Natural and Environmental Laws; Constitutional Law: Intergenerational Responsibility

OPOSA v. FACTORAN

GR No. 101083; July 30 1993 ISSUE: WON the petitioner-minors have a cause
of action in filing a class suit to prevent the
misappropriation or impairment of Philippine
FACTS: rainforests?

A taxpayers class suit was filed by minors Juan HELD: Yes.

Antonio Oposa, et al., representing their
generation and generations yet unborn, and RATION DECIDENDI:
represented by their parents against Fulgencio
Factoran Jr., Secretary of DENR. Petitioner-minors assert that they represent
their generation as well as generations to come.
They prayed that judgment be rendered
ordering the defendant, his agents, The Supreme Court ruled that they can, for
representatives and other persons acting in his themselves, for others of their generation, and
behalf to: for the succeeding generation, file a class suit.

1. Cancel all existing Timber Licensing
Agreements (TLA) in the country;
2. Cease and desist from receiving,
accepting, processing, renewing, or appraising
new TLAs;
Their personality to sue in behalf of succeeding
generations is based on the concept of
intergenerational responsibility insofar as the
right to a balanced and healthful ecology is
concerned.

and granting the plaintiffs such other reliefs Such a right considers the rhythm and
just and equitable under the premises. They harmony of nature which
alleged that they have a clear and constitutional indispensably include, inter alia, the
right to a balanced and healthful ecology and judicious disposition, utilization,
are entitled to protection by the State in its management, renewal and
capacity as parens patriae. conservation of the countrys forest,
mineral, land, waters, fisheries, wildlife,
Furthermore, they claim that the act of the offshore areas and other natural
defendant in allowing TLA holders to cut and resources to the end that their
deforest the remaining forests constitutes a exploration, development, and
misappropriation and/or impairment of the utilization be equitably accessible to the
natural resources property he holds in trust for present as well as the future
the benefit of the plaintiff minors and generations.
succeeding generations.
Needless to say, every generation has a
The defendant filed a motion to dismiss the responsibility to the next to preserve that
complaint on the following grounds: rhythm and harmony for the full enjoyment of a
balanced and healthful ecology.
1. Plaintiffs have no cause of action
against him; Put a little differently, the minors
2. The issues raised by the plaintiffs is assertion of their right to a sound
a political question which properly pertains to environment constitutes at the same
the legislative or executive branches of the time, the performance of their
government.
Natural and Environmental Laws; Constitutional Law: Intergenerational Responsibility
obligation to ensure the protection of
that right for the generations to come.
OPOSA v. FACTORAN
Facts
This case is unique in that it is a class suit
brought by 44 children, through their parents,
claiming that they bring the case in the name of
their generation as well as those generations
yet unborn. Aiming to stop deforestation, it
was filed against the Secretary of the
Department of Environment and Natural
Resources, seeking to have him cancel all the
timber license agreements (TLAs) in the country
and to cease and desist from accepting and
approving more timber license agreements. The
children invoked their right to a balanced and
healthful ecology and to protection by the State
in its capacity as parens patriae. The petitioners
claimed that the DENR Secretary's refusal to
cancel the TLAs and to stop issuing them was
"contrary to the highest law of humankind-- the
natural law-- and violative of plaintiffs' right to
self-preservation and perpetuation." The case
was dismissed in the lower court, invoking the
law on non-impairment of contracts, so it was
brought to the Supreme Court on certiorari.
Issue
Did the children have the legal standing to file
the case?
Ruling
Yes. The Supreme Court in granting the petition
ruled that the children had the legal standing to
file the case based on the concept of
intergenerational responsibility. Their right to
a healthy environment carried with it an
obligation to preserve that environment for the
succeeding generations. In this, the Court
recognized legal standing to sue on behalf of
future generations. Also, the Court said, the law
on non-impairment of contracts must give way
to the exercise of the police power of the state
in the interest of public welfare.
Relevance
The case of Oposa vs. Factoran has been widely
cited worldwide for its concept of
intergenerational responsibility, particularly in
cases related to ecology and the environment.
For example:
Oposa vs. Factoran's concept of
"intergenerational responsibility" was
cited in a case in Bangladesh.[1]
The United Nations Environmental
Programme (UNEP) considers Oposa vs.
Factoran a landmark case in judicial
thinking for environmental
governance.[2]
In the book Public Health Law and
Ethics by Larry O. Gostin, Oposa vs.
Factoran is cited as a significant
example of the justiciability of the right
to health. [3]
In the book The Law of Energy for
Sustainable Development by the IUCN
Academy of Environmental Law
Research Studies, a study cites Oposa
vs. Factoran as basis for asserting that
the right to breathe is part of the right
to life as an acknowledged human
right.[4]
Oposa et al. v. Fulgencio S. Factoran, Jr. et al
(G.R. No. 101083)
Natural and Environmental Laws; Constitutional Law: Intergenerational Responsibility

Nature of the case generation and for succeeding generations as

Class action seeking the cancellation and non-
issuance of timber licence agreements which
allegedly infringed the constitutional right to a
balanced and healthful ecology (Section 16);
non-impairment of contracts; Environmental
law; judicial review and the political question
doctrine; inter-generational responsibility;
Remedial law: cause of action and standing;
Directive principles; Negative obligation on
State
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.
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.
Significance of the case
This case has been widely-cited in jurisprudence
worldwide, particularly in cases relating to
forest/timber licensing. However, the approach
of the Philippino Supreme Court to economic,
social and cultural rights has proved somewhat
inconsistent, with some judgments resulting in
the enforcement of such rights (e.g., Del Rosario
v Bangzon, 180 SCRA 521 (1989); Manila Prince
Hotel v Government Service Insurance System,
G. R. No. 122156 (3 February, 1997) but at least
one instance in which the Court made a
statement that economic, social and cultural
rights are not real rights (see, Brigido Simon v
Commission on Human Rights, G. R. No. 100150,
5 January 1994).

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 suit both for others of their