Oposa vs. Factoran

G.R. No.
101083 July 30, 1993

JUAN ANTONIO, ANNA ROSARIO and JOSE ALFONSO, all surnamed OPOSA, minors, and represented
by their parents ANTONIO and RIZALINA OPOSA et al.
Vs.
THE HONORABLE FULGENCIO S. FACTORAN, JR., in his capacity as the Secretary of the Department
of Environment and Natural Resources, and THE HONORABLE ERIBERTO U. ROSARIO, Presiding
Judge of the RTC, Makati, Branch 66, respondents.
Ponente: Davide Jr., J.
FACTS
This is a taxpayers' class suit against the former Department of Environment and Natural Resources
(DENR) Secretary, the Honorable Fulgencio S. Factoran, substituted by the new Secretary, the
Honorable Angel C. Alcala and the Honorable Eriberto U. Rosario, Presiding Judge of the RTC,
Makati, Branch 66. The petition 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 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 concerted action geared for the protection of
our environment and natural resources. The numerous petitioners assert that they represent their
generation as well as generations yet unborn and pray that the defendant, his agents,
representatives and other persons acting in his behalf cancel all existing timber license agreements
in the country and cease and desist from receiving, accepting, processing, renewing or approving
new timber license agreements. Deforestation has resulted in a host of environmental tragedies
which have been perpetuated by corporations that cut and deforest the remaining forests in the
country.

Public records reveal that the defendant's, predecessors have granted timber license agreements
('TLA's') to various corporations to cut the aggregate area of 3.89 million hectares for commercial
logging purposes. This act of defendant constitutes a misappropriation and/or impairment of the
natural resource property he holds in trust for the benefit of plaintiff minors and succeeding
generations. The plaintiffs filed a complaint with the RTC in Makati alleging that the defendant's
refusal to cancel the aforementioned TLA's is manifestly contrary to the public policy enunciated in
the Philippine Environmental Policy Petitioners also allege that the defendants refusal to cancel the
aforementioned TLAs is contradictory to the Constitutional policy of the State. Original defendant
Secretary Factoran, Jr., filed a Motion to Dismiss the complaint based on two (2) grounds, namely:
(1) the plaintiffs have no cause of action against him and (2) the issue raised by the plaintiffs is a
political question which properly pertains to the legislative or executive branches of Government.
On 18 July 1991, respondent Judge issued an order granting the aforementioned motion to dismiss.

In the said order, not only was the defendant's claim that the complaint states no cause of action
against him and that it raises a political question sustained, the respondent Judge further ruled
that the granting of the relief prayed for would result in the impairment of contracts which is
prohibited by the fundamental law of the land.

ISSUES
i. whether the said petitioners have a cause of action to "prevent the misappropriation or
impairment" of Philippine rainforests and "arrest the unabated hemorrhage of the country's vital
life support systems and continued rape of Mother Earth
ii. whether the respondent Judge gravely abused his discretion in dismissing the action
iii. whether the case at bar poses a political question and cannot therefore be addressed by the
judiciary

HELD/RATIIO

i. A denial or violation of that right by the other who has the correlative duty or obligation to respect
or protect the same gives rise to a cause of action. The right of the petitioners (and all those they
represent) to a balanced and healthful ecology is as clear as the DENR's duty under its mandate
and by virtue of its powers and functions under E.O. No. 192 and the Administrative Code of 1987
to protect and advance the said right. A cause of action is defined as an act or omission of one
party in violation of the legal right or rights of the other; and its essential elements are legal right of
the plaintiff, correlative obligation of the defendant, and act or omission of the defendant in
violation of said legal right. It is settled in this jurisdiction that in a motion to dismiss based on the
ground that the complaint fails to state a cause of action, the question submitted to the court for
resolution involves the sufficiency of the facts alleged in the complaint itself.

ii. YES. The trial court stated that to cancel the TLAs would amount to impairment of contracts but
according to Section 20 of the Forestry Reform Code (P.D. No. 705), when the national interest so
requires, the President may amend, modify, replace or rescind any contract, concession, permit,
licenses or any other form of privilege granted herein. This means that all licenses may be revoked
or rescinded by executive action. A license is merely a permit or privilege to do what otherwise
would be unlawful, and is not a contract between the authority, federal, state, or municipal,
granting it and the person to whom it is granted. Since timber licenses are not contracts, the non-
impairment clause cannot be invoked and it is the Courts duty to render judgment based on the
merits of the complaint.

iii. NO. Policy formulation or determination by the executive or legislative branches of Government is
not squarely put in issue. What is principally involved is the enforcement of a right vis-a-vis policies
already formulated and expressed in legislation. It must, nonetheless, be emphasized that the
political question doctrine is no longer the insurmountable obstacle to the exercise of judicial power
or the impenetrable shield that protects executive and legislative actions from judicial inquiry or
review.

Oposa vs. Factoran

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Oposa vs. Factoran

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Oposa vs. Factoran

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

G.R. No.

101083 July 30, 1993

You might also like

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.