Oposa v.

Factoran

Petition is for the right of Filipinos to a

balanced and healthful ecology
Petitioners used the twin concepts of intergenerational responsibility and intergenerational justice
inter-generational responsibility- right of
the present generation to sue in its
behalf and the behalf of the succeeding
generations for the protection of the
environment
inter-generational justice
Also an issue is whether the petitioners
have a cause of action to prevent the
misappropriation
or
impairment
of
Philippine natural rainforests and "arrest the
unabated hemorrhage of the country's vital
life support systems and continued rape of
Mother Earth."
Petitioners are minors represented by their
parents also Philippine Ecological Network
Incorporated (PENI) domestic, non-stock,
non-profit corp engaged in protection of the
environment
Original defendant was DENR secretary
Factoran but now in this petition substituted
by the new secretary Alcala
Complaint was a tax suit plaintiffs are
citizens of the Philippines, tax payers and

entitled to the full benefit, use and

enjoyment of the forests
Petitioners said that they represent their
generation and the generation yet unborn
They wish to (1) cancel the issuance of TLA
(2) cease and desist from receiving,
accepting,
processing,
renewing
or
approving TLAs
Petitioners
started with stating that
Philippine natural resources are unique and
irreplaceable and that there are negative
effects of overexploiting it.
Negative effects
1. water shortages
2. salinization of water table
3. massive erosion
4. endangering and extinction of flora
and fauna
5. disturbance
and
dislocation
of
communities
6. drought
7. typhoon
8. siltation
9. decrease of CO2 processing
Cause of action
1. Negative effects
2. 25 years ago
= 16 M hectares are
rainforests
1987 = 1.2 M hectares are rainforests
3. 850K hectares of virgin rainforests left

4. TLAs to various corporations have lead to

aggregation
of
3.9M
hectares
of
rainforests for commercial logging
5. Rate of deforestation = lack of rainforests
w/in a decade
6. Irreparable damage to plaintiffs and
successors
7. Clear and constitutional right to a
balanced and healthful ecology and are
entitled to protection by the State in its
capacity as parens patriae
parens patriae government protector of
the state
8. Defendant failed to cancel TLAs even if
there is a final demand to do so
9. This failure is a violation to plaintiffs
rights
10. Also
a
violation
of
Philippine
Environmental Policy
a. to create, develop, maintain and
improve conditions under which man
and nature can thrive in productive
and enjoyable harmony with each
other
b. to fulfill the social, economic and
other requirements of present and
future generations of Filipinos and
c. to ensure the attainment of an
environmental
quality
that
is
conductive to a life of

dignity and well being. (P.D. 1151, 6

June 1977)
11. Unconstitional because:
a. Sec 1, Article 12 make full and
efficient use of natural resources
b. Sec 2, Article 12 protection of the
nations marine wealth
c. Sec 14, Article 14 conserve and
promote the nations cultural heritage
and resources
d. Sec 16, Article 2 protect and
advance the right of the people to a
balanced and healthful ecology
factoran dismissed the case due to (1) no
cause of action against him (2) political
question
respondent judge dismissed, thus petition
for certiorari
Respondent say that petitioners lack in a
legal right that was violated by them, vague
environmental right, and protection by the
state as parens patriae is no cause of action
logging should be permitted in the
country political question
cancellation of TLAs is not possible
LOCUS STANDI
Civil case was a class suit complaint is
of the interest of all citizens of the
Philippines

Special and novel element of the case

they represent their generation and the
generation yet unborn
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. Such right
considers rhythm and harmony of
nature
Nature means the created world in its
entirety and such rhythm and harmony
indispensably
include
judicious
disposition,
utilization,
management,
renewal and conservation of natural
resources so that it will still be accessible
to this generation and the future.
It is their obligation to ensure the
protection of the right for the generations
to come.
MERITS OF THE CASE
Court
agrees
w/
the
defendant,
petitioners fail to allege a specific right
they are trying to protect
Vague assumptions and conclusions
Political question
Cannot cancel TLAs = impairment of
contracts

SC does not agree with the ruling

they have a specific legal right that they
are trying to protect
one specific fundamental legal right
right to a balanced and healthful ecology
which Section 16 and 15 Art 2 of the
constitution
Sec 16 the state shall protect and
advance the right of the people to a
balanced and healthful ecology in accord
with the rhythm and harmony of nature
Sec 15 the state shall protect and
promote the right to health of the people
and instill health and consciousness
among them
while the right to a balanced and
healthful ecology is found to be under Art
2, Declaration of Principles and State
Policies and not under the Bill of Rights, it
does not follow that it is less important
than any of the civil and political rights
enumerated in the Art 3.
It belongs to a different category of rights
altogether for it concerns nothing less
than
self-preservation
and
selfperpetuation
Advancement of which may even be said
to
predate
all
governments
and
constitutions

 These basic rights need not even be

written in the constitution, they are
assumed to exist from inception of
humankind
If they are mentioned in Art 2, it is
because of the well-founded fear of its
framers that unless the rights to a
balanced and healthful ecology and to
health are mandated as state policies by
the constitution itself = highlighting their
continuing importance and imposing
upon the state a solemn obligation to
preserve the first and protect and
advance the second
The day would not be too far when all
else would be lost not only for the
present generation but the coming
generations which stand to inherit
nothing but parched earth incapable of
sustaining life
Debate: Does this section mandate the
State to provide sanctions against all
forms of pollution? Yes. The right to
healthful environment necessarily carries
with it the correlative duty of not
impairing the same and therefore
sanctions
may
be
provided
for
impairment of environmental balance =
implies judicious management and
conservation of the countrys forests; w/o

forests the ecological balance would be

disrupted
President Cory Aquino promulgated EO
192; Sec 4 expressly mandates the DENR
to be the primary govt agency
responsible
for
the
conservation,
management and development of natural
resources; Sec 3 and Sec 1 declaration of
policy; Sec 2 mandate
EO and AC 1987 defined the powers and
functions of DENR
Even before the ratification of 1987
constitution specific statutes already paid
special attention to the environmental
right of the present and future
generations
Clear DENR duty: right to a balanced and
healthful ecology to protect
Denial of that right gives right to a cause
of action = an act or omission of one
party in violation of a legal right or rights
of the other and its essential elements
are (1) legal right of plaintiff (2)
correlative obligation of the defendant
(3) violation of the defendant in the said
right
So may cause of action, may legal
standing, ang question nalang is
admitting such facts to be true, may the
court render a valid judgment in

accordance with the prayer of the

complainant?
Cause of action enough as violation of
their rights
This is under judicial review because
judicial power includes the duty of the
courts of justice to settle actual
controversies involving rights which are
legally
demandable
(check)
and
enforceable and to determine whether or
not there has been a grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction on the part of any branch or
instrumentality
of
the
government
(check)
IMPAIRMENT OF OBLIGATION OF CONTRACTS
no this isnt true, SC was shocked, the
fact that respondents argue this means
that the govt will strictly respect the
licenses according to their terms and

conditions regardless of changes in policy

and demands in public interest
Sec 20 of Forestry Reform Code provides
that if the national interest so requires,
the president may amend or modify,
replace or rescind any contract
All licenses may be revoked by an
executive action
TL- instrument by which the state
regulates the utilization and disposition
of forest resource to the end that public
welfare is promoted, not a contract w/in
the purview of the due process clause, it
is only a privilege that can be withdrawn
when dictated by public interest
Thus, non-impairment clause cannot be
invoked and it should yield to the police
power of the state
Petition granted