Oposa v.

Factoran
Facts
Petitioners
Minors joined and represented by their parents; Phil. Ecological Network Inc. (PENI)
Respondents
Fulgencio Factoran Jr (Former DENR Sec); Angel Alcala (New DENR Sec)

Proceedings in the lower court (RTC 66, Makati)
The original complaint was filed as a taxpayers class suit. The complaint alleged that the plaintiffs are citizens who are entitled to the use and enjoyment of the virgin
rainforests of the Philippines. The petitioners also claimed that they represented their generation as well as the generation yet unborn. The petitioners further
sought the (1) cancellation of all timber license agreements (TLAs) and the (2) prevention of the renewal or approval of new TLAs.

Petitioners arguments
In order to maintain a balanced and healthful ecology, the utilization of the Philippines land area should be 54% for forest cover and 46% for agricultural, residential,
industrial, commercial, and other uses. However, deforestation has distorted this balance which further resulted into several environmental tragedies. As their cause
of action, the petitioners allege the following:

1. From 16 million hec. of rainforests, recent surveys have shown that this has been reduced to 850,000 hec. The rate of deforestation is at 20,000 hectares a year. If
this continues, the Philippines will be bereft of rainforests by the end of the decade.
2. Previous DENR Secretaries granted TLAs to cut 3.98 million hec. for commercial purposes. These TLAs constitute misappropriation of the natural resource property
that the DENR Sec holds in trust for future generations.
3. In its capacity as parens patriae (parent of the country), the State must ensure the right to a healthful and balanced ecology. As such, granting TLAs violates this
right and will work great damage and injury to the plaintiffs as well as the generation yet unborn.
4. The DENRs refusal to cancel existing TLAs is contrary to Phil. Environmental Policy (1), constitutional policy (2), and natural law (3).

Dismissal
Secretary Factoran filed a Motion to Dismiss on the grounds that the complaint presents no cause of action (1) and that the issue it raised is a political question (2).
The petitioners countered in their Opposition that there is a clear cause of action (1), that the motion is dilatory (2), and that there is a justiciable question (3)
involving the DENRs abuse of discretion. The RTC granted the dismissal on both grounds as well as the added justification that if the reliefs prayed for were granted;
it would result in the impairment of contracts which is unconstitutional.

Proceedings in the Supreme Court
Petitioners arguments
1. The complaint states a cause of action because it contains allegations concerning their right to a sound environment based on: Art. 19, 20, 21 of the Civil Code, Sec
4 of EO 192 creating the DENR, PD 1151 (Philippine Environmental Policy), Sec 16, Art II of the 1987 Constitution, Concept of generation genocide in Criminal Law,
Mans right to self-preservation based on natural law, and DENRs obligation to safeguard the right to a healthy environment.
2. The petitioners also argue that granting TLAs to cover more areas for logging than what is available constitutes grave abuse of discretion.
3. The non-impairment clause does not apply because TLAs are not contracts. These may be revoked if public interest requires it.

Respondents arguments
1. The petitioners failed to allege that a specific legal right was violated by the DENR Sec for which any relief can be provided by law. Their allegations of an
environmental right which entitles them to state protection does not show a valid cause of action.
2. The question of whether logging should be permitted is a political question that should be addressed to the executive or legislature. The proper remedy is to lobby
in Congress in order to have logging banned.
3. TLAs cannot be cancelled without due process of law such as a hearing on violations regarding the TLAs, etc.

Issue Holding Ratio
Whether or not the complaint
qualifies as a class suit
Yes The subject matter of the complaint is of common and general interest to all Filipinos. The petitioners are
representative enough to ensure the full protection of all concerned interests.
Whether or not the petitioners
have legal standing
Yes Based on the concept of intergenerational responsibility regarding the right to a balanced and healthful ecology, the
petitioners can file a class suit on behalf of their generation and generations yet unborn. Every generation must
preserve the rhythm and harmony of nature for the next generation.
Whether or not the petitioners
have a cause of action to prevent
the misappropriation or
impairment of Philippine
rainforests
Yes 1. The complaint focuses on a legal right the right to a balanced and healthful ecology (Sec 16, Art II) and the right
to health (Sec 15, Art II). Though it is not included in the Bill of Rights, it is still an important right belonging to a
different category of rights involving self-preservation/perpetuation. This is a basic right that need not be written
in the Constitution, but due to the fear of the framers, it was mandated as state policy, imposing on the State a
duty to preserve it. Even prior to the ratification of the 1987 Constitution, this environmental right was recognized
in PD 1151 (Phil. Environmental Policy) and PD 1152 (Phil. Environmental Code). Moreover, EO 192 provides for
the development, management of natural resources for present and future generations.

The DENR has the correlative duty to respect this environmental right. Its violation gives rise to a cause of action.
Thus, since there is a cause of action, the petitioners are entitled to the reliefs prayed for, but the grantees of TLAs
must be impleaded first before further proceedings can occur.

2. The case at bar is not a political question since it entails the enforcement of a right vis--vis policies already
formulated in legislation. Actual policy formation or determination is not the issue at hand. The Court may
exercise its judicial review powers to determine whether a grave abuse of discretion has been committed.

3. A timber license does not fall under the purview of the due process clause because it is only a permit which may
be revoked if public interest requires it. It does not create property rights. Since there has been no executive
issuance declaring the cancellation of TLAs, the non-impairment clause cannot be invoked. Moreover, the state
can use its police power to advance the rights of the people if such a law or executive issuance was promulgated.