Oposa v. Factoran (296 Phil. 694, G.R. No.

101083, July 30, 1993) is a case

filed by minors against the Secretary of the Department of Environment and
Natural Resources (DENR), Secretary Factoran, to mandate the latter to cancel
all existing timber license agreements and to stop their further issuance.

The first question is whether or not these minors have legal standing to sue by
representing their generation and the generation yet unborn. The Supreme Court
(SC) said yes because this is based on the concept of intergenerational
responsibility in environmental law.

A subset of the first question is whether or not there is a valid class suit. Again,
the SC said yes because the petitioners are so numerous that it is impracticable to
join all parties in the case. Also, the petitioners have a common and general
interest not just to several, but to all citizens of the Philippines. Finally, the
number of parties present is representative enough to ensure the full protection
of all concerned interests.

The second question is whether there is cause of action. Was there a right
violated? Secretary Factoran argued that there is none because the right to a
balanced and healthful ecology under the 1987 Constitution is under Article II
and, therefore, it is not a self-executing provision. It was argued that there is a
need to wait for an enabling law. According to the SC, there is a right
violated; provisions on the right to health and the right to a balanced
and healthful ecology are self-executing and they can be the basis of
an action in court.

The third question is whether judicial review can be invoked. It was argued by
Secretary Factoran that this is a matter of policy and, thus, it should be left to
Congress to enact a law that stops timber license agreements. He said that the
question is not ripe for the SC's intervention. The SC said no; it is ripe for judicial
review. The Court invoked the expanded power of judicial review under Article
VIII of the Constitution in which the Judicial Branch can correct grave abuses of
discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.

The last question that was whether stopping timber license agreements would
impair the obligation of contracts and, hence, violate the Constitution. Said the
SC, no, because such are not contracts but licenses which give mere privileges
that are subject to the State's power of regulation. Assuming without conceding
that they are contracts, they must still yield to the State's police power.