Facts
No. 101083)
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.
Nature of the case
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.
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 generation and for
succeeding generations as 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).