Oposa vs. Factoran Case Digest (G.R. No. 101083, July 30, conservation of the country's forests.

39;s forests. Section 4 of E.O. 192

1993) expressly mandates the DENR to be the primary government
FACTS: agency responsible for the governing and supervising the
exploration, utilization, development and conservation of the
The plaintiffs in this case are all minors duly represented and country's natural resources. The policy declaration of E.O. 192
joined by their parents. The first complaint was filed as a is also substantially re-stated in Title XIV Book IV of the
taxpayer's class suit at the Branch 66 (Makati, Metro Manila), Administrative Code of 1987. Both E.O. 192 and
of the Regional Trial Court, National capital Judicial Region Administrative Code of 1987 have set the objectives which
against defendant (respondent) Secretary of the Department will serve as the bases for policy formation, and have defined
of Environment and Natural Reasources (DENR). Plaintiffs the powers and functions of the DENR. Thus, right of the
alleged that they are entitled to the full benefit, use and petitioners (and all those they represent) to a balanced and
enjoyment of the natural resource treasure that is the healthful ecology is as clear as DENR's duty to protect and
country's virgin tropical forests. They further asseverate that advance the said right.
they represent their generation as well as generations yet
unborn and asserted that continued deforestation have A denial or violation of that right by the other who has the
caused a distortion and disturbance of the ecological balance correlative duty or obligation to respect or protect or respect
and have resulted in a host of environmental tragedies.  the same gives rise to a cause of action. Petitioners maintain
that the granting of the TLA, which they claim was done with
Plaintiffs prayed that judgement be rendered ordering the grave abuse of discretion, violated their right to a balance and
respondent, his agents, representatives and other persons healthful ecology. Hence, the full protection thereof requires
acting in his behalf to cancel all existing Timber License that no further TLAs should be renewed or granted.
Agreement (TLA) in the country and to cease and desist from
receiving, accepting, processing, renewing or approving new After careful examination of the petitioners' complaint, the
TLAs.  Court finds it to be adequate enough to show, prima facie,
the claimed violation of their rights.
Defendant, on the other hand, filed a motion to dismiss on
the ground that the complaint had no cause of action against
him and that it raises a political question. Second Issue: Political Issue.

The RTC Judge sustained the motion to dismiss, further ruling Second paragraph, Section 1 of Article VIII of the constitution
that granting of the relief prayed for would result in the provides for the expanded jurisdiction vested upon the
impairment of contracts which is prohibited by the Supreme Court. It allows the Court to rule upon even on the
Constitution. wisdom of the decision of the Executive and Legislature and
to declare their acts as invalid for lack or excess of jurisdiction
Plaintiffs (petitioners) thus filed the instant special civil action because it is tainted with grave abuse of discretion.
for certiorari and asked the court to rescind and set aside the
dismissal order on the ground that the respondent RTC Judge
gravely abused his discretion in dismissing the action. Third Issue: Violation of the non-impairment clause.

ISSUES: The Court held that the Timber License Agreement is an

instrument by which the state regulates the utilization and
(1) Whether or not the plaintiffs have a cause of action. disposition of forest resources to the end that public welfare
(2) Whether or not the complaint raises a political issue. is promoted. It is not a contract within the purview of the due
(3) Whether or not the original prayer of the plaintiffs result process clause thus, the non-impairment clause cannot be
in the impairment of contracts. invoked. It can be validly withdraw whenever dictated by
public interest or public welfare as in this case. The granting
RULING: of license does not create irrevocable rights, neither is it
property or property rights. 
First Issue: Cause of Action.
Moreover, the constitutional guaranty of non-impairment of
Respondents aver that the petitioners failed to allege in their obligations of contract is limit by the exercise by the police
complaint a specific legal right violated by the respondent power of the State, in the interest of public health, safety,
Secretary for which any relief is provided by law. The Court moral and general welfare. In short, the non-impairment
did not agree with this. The complaint focuses on one clause must yield to the police power of the State.
fundamental legal right -- the right to a balanced and
healthful ecology which is incorporated in Section 16 Article II The instant petition, being impressed with merit, is hereby
of the Constitution. The said right carries with it the duty to GRANTED and the RTC decision is SET ASIDE.
refrain from impairing the environment and implies, among
many other things, the judicious management and
OPOSA vs. FACTORAN
G.R. No. 101083. July 30, 1993. Oposa vs Factoran

FACTS:  Natural and Environmental Laws; Constitutional Law:

The petitioners, all minors, sought the help of the Supreme Intergenerational Responsibility
Court to order the respondent, then Secretary of DENR, to GR No. 101083; July 30 1993
cancel all existing Timber License Agreement (TLA) in the
country and to cease and desist from receiving, accepting,
FACTS:
processing, renewing or approving new TLAs. They alleged
that the massive commercial logging in the country is causing A taxpayer’s class suit was filed by minors Juan Antonio
vast abuses on rain-forest.They further asserted that the Oposa, et al., representing their generation and generations
rights of their generation and the rights of the generations yet unborn, and represented by their parents against
yet unborn to a balanced and healthful ecology. Plaintiffs Fulgencio Factoran Jr., Secretary of DENR. They prayed that
further assert that the adverse and detrimental consequences judgment be rendered ordering the defendant, his agents,
of continued and deforestation are so capable of representatives and other persons acting in his behalf to:
unquestionable demonstration that the same may be
submitted as a matter of judicial notice. This notwithstanding,
1. Cancel all existing Timber Licensing Agreements
they expressed their intention to present expert witnesses as
(TLA) in the country;
well as documentary, photographic and film evidence in the
course of the trial.  2. Cease and desist from receiving, accepting,
processing, renewing, or appraising new TLAs;

ISSUE: and granting the plaintiffs “such other reliefs just and
Whether or not the petitioners have a locus standi.  equitable under the premises.” They alleged that they have a
clear and constitutional right to a balanced and healthful
ecology and are entitled to protection by the State in its
HELD:  capacity as parens patriae. Furthermore, they claim that the
The SC decided in the affirmative. Locus standi means the act of the defendant in allowing TLA holders to cut and
right of the litigant to act or to be heard.Under Section 16, deforest the remaining forests constitutes a misappropriation
Article II of the 1987 constitution, it states that: The state and/or impairment of the natural resources property he holds
shall protect and advance the right of the people to a in trust for the benefit of the plaintiff minors and succeeding
balanced and healthful ecology in accord with the rhythm and generations.
harmony of nature. Petitioners, minors assert that they
represent their generation as well as generation yet unborn. The defendant filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on the
We find no difficulty in ruling that they can, for themselves, following grounds:
for others of their generation and for the succeeding
generations, file a class suit. Their personality to sue in behalf 1. Plaintiffs have no cause of action against him;
of the succeeding generations can only be based on the
concept of intergenerational responsibility insofar as the right 2. The issues raised by the plaintiffs is a political
to a balanced and healthful ecology is concerned. Such a question which properly pertains to the legislative or
right, as hereinafter expounded considers the “rhythm and executive branches of the government.
harmony of nature”. Nature means the created world in its
entirety. Such rhythm and harmony indispensably include, ISSUE:
inter alia, the judicious disposition, utilization, management,
Do the petitioner-minors have a cause of action in filing a
renewal and conservation of the country’s forest, mineral,
class suit to “prevent the misappropriation or impairment of
land, waters fisheries, wildlife, off- shore areas and other
Philippine rainforests?”
natural resources to the end that their exploration,
development and utilization be equitably accessible to the
present as well as future generations. Needless to say, every HELD:
generation has a responsibility to the next to preserve that
Yes. Petitioner-minors assert that they represent their
rhythm and harmony for the full enjoyment of a balanced and
generation as well as generations to come. The Supreme
healthful ecology. Put a little differently, the minor’s assertion
Court ruled that they can, for themselves, for others of their
of their right to a sound environment constitutes, at the same
generation, and for the succeeding generation, file a class
time, the performance of their obligation to ensure the
suit. Their personality to sue in behalf of succeeding
protection of that right for the generations to come. This
generations is based on the concept of intergenerational
landmark case has been ruled as a class suit because the
responsibility insofar as the right to a balanced and healthful
subject matter of the complaint is of common and general
ecology is concerned. Such a right considers the “rhythm and
interest, not just for several but for ALL CITIZENS OF THE
harmony of nature” which indispensably include, inter alia,
PHILIPPINES.
the judicious disposition, utilization, management, renewal suit both for others of their generation and for succeeding
and conservation of the country’s forest, mineral, land, generations as “the minors' assertion of their right to a sound
waters, fisheries, wildlife, offshore areas and other natural environment constitutes, at the same time, the performance
resources to the end that their exploration, development, and of their obligation to ensure the protection of that right for
utilization be equitably accessible to the present as well as the generations to come.”
the future generations.
Keywords: Oposa et al. v. Fulgencio S. Factoran, Jr. et al (G.R.
Needless to say, every generation has a responsibility to the No. 101083), Environmental, Right
next to preserve that rhythm and harmony for the full Groups involved in the case: 
enjoyment of a balanced and healthful ecology. Put a little Lead counsel and representative of the plaintiffs: Antonio
differently, the minor’s assertion of their right to a sound Oposa, Suite 6-J Westgate Tower, Investment Drive, Madrigal
environment constitutes at the same time, the performance Business Park 1780 Ayala Alabang, Muntinlupa City,
of their obligation to ensure the protection of that right for Philippines
the generations to come. Tel: (632) 809 6122
_________________________________________________ Fax: (632) 809 3176
Email
Oposa et al. v. Fulgencio S. Factoran, Jr. et al (G.R. No. More Information(link is external)
101083) Significance of the Case: 
This case has been widely-cited in jurisprudence worldwide,
particularly in cases relating to forest/timber licensing. 
Class action seeking the cancellation and non-issuance of However, the approach of the Philippino Supreme Court to
timber licence agreements which allegedly infringed the economic, social and cultural rights has proved somewhat
constitutional right to a balanced and healthful ecology inconsistent, with some judgments resulting in the
(Section 16); non-impairment of contracts; Environmental enforcement of such rights (e.g., Del Rosario v Bangzon, 180
law; judicial review and the political question doctrine; inter- SCRA 521 (1989); Manila Prince Hotel v Government Service
generational responsibility; Remedial law: cause of action and Insurance System, G. R. No. 122156 (3 February, 1997) but at
standing; Directive principles; Negative obligation on State least one instance  in which the Court made a statement that
Date of the Ruling:  economic, social and cultural rights are not real rights
Jul 30 1993 (see, Brigido Simon v Commission on Human Rights, G. R. No.
Forum:  100150, 5 January 1994).
Supreme Court of the Philippines __________________________________________________
Type of Forum: 
Domestic
Summary: 
An action was filed by several minors represented by their
parents against the Department of Environment and Natural
Resources to cancel existing timber license agreements in the
country and to stop issuance of new ones. It was claimed that
the resultant deforestation and damage to the environment
violated their constitutional rights to a balanced and healthful
ecology and to health (Sections 16 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