CASE NO.

05
Oposa v. Factoran, Jr.
G.R. No. 101083 July 30, 1993

Facts:

This case, G.R. No. 101083, was filed by Juan Antonio, Anna Rosario, and Jose
Alfonso Oposa, minors represented by their parents Antonio and Rizalina Oposa,
along with several other minors and the Philippine Ecological Network, Inc., as
petitioners. They filed a complaint against Fulgencio S. Factoran, Jr., in his capacity
as the Secretary of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources, and
Eriberto U. Rosario, the Presiding Judge of the RTC, Makati, Branch 66, as
respondents.

The complaint revolves around the right to a balanced and healthful ecology, which
is explicitly provided for in Section 16, Article II of the 1987 Constitution. The
petitioners argue that the granting of Timber License Agreements (TLAs) by the
Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) violates their right to a
balanced and healthful ecology. They claim that the TLAs were granted with grave
abuse of discretion and that no further TLAs should be renewed or granted.

Issue:

The main issue raised in this case is whether the granting of TLAs by the DENR
violates the petitioners' right to a balanced and healthful ecology.

Ruling:

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the petitioners. They held that the right to a
balanced and healthful ecology, although found under the Declaration of Principles
and State Policies and not under the Bill of Rights, is of utmost importance. The
Court emphasized that this right is essential for self-preservation and self-
perpetuation and is mandated as a state policy by the Constitution. The Court also
stated that the granting of TLAs is not a contract or property right protected by the
due process clause of the Constitution. TLAs can be revoked or rescinded by
executive action if dictated by public interest and the general welfare.

Ratio:

The Court based its ruling on the recognition of the right to a balanced and healthful
ecology as a fundamental right. Although not explicitly stated in the Bill of Rights,
the Court emphasized that this right is essential for the survival and well-being of
the Filipino people. The Court also highlighted that the right to a balanced and
healthful ecology is mandated as a state policy by the Constitution, indicating its
importance in the overall governance of the country.

The Court further explained that the granting of TLAs is not a contract or property
right protected by the due process clause of the Constitution. TLAs are merely
licenses granted by the government, and as such, they can be revoked or rescinded
by executive action if it is deemed necessary for the public interest and the general
welfare. The Court emphasized that the protection of the environment and the
preservation of the country's natural resources should take precedence over any
individual or corporate interest.
Summary:

In summary, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the petitioners, recognizing their
right to a balanced and healthful ecology as a fundamental right. The Court held that
the granting of TLAs by the DENR can be revoked or rescinded by executive action
if it is necessary for the public interest and the general welfare. The Court
emphasized the importance of protecting the environment and preserving the
country's natural resources for the well-being and survival of the Filipino people.