Art. II, Sec. 16.

Right to a Balanced and

Healthful Ecology (inter-generational justice and
responsibility)
Oposa v. Factoran, Jr.
G.R. No. 101083. July 30, 1993.
SPECIAL CIVIL ACTION for certiorari of the
dismissal order of the RTC of Makati, Br. 66.
Facts:
Principal petitioners, all minors, are duly
represented by their parents in filing Civil
Case No. 90-777, which is a class suit,
before the RTC Branch 66 of Makati City
originally against Sec. Fulgeciano S.
Factoran, Jr. (former DENR Secretary).
Original respondent was subsequently
replaced by the current DENR Secretary
Angel C. Alcala upon order of the court.
Impleaded as an additional plaintiff is the
Philippine Ecological Network, Inc. (PENI).
The minors asseverate that they represent
their generation as well as generation yet
unborn. The civil case prays for judgment
to be rendered ordering defendant, his
agents, representatives and other persons
acting in his behalf to:
1. Cancel all existing timber license
agreements in the country;
2. Cease and desist from receiving,
accepting, processing, renewing or
approving new timber license
agreements.
Plaintiffs further assert that the adverse and
detrimental consequences of continued and
deforestation
are
so
capable
of
unquestionable demonstration that the
same may be submitted as a matter of
judicial notice.
As their cause of action, plaintiffs
specifically allege among other things that
they have a clear and constitutional right
to a balanced and healthful ecology and are
entitled to protection by the State in its
capacity as the parens patriae.
On June 22, 1990, the original defendant
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
the
Government.
On July 18, 1991, respondent Judge issued
an order granting the aforementioned
motion to dismiss.

Issues/Held & Ratio:

*1. Do petitioners have legal standing (locus
standi) by virtue of Section 15 and 16 of Article II
of the Constitution in filing the class suit?
Yes. The said provisions of the Constitution,
although found under the Declaration of
Principles and State Policies, confer enforceable
rights as it concerns nothing less than selfpreservation and self-perpetuation. The right
to a balanced and healthful ecology carries with
it the correlative duty to refrain from impairing
the environment. Moreover, 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.
The right of the petitioners is also as clear as the
DENRs dutyunder its mandate and by virtue
of its powers and functions under E.O. No. 192
and Administrative Code of 1987to protect
and advance the said right.
2. Does the issuance of the Timber License
Agreements (TLAs) violate the petitioners right
to a balanced and healthful ecology, and
therefore the same should be cancelled?
After a careful examination of the petitioners
complaint , the Court found the statements
under the introductory affirmative allegations,
as well as the specific averments under the sub
heading CAUSE OF ACTION, to be adequate
enough to show prima facie, the claimed

violation of their rights. The cancellation may

thus be granted, wholly or partly.
COURTS FINAL RULING:
WHEREFORE, being impressed with merit, the
instant Petition is hereby GRANTED, and the
challenged Order of Respondent Judge of July
18, 1991 dismissing Civil Case No. 90-777 is
hereby set aside. The petitioners may therefore
amend their complaint to implead as
defendants the holders or grantees of the
question TLAs.