing of a valid class suit under Section 12, Rule
3 of the Revised Rules of Court are present.

LOCUS STANDI

Petitioners-minors assert that they represent their generation as well as generations yet
unborn. Court finds no difficulty in ruling that they can, for themselves, for others of
their generation and for the succeeding generations, file a class suit. 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. every generation has a responsibility to the next to preserve that 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.

CAUSE OF ACTION

In motion to dismiss based on the ground that the complaint fails to state a cause of action,
the question submitted to the court for resolution involves the sufficiency of the facts
alleged in the complaint itself. No other matter should be considered. The Court finds the
petitioner’s introductory affirmative allegations, as well as specific averments under
the subheading Cause of Action, to be adequate enough to show, prima facie, the
claimed violation of their rights. They may this be granted, wholly or partly, the reliefs
prayed for. However, that insofar as the cancellation of the TLAs is concerned, there is
the need to implead, as party defendants, the grantees thereof for they are indispensable
parties.

Petition Granted. Order of Respondent Judge set aside. The petitioners may therefore
amend their complaint to implead as defendants the holders or grantees of the questioned
timber license agreements. No pronouncement as to costs.

You might also like