JUAN ANTONIO, ANNA ROSARIO and JOSE ALFONSO, all surnamed OPOSA, minors,

and represented by their parents ANTONIO and RIZALINA OPOSA, et. al. vs. FULGENCIO
S. FACTORAN, JR., in his capacity as the Secretary of the Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
- Additional plaintiff is the Philippine Ecological Network, Inc. (PENI), a domestic, non-stock and
non-profit corporation organized for the purpose of, inter alia, engaging in concerted action
geared for the protection of our environment and natural resources.
- The original defendant was the Honorable Fulgencio S. Factoran, Jr., then Secretary of the
Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR). His substitution in this petition by
the new Secretary, the Honorable Angel C. Alcala,

FACTS:
- Public records reveal that the respondent, Fulgencio Factoran Jr., then Secretary of the DENR,
granted timber license agreements ('TLA's') to various corporations to cut the aggregate area of
3.89 million hectares of rainforests for commercial logging purposes.
- TLA - an instrument by which the State regulates the utilization and disposition of forest
resources to the end that public welfare is promoted.
- Meanwhile, petitioners, Juan Antonio, Anna Rosario, and Jose Alfonso Oposa all minors duly
represented by their parents, Antonio and Rizalina Oposa. assert that in this petition, they
"represent their generation as well as generations yet unborn." and prays that a judgment be
rendered: to order the respondent, 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.
- The petitioners allege 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.
(where the State has the inherent right and duty to aid parents in the moral development of their
children, and, thus, assumes a supporting role for parents to fulfill their parental obligations.).
Furthermore, the respondent's continued refusal to cancel the TLA's is alleged to be
contradictory to the Constitutional right mentioned.
a. effect "a more equitable distribution of opportunities, income and wealth" and "make full and
efficient use of natural resources (sic)." (Section 1, Article XII of the Constitution);
b. "protect the nation's marine wealth." (Section 2, ibid);
c. "conserve and promote the nation's cultural heritage and resources (sic)" (Section 14, Article
XIV, id.);
d. "protect and advance the right of the people to a balanced and healthful ecology in accord
with the rhythm and harmony of nature." (Section 16, Article II, id.)
- After exhausting all administrative remedies with the respondent’s office, the petitioners served
upon the respondent a final demand to cancel all logging permits in the country to no avail.
- Petitionrs thereafter filed a civil case before Branch 66 (Makati, Metro Manila) of the Regional
Trial Court (RTC), National Capital Judicial Region.
- On 22 June 1990, the original defendant, As a response, Secretary Factoran, Jr., filed a Motion
to Dismiss the complaint based on two (2) grounds, namely:
(1) the petitioners have no cause of action against him
(2) the issue raised by the petitioners is a political question which properly pertains to the
legislative or executive branches of Government.
- On 18 July 1991, the RTC issued an order granting the aforementioned motion to dismiss.
(complaint states no cause of action against him and that it raises a political question)
- Petitioners thus filed the instant special civil action for certiorari. The parents of the petitioner-
minors not only represent their children, but have also joined them in this case.

ISSUE:
- Whether petitioners have a legal right under the Constitution to "prevent the misappropriation
or impairment" of Philippine rainforests?

RULING:
- Yes. Petitioners managed to allege with sufficient definiteness a specific legal right involved.
- Sec. 16 of Art. II of the 1987 Constitution. 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.
- Here, the complaint focuses on one specific fundamental legal right — the right to a balanced
and healthful ecology which, for the first time in the nation's constitutional history, is solemnly
incorporated in the fundamental law.
- While the right to a balanced and healthful ecology is to be found under 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 Article III.
- Further, the Supreme Court stressed that the right to a balanced and healthful ecology need
not even be written in the Constitution for they are assumed to exist from the inception of
humankind.
The explicit mention of such right in the Constitution is rooted from the well-founded fear of its
framers that if these are not mandated as state policies by the Constitution itself, the day would
not be too far when all else would be lost not only for the present generation, but also for those
generations to come.
- During the debates on this right in one of the plenary sessions of the 1986 Constitutional
Commission, an exchange transpired between Commissioner Wilfrido Villacorta and
Commissioner Adolfo Azcuna, who sponsored the section in question, which emphasized the
correlative duty to refrain from impairing the environment carried by the constitutional right to a
healthful environment.
- This petition also bears upon the right of Filipinos to a balanced and healthful ecology which
the petitioners dramatically associate with the twin concepts of "inter-generational responsibility"
and "inter-generational justice." – the legal standing and the right of the children to initiate the
action on their behalf and on behalf of generations yet unborn
- All these considered, the instant petition was granted by the Supreme Court.