You are on page 1of 2

Oposa vs. Factoran, Jr. 224 SCRA 782, July 30 1993 (En Banc), J. Davide, Jr.

Facts: Principal petitioners, duly represented by their parents who later joined in the case, filed with the RTC of Makati, Branch 66, a complaint (Civil Case 90-777) to compel respondent Fulgencio Factoran, Jr., who was then the DENR secretary, to cancel all existing timber license agreements (TLA) in the country and to cease and desist from entertaining new TLAs. The petitioners alleged that the defendant acted with grave abuse of discretion in continuously allowing TLA holders to cut trees; thereby, deforesting the remaining forest of the country. Such act, according to the petitioners, was violative of the constitutional right of the present and future generation to a balanced and healthful ecology in accord with the rhythm and harmony of nature. The RTC dismissed the complaint upon the motion of the defendant on the grounds that: (1) the complaint states no cause of action against him and (2) it raises a political question, adding that the relief sought would result to impairing the contracts which the Constitution prohibits.

Issues: (1) Do the petitioners have a cause of action with regards to the complaint? (2) Does the complaint raise a political question?

Ruling: On the first issue: Yes, the petitioners have a cause of action. A denial or violation of one's right by the other who has the correlative duty or obligation to respect or protect the same gives rise to a cause of action. In the case at bar, what gave rise to the cause of action of the petitioners is the act of the defendant that violated the petitioners right, as well as the right of the future generation, to a balanced and healthful ecology which the defendant must protect, being his correlative duty. On the second issue: Yes, the complaint raises a political question but the Court emphasized that the political issue doctrine no longer impedes the Courts exercise of judicial power or shields legislative and executive functions from judicial inquiry or review, as long as the issue involves rights that are legally demandable and enforceable as provided by Article VIII, Sec. 1 of the Constitution. Hence, such political question arising from the issue does not preclude the Court from reviewing the defendants act.

Instant petition has been granted and the Order of the respondent Judge dismissing the complaint has been set aside. Furthermore, the Court suggested the petitioners to amend their complaint and implead the TLA holders, as defendants, as well.

You might also like