Scribd
Upload
18 views1 page

Department of Environment and Natural Resources: Oposa v. Factoran

44 children filed a class action lawsuit through their parents to stop deforestation by canceling all timber license agreements in the country. They argued they had a right to a balanced ecology as representatives of current and future generations. The lower court dismissed the case based on non-impairment of contracts, but the Supreme Court ruled the children had legal standing, establishing the concept of intergenerational responsibility to preserve the environment for future generations. The Court recognized their right to sue on behalf of the unborn.

Uploaded by

Jacob Dalisay
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
18 views1 page

Department of Environment and Natural Resources: Oposa v. Factoran

44 children filed a class action lawsuit through their parents to stop deforestation by canceling all timber license agreements in the country. They argued they had a right to a balanced ecology as representatives of current and future generations. The lower court dismissed the case based on non-impairment of contracts, but the Supreme Court ruled the children had legal standing, establishing the concept of intergenerational responsibility to preserve the environment for future generations. The Court recognized their right to sue on behalf of the unborn.

Uploaded by

Jacob Dalisay
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

Oposa v.

Factoran:
This case is unique in that it is a class suit brought by 44 children, through their parents, claiming that
they bring the case in the name of their generation as well as those generations yet unborn.

Aiming to stop deforestation, it was filed against the Secretary of the Department of Environment and
Natural Resources, seeking to have him cancel all the timber license agreements (TLAs) in the country
and to cease and desist from accepting and approving more timber license agreements.

The children invoked their right to a balanced and healthful ecology and to protection by the State in its
capacity as parens patriae.

The petitioners claimed that the DENR Secretary's refusal to cancel the TLAs and to stop issuing them
was "contrary to the highest law of humankind-- the natural law-- and violative of plaintiffs' right to self-
preservation and perpetuation." The case was dismissed in the lower court, invoking the law on non-
impairment of contracts, so it was brought to the Supreme Court on certiorari.

Issue: Did the children have the legal standing to file the case?

Held: Yes
The Supreme Court in granting the petition ruled that the children had the legal standing to file
the case based on the concept of intergenerational responsibility.
Their right to a healthy environment carried with it an obligation to preserve that environment
for the succeeding generations.
In this, the Court recognized legal standing to sue on behalf of future generations.
Also, the Court said, the law on non-impairment of contracts must give way to the exercise of
the police power of the state in the interest of public welfare.

You might also like