Oposa vs. Factoran Case Digest (G.R. No. 101083, July 30, conservation of the country's forests.
39;s forests. Section 4 of E.O. 192
1993)
FACTS:
The plaintiffs in this case are all minors duly represented and
joined by their parents. The first complaint was filed as a
taxpayer's class suit at the Branch 66 (Makati, Metro Manila),
of the Regional Trial Court, National capital Judicial Region
against defendant (respondent) Secretary of the Department
of Environment and Natural Reasources (DENR). Plaintiffs
alleged that they are entitled to the full benefit, use and
enjoyment of the natural resource treasure that is the
country's virgin tropical forests. They further asseverate that
they represent their generation as well as generations yet
unborn and asserted that continued deforestation have
caused a distortion and disturbance of the ecological balance
and have resulted in a host of environmental tragedies.  the same gives rise to a cause of action. Petitioners maintain
Plaintiffs prayed that judgement be rendered ordering the
respondent, his agents, representatives and other persons
acting in his behalf to cancel all existing Timber License
Agreement (TLA) in the country and to cease and desist from
receiving, accepting, processing, renewing or approving new
TLAs.  Court finds it to be adequate enough to show, prima facie,
Defendant, on the other hand, filed a motion to dismiss on
the ground that the complaint had no cause of action against
him and that it raises a political question.
The RTC Judge sustained the motion to dismiss, further ruling
that granting of the relief prayed for would result in the
impairment of contracts which is prohibited by the
Constitution.
Plaintiffs (petitioners) thus filed the instant special civil action
for certiorari and asked the court to rescind and set aside the
dismissal order on the ground that the respondent RTC Judge
gravely abused his discretion in dismissing the action.
ISSUES:
(1) Whether or not the plaintiffs have a cause of action.
(2) Whether or not the complaint raises a political issue.
(3) Whether or not the original prayer of the plaintiffs result
in the impairment of contracts.
RULING:
First Issue: Cause of Action.
Respondents aver that the petitioners failed to allege in their
complaint a specific legal right violated by the respondent
Secretary for which any relief is provided by law. The Court
did not agree with this. The complaint focuses on one
fundamental legal right -- the right to a balanced and
healthful ecology which is incorporated in Section 16 Article II
of the Constitution. The said right carries with it the duty to
refrain from impairing the environment and implies, among
many other things, the judicious management and
expressly mandates the DENR to be the primary government
agency responsible for the governing and supervising the
exploration, utilization, development and conservation of the
country's natural resources. The policy declaration of E.O. 192
is also substantially re-stated in Title XIV Book IV of the
Administrative Code of 1987. Both E.O. 192 and
Administrative Code of 1987 have set the objectives which
will serve as the bases for policy formation, and have defined
the powers and functions of the DENR. Thus, right of the
petitioners (and all those they represent) to a balanced and
healthful ecology is as clear as DENR's duty to protect and
advance the said right.
A denial or violation of that right by the other who has the
correlative duty or obligation to respect or protect or respect
that the granting of the TLA, which they claim was done with
grave abuse of discretion, violated their right to a balance and
healthful ecology. Hence, the full protection thereof requires
that no further TLAs should be renewed or granted.
After careful examination of the petitioners' complaint, the
the claimed violation of their rights.
Second Issue: Political Issue.
Second paragraph, Section 1 of Article VIII of the constitution
provides for the expanded jurisdiction vested upon the
Supreme Court. It allows the Court to rule upon even on the
wisdom of the decision of the Executive and Legislature and
to declare their acts as invalid for lack or excess of jurisdiction
because it is tainted with grave abuse of discretion.
Third Issue: Violation of the non-impairment clause.
The Court held that the Timber License Agreement is an
instrument by which the state regulates the utilization and
disposition of forest resources to the end that public welfare
is promoted. It is not a contract within the purview of the due
process clause thus, the non-impairment clause cannot be
invoked. It can be validly withdraw whenever dictated by
public interest or public welfare as in this case. The granting
of license does not create irrevocable rights, neither is it
property or property rights. 
Moreover, the constitutional guaranty of non-impairment of
obligations of contract is limit by the exercise by the police
power of the State, in the interest of public health, safety,
moral and general welfare. In short, the non-impairment
clause must yield to the police power of the State.
The instant petition, being impressed with merit, is hereby
GRANTED and the RTC decision is SET ASIDE.
OPOSA vs. FACTORAN
G.R. No. 101083. July 30, 1993. Oposa vs Factoran

FACTS:  Natural and Environmental Laws; Constitutional Law:

The petitioners, all minors, sought the help of the Supreme
Court to order the respondent, then Secretary of DENR, to
cancel all existing Timber License Agreement (TLA) in the
country and to cease and desist from receiving, accepting,
processing, renewing or approving new TLAs. They alleged
that the massive commercial logging in the country is causing
vast abuses on rain-forest.They further asserted that the
rights of their generation and the rights of the generations
yet unborn to a balanced and healthful ecology. 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. This notwithstanding,
they expressed their intention to present expert witnesses as
well as documentary, photographic and film evidence in the
course of the trial.  2.
Intergenerational Responsibility
GR No. 101083; July 30 1993
FACTS:
A taxpayer’s class suit was filed by minors Juan Antonio
Oposa, et al., representing their generation and generations
yet unborn, and represented by their parents against
Fulgencio Factoran Jr., Secretary of DENR. They prayed that
judgment be rendered ordering the defendant, his agents,
representatives and other persons acting in his behalf to:
1. Cancel all existing Timber Licensing Agreements
(TLA) in the country;
Cease and desist from receiving, accepting,
processing, renewing, or appraising new TLAs;

ISSUE: and granting the plaintiffs “such other reliefs just and
Whether or not the petitioners have a locus standi.  equitable under the premises.” They alleged that they have a
clear and constitutional right to a balanced and healthful
ecology and are entitled to protection by the State in its
HELD:  capacity as parens patriae. Furthermore, they claim that the
The SC decided in the affirmative. Locus standi means the act of the defendant in allowing TLA holders to cut and
right of the litigant to act or to be heard.Under Section 16, deforest the remaining forests constitutes a misappropriation
Article II of the 1987 constitution, it states that: The state and/or impairment of the natural resources property he holds
shall protect and advance the right of the people to a in trust for the benefit of the plaintiff minors and succeeding
balanced and healthful ecology in accord with the rhythm and generations.
harmony of nature. Petitioners, minors assert that they
represent their generation as well as generation yet unborn. The defendant filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on the
We find no difficulty in ruling that they can, for themselves, following grounds:
for others of their generation and for the succeeding
generations, file a class suit. Their personality to sue in behalf 1. Plaintiffs have no cause of action against him;
of the succeeding generations can only be based on the
concept of intergenerational responsibility insofar as the right 2. The issues raised by the plaintiffs is a political
to a balanced and healthful ecology is concerned. Such a question which properly pertains to the legislative or
right, as hereinafter expounded considers the “rhythm and executive branches of the government.
harmony of nature”. Nature means the created world in its
entirety. Such rhythm and harmony indispensably include, ISSUE:
inter alia, the judicious disposition, utilization, management,
Do the petitioner-minors have a cause of action in filing a
renewal and conservation of the country’s forest, mineral,
class suit to “prevent the misappropriation or impairment of
land, waters fisheries, wildlife, off- shore areas and other
Philippine rainforests?”
natural resources to the end that their exploration,
development and utilization be equitably accessible to the
present as well as future generations. Needless to say, every HELD:
generation has a responsibility to the next to preserve that
Yes. Petitioner-minors assert that they represent their
rhythm and harmony for the full enjoyment of a balanced and
generation as well as generations to come. The Supreme
healthful ecology. Put a little differently, the minor’s assertion
Court ruled that they can, for themselves, for others of their
of their right to a sound environment constitutes, at the same
generation, and for the succeeding generation, file a class
time, the performance of their obligation to ensure the
suit. Their personality to sue in behalf of succeeding
protection of that right for the generations to come. This
generations is based on the concept of intergenerational
landmark case has been ruled as a class suit because the
responsibility insofar as the right to a balanced and healthful
subject matter of the complaint is of common and general
ecology is concerned. Such a right considers the “rhythm and
interest, not just for several but for ALL CITIZENS OF THE
harmony of nature” which indispensably include, inter alia,
PHILIPPINES.
the judicious disposition, utilization, management, renewal
and conservation of the country’s forest, mineral, land,
waters, fisheries, wildlife, offshore areas and other natural
resources to the end that their exploration, development, and
utilization be equitably accessible to the present as well as
the future generations.
Needless to say, every generation has a responsibility to the
next to preserve that rhythm and harmony for the full
enjoyment of a balanced and healthful ecology. Put a little
differently, the minor’s 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.
_________________________________________________
Oposa et al. v. Fulgencio S. Factoran, Jr. et al (G.R. No.
101083)
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
Date of the Ruling:  economic, social and cultural rights are not real rights
Jul 30 1993
Forum:  100150, 5 January 1994).
Supreme Court of the Philippines
Type of Forum: 
Domestic
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.
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.”
Keywords: Oposa et al. v. Fulgencio S. Factoran, Jr. et al (G.R.
No. 101083), Environmental, Right
Groups involved in the case: 
Lead counsel and representative of the plaintiffs: Antonio
Oposa, Suite 6-J Westgate Tower, Investment Drive, Madrigal
Business Park 1780 Ayala Alabang, Muntinlupa City,
Philippines
Tel: (632) 809 6122
Fax: (632) 809 3176
Email
More Information(link is external)
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
(see, Brigido Simon v Commission on Human Rights, G. R. No.
__________________________________________________

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