OPOSA VS THE HONORABLE FULGENCIO S. FACTORAN, JR.

, in his capacity as the

In a broader sense, this 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." Specifically, it touches
on the issue of 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."

Facts:
 The petitioners were all minors suing through their parents, in a class suit,
representing their generation as well as generations yet unborn. .
 They asked the court to have the Sec. of Environment and Natural Resources cancel
the Timber License Agreements issued by him and to cease and desist from further
issuances, claiming that these would be violative of the right to self- preservation and
perpetuation.
 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.
 Respondent Judge issued an order granting the aforementioned motion to dismiss.
The respondent Judge sustained the contention of the defendants and 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.
 The respondents aver that the petitioners failed to allege in their complaint a specific
legal right violated by the respondent Secretary for which any relief is provided by
law. They see nothing in the complaint but vague and nebulous allegations
concerning an "environmental right" which supposedly entitles the petitioners to the
"protection by the state in its capacity as parens patriae."

ISSUE:
1. W/N PETITIONER MINORS HAVE LOCUS STANDI.
2. W/N petitioners fail failed to assert a specific legal right in their petition.
3. W/N the granting of the relief prayed for would result in the impairment of contracts
which is prohibited by the fundamental law of the land.

RULING:
1.) YES.

The SC ruled first that the petition is a class suit since the subject matter of the complaint
is of common and general interest not just to several, but to all citizens of the Philippines.
Consequently, the parties are so numerous, it, becomes impracticable, if not totally
impossible, to bring all of them before the court.

Secondly, the SC held that petitioner minors can, for themselves, for others of their
generation and for the succeeding generations, file a class suit. Their personality to sue
in behalf of the succeeding generations can only be based on the concept of
intergenerational responsibility insofar as the right to a balanced and healthful ecology
is concerned. Such a right, as hereinafter expounded, considers the "rhythm and
harmony of nature."  Needless to say, every generation has a responsibility to the next to
preserve that rhythm and harmony for the full enjoyment of a balanced and healthful
ecology. Put a little differently, the minors' assertion of their right to a sound environment
constitutes, at the same time, the performance of their obligation to ensure the protection
of that right for the generations to come.

2.) No.
The SC held that they do not agree with the trial court's conclusions that the plaintiffs
failed to allege with sufficient definiteness a specific legal right involved or a specific legal
wrong committed.

It ruled that the complaint focuses on one specific fundamental legal right — the right to a
balanced and healthful ecology which, for the first time in our nation's constitutional
history, is solemnly incorporated in the fundamental law. Section 16, Article II of the 1987
Constitution (see notes).

While the right to a balanced and healthful ecology is to be found under the Declaration
of Principles and State Policies and not under the Bill of Rights, it does not follow that it is
less important than any of the civil and political rights enumerated in the latter. Such a
right 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 —
the advancement of which may even be said to predate all governments and
constitutions. As a matter of fact, these basic rights need not even be written in the
Constitution for they are assumed to exist from the inception of humankind. Hence, the
right to a balanced and healthful ecology carries with it the correlative duty to refrain from
impairing the environment.

3. Still No! (Na hirit kapa) :(

The SC held that the respondent Secretary did not, for obvious reasons, even invoke in
his motion to dismiss the non-impairment clause. If he had done so, he would have acted
with utmost infidelity to the Government by providing undue and unwarranted benefits
and advantages to the timber license holders because he would have forever bound the
Government to strictly respect the said licenses according to their terms and conditions
regardless of changes in policy and the demands of public interest and welfare [see
notes #1 for Section 20 of the Forestry Reform Code (P.D. No. 705)].

Needless to say, all licenses may thus be revoked or rescinded by executive action.
It is not a contract, property or a property right protested by the due process
clause of the Constitution.

Since timber licenses are not contracts, the non-impairment clause, cannot be
invoked.

In the second place, even if it is to be assumed that the same are contracts, the instant
case does not involve a law or even an executive issuance declaring the cancellation or
modification of existing timber licenses. Hence, the non-impairment clause cannot as yet
be invoked. Nevertheless, granting further that a law has actually been passed
mandating cancellations or modifications, the same cannot still be stigmatized as
a violation of the non-impairment clause. This is because by its very nature and
purpose, such as law could have only been passed in the exercise of the police
power of the state for the purpose of advancing the right of the people to a
balanced and healthful ecology, promoting their health and enhancing the general
welfare

In short, the non-impairment clause must yield to the police power of the state. 

Notes:
1. Provided, That 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 
2. What is a Timber License Agreement?
In Tan vs. Director of Forestry,A timber license is an instrument by which the State
regulates the utilization and disposition of forest resources to the end that public welfare
is promoted. A timber license is not a contract within the purview of the due process
clause; it is only a license or privilege, which can be validly withdrawn whenever dictated
by public interest or public welfare as in this case.