oposa v factoran case

8/12/2019 Oposa v Factoran Case

1/5

OPOSA VS. FACTORANG.R. No. 1010183, July 30, 1993

FACTS:The principal petitioners are all minors duly represented and joined by their respective parents.Impleaded as an 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 concertedaction geared for the protection of our environment and natural resources. Theoriginal defendant was the Honorable Fulgencio S. Factoran, Jr., then Secretary of the Departmentof Environment and Natural Resources (DENR).The complaint was instituted as a taxpayers' class suit and alleges that the plaintiffs are alcitizens of the Republic of the Philippines, taxpayers, and entitled to the full benefit, use andenjoyment of thenatural resource treasure that is the country's virgin tropical forests. Thisinstant petition was filed to seek for the cancelation of all existing timber licenseagreements (TLAs) in the country and to cease and desist from receiving, accepting, processing,renewing or approving new timber license agreements.Minor petitioners contend that continued granting of timber license constitutesa misappropriation or impairment of the natural resourceproperty and violates their constitutionaright to a balanced and healthful ecology (Art. II, Sec. 16, 1987 Constitution) and the protection bythe State in its capacity as parens patriae. Petitioners likewise rely on the respondent's correlativeobligation per Section 4 of E.O. No. 192, to safeguard the people's right to a healthful environment.


2/5

ISSUES:1. Whether or not the petitioners have locus standi.2. Whether or not the petitioners failed to allege in their complaint a specific legal right violated bythe respondent Secretary for which any relief is provided by law.HELD:1. The Court finds no difficulty in ruling that they can file a class suit because they represent theirgeneration as well as generations yet unborn. Their personality to sue in behalf of the succeedinggenerations can only be based on the concept of intergenerational responsibility insofar as theright to a balanced and healthful ecology is concerned. Such a right, as hereinafter expounded,considers the rhythm and harmony of nature. Nature means the created world in its entirety.Such rhythm and harmony indispensably include, inter alia, the judicious disposition, utilization,management, renewal and conservation of the country's forest, mineral, land, waters, fisheries,wildlife, off-shore areas and other natural resources to the end that their exploration, developmentand utilization be equitably accessible to the present as well as future generations. Everygeneration has a responsibility to the next to preserve that rhythm and harmony for the fullenjoyment of a balanced and healthful ecology. Put a little differently, the minors' assertion of theirright to a sound environment constitutes, at the same time, the performance of their obligation toensure the protection of that right for the generations to come.2. The Court does not agree with the trial court's conclusions that the plaintiffs failed to allege withsufficient definiteness a specific legal right involved or a specific legal wrong committed, and thatthe complaint is replete with vague assumptions and conclusions based on unverified data.


3/5

The complaint focuses on one specific fundamental legal right the right to a balanced andhealthful ecology which, for the first time in our nation's constitutional history, is solemnlyincorporated in thefundamental law (Section 16, Article II of the 1987 Constitution).While the right to a balanced and healthful ecology is to be found underthe Declaration of Principles and State Policies and not underthe Bill of Rights, it does not followthat it is less important than any of the civil and political rights enumerated in the latter. Such aright belongs to a different category of rights altogether for it concerns nothing less than self-preservation and self-perpetuation aptly and fittingly stressed by the petitioners theadvancement of which may even be said to predate all governments and constitutions.The right to a balanced and healthful ecology carries with it the correlative duty to refrain fromimpairing the environment. EO 192 and Admin Code of 1987 define the powers and functions ofDENR, under whose authority and office the complaint falls The petitioners right to a balancedand healthful ecology is as clear as DENRs duty to protect and advance the said right Thepetitioners personality to sue in behalf of their own as well as the future generations behalf canonly be based on the concept of intergenerational esponsibility insofar as the said right isconcerned.

Oposa vs. Factoran, G.R. 101083Fact:a cause of action to prevent the misappropriation or impairment of Philippine rainforests and arrestthe unabated hemorrhage of the country's vital life support systems and continued rape of MotherEarth.


4/5

The complaint2 was instituted as a taxpayers' class suit 3 and alleges that the plaintiffs are all citizensof the Republic of the Philippines, taxpayers, and entitled to the full benefit, use and enjoyment of thenatural resource treasure that is the country's virgin tropical forests. The same was filed forthemselves and others who are equally concerned about the preservation of said resource but are sonumerous that it is impracticable to bring them all before the Court. The minors further asseverate thatthey represent their generation as well as generations yet unborn. 4Consequently, it is prayed for thatjudgment be rendered:1] Cancel all existing timber license agreements in the country;2] Cease and desist from receiving, accepting, processing, renewing or approving new timber licenseagreements.Plaintiffs further assert that the adverse and detrimental consequences of continued and deforestationare so capable of unquestionable demonstration that the same may be submitted as a matter of judicialnotice.

Issue: Whether or not petitioners have a cause of action?HELD: YESpetitioners have a cause of action. The case at bar is of common interest to all Filipinos. The right to abalanced and healthy ecology carries with it the correlative duty to refrain from impairing theenvironment The said right implies the judicious management of the countrys forests This right is alsothe mandate of the government through DENR. A denial or violation of that right by the other who hasthe correlative duty or obligation to respect or protect the same gives rise to a cause of action. Alllicenses may thus be revoked or rescinded by executive action.


5/5

The right to a balanced and healthful ecology carries with it the correlative duty to refrain from impairingthe environment

oposa v factoran case

Documents