A Case Digest in Oposa vs Factoran

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

Submitted by:
Via F. Maralit
BS-Crim IV- CHARLIE

Submitted to:
Atty. Zenen G. Caguimbal
Instructor
Oposa vs Factoran Case Digest

Natural and Environmental Laws; Constitutional Law; Intergenerational

Responsibility
(G.R No. 101083; July 30, 1993)

FACTS:

The plaintiffs in this case are all minors duly represented and joined by their
parents. The first complaint was filed as a taxpayer's class suit against defendant
(respondent) Secretary of the Department of Environment and Natural Reasources
(DENR). Plaintiffs alleged that they are entitled to the full benefit, use and enjoyment
of the natural resource treasure that is the country's virgin tropical forests. They
further asseverate that they represent their generation as well as generations yet
unborn and asserted that continued deforestation have caused a distortion and
disturbance of the ecological balance and have resulted in a host of environmental
tragedies. They prayed that judgment be rendered ordering the defendant, his
agents, representatives and other persons acting in his behalf to cancel all existing
Timber Licensing Agreements (TLA) in the country, cease and desist from receiving,
accepting, processing, renewing, or appraising new TLAs; and granting the plaintiffs
“such other reliefs just and equitable under the premises.” They alleged 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 parents patriae. Furthermore, they
claim that the act of the defendant in allowing TLA holders to cut and deforest the
remaining forests constitutes a misappropriation and/or impairment of the natural
resources property he holds in trust for the benefit of the plaintiff minors and
succeeding generations.

Issues:
Whether or not the petitioner- minors have a cause of action in filing a class
suit to “prevent the misappropriation or impair ment of Philippine rainforests”
considering that that they represent their generation as well as generations yet
unborn and considering further that the respondents contend that complaint had no
cause of action against him and that it raises a political question.

Held:
Yes. Petitioner-minors assert that they represent their generation as well as
generations to come. The Supreme Court ruled that they can, for themselves, for
others of their generation, and for the succeeding generation, file a class suit. Their
personality to sue in behalf of succeeding generations is based on the concept of
intergenerational responsibility insofar as the right to a balanced and healthful
ecology is concerned. Such a right considers the “rhythm and harmony of nature”
which indispensably include, inter alia, the judicious disposition, utilization,
management, renewal and conservation of the country’s forest, mine ral, land,
waters, fisheries, wildlife, offshore areas and other natural resources to the end that
their exploration, development, and utilization be equitably accessible to the present
as well as the future generations. Needless to say, every generation has a
responsibility to the next to preserve that rhythm and harmony for the full enjoyment
of a balanced and healthful ecology. Put a little differently, the minor’s 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 generation to come.
My Explanation about the case:

It is the case filed by minors against the secretary of the Department of

Environment and Natural Resources (DENR), Secretary Factoran, to mandate the
latter to cancel all existing timber license agreements and to stop their further
issuance.

The first question is whether or not these minors have legal standing to sue
by representing thier generation and the generation yer unborn. The Supreme Court
(SC) said yes, because this is based on the concept of intergenerational
responsibility in environmental law.

A subset of the first question is whether or not there is a valid class suit.
Again, the SC said yes because the petitioners are so numerous that it is impractible
to join all parties in the case. Also, the petitioners have a common and general
interest not just to several, but to all citizens of the Philippines. Finally, the number of
parties present is representative enough to ensure the full protection of all concerned
interest.

The second question is whether there is cause of action. Was there a right
violated? Secretary Factoran argued that there is none because the right to a
balanced and healthful ecology under the 1987 Constitution is under Article II and,
therefore, it is not a self- executing provision. It was argued that there is a need to
wait for an enabling law. According to the SC, there is a right violated; provisions on
the right to health and the right to balanced and healthful ecology are self-
executonhg and they can be the basis of an action in court.

The third question is whether judicial review can be invoked. It was argued by
Secretary Factoran that this is a matter of policy and, thus, it should be left to
Congress to enact a law that stops timber license agreements. He said that the
question is not ripe for the SC’s intervention. The SC said no; it is ripe for judicial
review. The court invoked the expanded power of judicial review under Article VIII of
the Constitution in which the Judicial Branch can correct grave abuses of
discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.

The last question that was whether stopping timber license agreements would
impair the obligation of contracts and, hence, violate the Constitution. Said the SC,
no, because such are not contracts but licenses which give mere privileges that are
subject to the State’s power of regulation. Assuming without conceding that they are
contracts, they must will yield to the State’s police power.