Natural and Environmental Laws; Constitutional Law: Intergenerational Responsibility

OPOSA v. FACTORAN

GR No. 101083; July 30 1993 ISSUE: WON the petitioner-minors have a cause
of action in filing a class suit to prevent the
misappropriation or impairment of Philippine
FACTS: rainforests?

A taxpayers class suit was filed by minors Juan HELD: Yes.

Antonio Oposa, et al., representing their
generation and generations yet unborn, and RATION DECIDENDI:
represented by their parents against Fulgencio
Factoran Jr., Secretary of DENR. Petitioner-minors assert that they represent
their generation as well as generations to come.
They prayed that judgment be rendered
ordering the defendant, his agents, The Supreme Court ruled that they can, for
representatives and other persons acting in his themselves, for others of their generation, and
behalf to: for the succeeding generation, file a class suit.

1. Cancel all existing Timber Licensing Their personality to sue in behalf of succeeding
Agreements (TLA) in the country; generations is based on the concept of
2. Cease and desist from receiving, intergenerational responsibility insofar as the
accepting, processing, renewing, or appraising right to a balanced and healthful ecology is
new TLAs; concerned.

and granting the plaintiffs such other reliefs Such a right considers the rhythm and
just and equitable under the premises. They harmony of nature which
alleged that they have a clear and constitutional indispensably include, inter alia, the
right to a balanced and healthful ecology and judicious disposition, utilization,
are entitled to protection by the State in its management, renewal and
capacity as parens patriae. conservation of the countrys forest,
mineral, land, waters, fisheries, wildlife,
Furthermore, they claim that the act of the offshore areas and other natural
defendant in allowing TLA holders to cut and resources to the end that their
deforest the remaining forests constitutes a exploration, development, and
misappropriation and/or impairment of the utilization be equitably accessible to the
natural resources property he holds in trust for present as well as the future
the benefit of the plaintiff minors and generations.
succeeding generations.
Needless to say, every generation has a
The defendant filed a motion to dismiss the responsibility to the next to preserve that
complaint on the following grounds: rhythm and harmony for the full enjoyment of a
balanced and healthful ecology.
1. Plaintiffs have no cause of action
against him; Put a little differently, the minors
2. The issues raised by the plaintiffs is assertion of their right to a sound
a political question which properly pertains to environment constitutes at the same
the legislative or executive branches of the time, the performance of their
government.
Natural and Environmental Laws; Constitutional Law: Intergenerational Responsibility

obligation to ensure the protection of intergenerational responsibility. Their right to

that right for the generations to come. 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
OPOSA v. FACTORAN
on non-impairment of contracts must give way
Facts to the exercise of the police power of the state
in the interest of public welfare.
This case is unique in that it is a class suit
brought by 44 children, through their parents, Relevance
claiming that they bring the case in the name of
The case of Oposa vs. Factoran has been widely
their generation as well as those generations
cited worldwide for its concept of
yet unborn. Aiming to stop deforestation, it
intergenerational responsibility, particularly in
was filed against the Secretary of the
cases related to ecology and the environment.
Department of Environment and Natural
For example:
Resources, seeking to have him cancel all the
timber license agreements (TLAs) in the country
Oposa vs. Factoran's concept of
and to cease and desist from accepting and
"intergenerational responsibility" was
approving more timber license agreements. The cited in a case in Bangladesh.[1]
children invoked their right to a balanced and The United Nations Environmental
healthful ecology and to protection by the State Programme (UNEP) considers Oposa vs.
in its capacity as parens patriae. The petitioners Factoran a landmark case in judicial
claimed that the DENR Secretary's refusal to thinking for environmental
governance.[2]
cancel the TLAs and to stop issuing them was
In the book Public Health Law and
"contrary to the highest law of humankind-- the Ethics by Larry O. Gostin, Oposa vs.
natural law-- and violative of plaintiffs' right to Factoran is cited as a significant
self-preservation and perpetuation." The case example of the justiciability of the right
was dismissed in the lower court, invoking the to health. [3]
law on non-impairment of contracts, so it was In the book The Law of Energy for
brought to the Supreme Court on certiorari. Sustainable Development by the IUCN
Academy of Environmental Law
Research Studies, a study cites Oposa
Issue
vs. Factoran as basis for asserting that
the right to breathe is part of the right
Did the children have the legal standing to file to life as an acknowledged human
the case? right.[4]

Ruling Oposa et al. v. Fulgencio S. Factoran, Jr. et al

(G.R. No. 101083)
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
Natural and Environmental Laws; Constitutional Law: Intergenerational Responsibility

Nature of the case generation and for succeeding generations as

the minors' assertion of their right to a sound
Class action seeking the cancellation and non- environment constitutes, at the same time, the
issuance of timber licence agreements which performance of their obligation to ensure the
allegedly infringed the constitutional right to a protection of that right for the generations to
balanced and healthful ecology (Section 16); come.
non-impairment of contracts; Environmental
law; judicial review and the political question Significance of the case
doctrine; inter-generational responsibility;
Remedial law: cause of action and standing; This case has been widely-cited in jurisprudence
Directive principles; Negative obligation on worldwide, particularly in cases relating to
State forest/timber licensing. However, the approach
of the Philippino Supreme Court to economic,
Summary social and cultural rights has proved somewhat
inconsistent, with some judgments resulting in
An action was filed by several minors the enforcement of such rights (e.g., Del Rosario
represented by their parents against the v Bangzon, 180 SCRA 521 (1989); Manila Prince
Department of Environment and Natural Hotel v Government Service Insurance System,
Resources to cancel existing timber license G. R. No. 122156 (3 February, 1997) but at least
agreements in the country and to stop issuance one instance in which the Court made a
of new ones. It was claimed that the resultant statement that economic, social and cultural
deforestation and damage to the environment rights are not real rights (see, Brigido Simon v
violated their constitutional rights to a balanced Commission on Human Rights, G. R. No. 100150,
and healthful ecology and to health (Sections 16 5 January 1994).
and 15, Article II of the Constitution). The
petitioners asserted that they represented
others of their generation as well as
generations yet unborn.

Finding for the petitioners, the Court stated

that even though the right to a balanced and
healthful ecology is under the Declaration of
Principles and State Policies of the Constitution
and not under the Bill of Rights, it does not
follow that it is less important than any of the
rights enumerated in the latter: [it] concerns
nothing less than self-preservation and self-
perpetuation, the advancement of which may
even be said to predate all governments and
constitutions. The right is linked to the
constitutional right to health, is fundamental,
constitutionalised, self-executing and
judicially enforceable. It imposes the
correlative duty to refrain from impairing the
environment.

The court stated that the petitioners were able

to file a class suit both for others of their