∆ Oposa vs.

Factoran

Syllabus: The concept of Intergenerational Responsibility

(a) The concept of intergenerational responsibility recognizes “the rhythm and harmony of
nature” which inescapably required the “management, renewal and conservation” of natural
capital, and imposed on each generation a responsibility to preserve nature for succeeding
generations. This means that the right to a balanced and sound environment constitutes, at the
same time, the performance of their obligation to ensure the protection of that right for generations
to come.
(b) The right to a balanced and healthful ecology (Article II, Section 16) concerns nothing less
than self-preservation and self-perpetuation, the advancement of which may even be said to
predate all governments and constitutions. It need not even be written in the Constitution for they
are assumed to exist from the inception of humankind. It imposes upon the state a solemn
obligation to preserve first and protect and advance the second.
(c) The right to healthful environment necessarily carries with it the correlative duty of not
impairing the environment and, therefore, sanctions may be provided for impairment of
environmental balance.
(d) A denial or violation of that right by the other who has the corelative duty or obligation to
respect or protect the same gives rise to a cause of action.

Issue: Whether petitioners have a cause of action.

Facts:
Herein petitioners filed before the RTC a civil action against herein respondent Factoran, then
Secretary of DENR, for granting timber license agreements (TLAs) to various corporations. Such
TLAs have, according to the petitioners, adverse effects and is detrimental and violative of their right
to a balanced and healthful ecology (Art. II, Section 16 of the Constitution) The respondent Judge
granted the petition of the respondent to dismiss the case, and further contend that impairment of
contracts (alleging that TLAs are contracts) must be done with the due process of the law.

Ruling:
Yes. 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. Such a right belongs to a different category of rights altogether
for it concerns nothing less than self-preservation and self-perpetuation- the advancement of which
may even be said to predate all governments and constitutions. It need not even be written in the
Constitution for they are assumed to exist from the inception of humankind.

The right to a balanced and healthful ecology carries with it the correlative duty to refrain from
impairing the environment. Respondent’s correlative obligation speaks of the “responsibilities of each
generation as trustee and guardian of the environment for succeeding generations”. Hence, a denial or
violation of that right by the other who has the corelative duty or obligation to respect or protect the
same gives rise to a cause of action.

Futher, it must be emphasized that the political question doctrine is no longer, the insurmountable
obstacle to the exercise of judicial power or the impenetrable shield that protects executive and
legislative actions from judicial inquiry or review.

Lastly, TLAs are no contract, property or a property right protected by the due process clause. Even
assuming that such are contract, the non-impairment clause must still yield to the police power of the
state, when general interest so requires.