Oposa vs. Factoran, Jr. Oposa vs. Factoran, Jr.

224 SCRA 782 July 1993 FACTS: Plaintiffs, who are minors represented by their parents, alleged that the then D ENR Secretary Fulgencio Factoran, Jr.s continued approval of the Timber License A greements (TLAs) to numerous commercial logging companies to cut and deforest th e remaining forests of the country will work great damage and injury to the plai ntiffs and their successors. Defendant, through the Office of the Solicitor Gene ral (OSG), avers that the plaintiffs failed to state a specific right violated b y the defendant and that the question of whether logging should be permitted in the country is a political question and cannot be tried in the Courts. The RTC o f Makati, Branch 66, granted defendants motion to dismiss. ISSUE: Whether or not the case at bar subject to the judicial power of the Court COURT RULING: Being impressed with merit, the Supreme Court granted the petition and set aside the Order of the RTC which dismissed the case. The case at bar is subject to judicial review by the Court. Justice Davide, Jr. precisely identified in his opinion the requisites for a case to be subjected fo r the judicial review by the Court. According to him, the subject matter of the complaint is of common interest, making this civil case a class suit and proving the existence of an actual controversy. He strengthens this conclusion by citin g in the decision Section 1, Article 7 of the 1987 Constitution. Although concurring in the result, Justice Feliciano penned his separate opinion s on a number of topics pointed by Justice Davide, Jr. in this Court decision. J ustice Feliciano said that the concept of the word class is too broad to cover the plaintiffs and their representatives alone, and that the Court may be deemed re cognizing anyones right to file action as against both the public administrative agency and the private entities of the sector involved in the case at bar, to wi t: Neither petitioners nor the Court has identified the particular provisions of the Philippine Environment Code which give rise to a specific legal right which pet itioners are seeking to enforce. Justice Feliciano further stated that the Court in the case at bar in effect mad e Sections 15 and 16 of Article 2 of the 1987 Constitution to be self-executing and judicially enforceable even in its present form, and that these implications are too large and far reaching in nature ever to be hinted in this instant case .