Oposa v. Factoran, Jr. (1993) Davide, Jr., J.
question which properly pertains to the legislative
Plaintiff: Juan Antonio, Anna Rosario, Jose Alfonso
Oposa, all minors and represented by their parents
Antonio and Rizalina, et al., Philippine Ecological
Network, Inc.
Respondent: Honorable Fulgencio Factoran in his
capacity as the Secretary of the Department of
Environment and Natural Resources, and the Honorable
Eriberto Rosario, presiding Judge of the RTC Makati
Concept: Standing to Challenge
Brief facts: Complaint was instituted as a taxpayers
class suit and alleged that the plaintiffs are all citizens
of the Philippines. The minors asservate that they
represent their generation as well as generations yet
unborn. They prayed Prayed for a judgment to be
rendered, cancelling all the timber license agreements
in the Philippines. They claim that they have a clear
and constitutional right to a balanced and healthful
ecology and are entitled to protection by the State in
its capacity as parens patriae. Secretary of DENR filed
a Motion to Dismiss, claiming that the complaint has no
cause of action. Judge Soriano granted. Petitioners filed
present petition for certiorari under Rule 65.
Doctrine: Petitioner minors assert that they
represent their generation as well as
generations yet unborn. The court finds no difficulty
in ruling that they can, for themselves, for others of
their generation and for the succeeding generations,
file a class suit. 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 healthy ecology is
concerned. Every generation has a responsibility to the
next to preserve the rhythm and harmony of nature for
the full enjoyment of a balanced and healthful ecology.
FACTS:
1. The controversy started in Civil Case No. 90-777
whereby the principal plaintiffs therein were minors
who were duly represented by their parents and
the defendants were Fulgencio Factoran as the
Secretary of DENR and Angel Alcala who
subsequently held the office.
o Complaint was instituted as a taxpayers
class suit and alleged that the plaintiffs are
all citizens of the Philippines. The minors
asservate that they represent their
generation as well as generations yet
unborn.
o Prayed for a judgment to be rendered,
cancelling all the timber license
agreements in the Philippines.
o They claim that they have a clear and
constitutional right to a balanced and
healthful ecology and are entitled to
protection by the State in its capacity as
parens patriae.
2. Secretary Factoran filed a Motion to Dismiss based
on the following grounds: (1) plaintiffs have no
cause of action; (2) the issue raised is a political
TIMELESS REVIEWERS B2017 | ADMINISTRATIVE LAW | DEAN SALVADOR CARLOTA |1
or executive branches.
3. Judge Rosario issued an order granting the Motion
to Dismiss. In said order, the Judge ruled that the
complaint states no cause of action and that it
raises a political question AND that the granting of
the reliefs would result in the impairment of
contracts.
4. Plaintiffs filed the instant special civil action for
certiorari under Rule 65.
5. Defendants allege:
o Plaintiffs fail to allege a specific legal right
violated by the Secretary for which any
relief is provided by law.
o The question of WON the logging should be
permitted in the country is a political
question. Their recourse is to lobby before
Congress for the passage of a bill that
would totally ban logging.
o The Timber License Agreements remain
effective for 25 years and it can neither be
revised nor cancelled unless the holder was
found to have violated its terms.
ISSUES:
1. WON plaintiffs have standing to file the instant
petition (YES)
2. WON their complaint states a cause of action (YES)
3. WON Judge Soriano committed grave abuse of
discretion in granting the Motion to Dismiss (YES)
4. WON it raises a political question (NO)
5. WON it violates the non-impairment of contracts
(NO)
RATIO:
1. The plaintiffs have standing to file the instant
petition.
- Civil Case No. 90-777 was instituted as a class suit.
Defendants did not raise this matter, but the court
ruled that it is a valid class suit for it has complied
with the requisites for it to be considered a class
suit namely:
o The subject matter of the complaint is of
common and general interest not just to
several, but to all citizens of the
Philippines.
o The parties are so numerous that it
becomes impracticable to bring all of them
before the court.
o Plaintiffs therein are numerous and
representative enough to ensure the full
protection of all concerned interests.
- Petitioner minors assert that they represent their
generation as well as generations yet
unborn. The court finds no difficulty in ruling that
they can, for themselves, for others of their
generation and for the succeeding generations, file
a class suit.
- 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 healthy ecology is concerned.
- Every generation has a responsibility to the next to
preserve the rhythm and harmony of nature for the
full enjoyment of a balanced and healthful ecology.
- 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 generations to come.
- Petitioners have locus standi (legal interest which a
plaintiff must have in the subject matter of the
suit).
2. The complaint of plaintiffs alleged a sufficient
and definite legal rightthe right to a balanced
and healthful ecology.
- The right to a balanced and healthful ecology is
incorporated in the Constitution, specifically Sec.
16, Art. II which is related to the right to health in
Sec. 15:
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
consciousness among them.
- While said right is found under the Declaration of
Principles and not the Bill of Rights, it doesnt
follow that it is less important than any of the civil
and political rights enumerated in the latter.
- It belongs to a different category for it concerns
nothing less than self-preservation and self-
perpetuation, the advancement of which may even
be said to predate all government and
constitutions.
- The right to a balanced and healthy ecology carries
with it the correlative duty to refrain from
impairing the environment. The right implies the
judicious management and conservation of the
countrys forests.
- Sec. 4 of EO 192 expressly mandates that the
DENR shall be the primary government agency
responsible for the conservation, management,
development and proper use of the countrys
environment and natural resources.
- Section 1, Title XIV, Book IV of the Administrative
Code: The State shall ensure, for the benefit of the
Filipino people with the necessity of protecting
and enhancing the quality of the environment and
the objective of making the exploration,
development and utilization of such resources
equitably accessible to different segments of the
present as well as future generations.
- There provisions stress the necessity of
maintaining a sound ecological balance and
protecting and enhancing the quality of the
environment.
- The right of the petitioners is as clear as
DENRs duty to protect and advance said
right.
- A denial or violation of that right by the other who
has a correlative duty or obligation to respect or
protect the same give rise to a cause of action.
TIMELESS REVIEWERS B2017 | ADMINISTRATIVE LAW | DEAN SALVADOR CARLOTA |2
- The petitioners claim that the granting of the
Timber License Agreements, violated their right to
a balanced and healthful ecology, hence full
protection thereof requires that no further TLAs
should be renewed or granted.
- Thus, the specific averments are adequate enough
to show, prima facie, the claimed violation of their
rights.
- Insofar as the cancellation of the TLAs is
concerned, there is the need to implead the
grantees thereof for they are indispensible parties.
3. Since the petitioners complaint sufficiently
states a cause of action, Judge Soriano
committed grave abuse of discretion in granted
the motion to dismiss the same.
4. What is principally involved is the
enforcement of a right vis--vis policies already
formulated and expressed in legislation.
Nonetheless, the political question doctrine is no
longer the insurmountable obstacle to the
exercise of judicial power.
- Sec. 1, Art VIII of the Constitution: "Judicial power
includes the duty of the courts of justice to settle
actual controversies involving rights which are
legally demandable 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."
5. All licenses may be revoked or rescinded by
executive action. It is not a contract, property or
a property right protected by the due process
clause of the Constitution. Hence, the policy of
non-impairment of contracts does not apply.
- Since TLAs arent contracts, the non-impairment
clause cannot be invoked.
- Even if it is to be assumed that they are contracts,
the instant case doesnt involve a law or even an
executive issuance declaring the cancellation or
modification of existing timber licences.
- Granting that a law has actually been passed, the
same cannot be stigmatized as a violation of the
non-impairment clause. This is because by its very
nature and purpose, such a law could have only
been passed in the exercise of the police power of
the state for the purpose of advancing the right of
the people to a balanced and healthful ecology,
promoting their health and enhancing the general
welfare.
- Finally, it is difficult to imagine, as the trial court
did, how the non-impairment clause could apply
with respect to the prayer to enjoin the respondent
Secretary from receiving, accepting, processing,
renewing or approving new timber licenses for,
save in cases of renewal , no contract would have
as of yet existed in the other instances. Moreover,
with respect to renewal, the holder is not entitled
to it as a matter of right.
DISPOSITIVE: Petition GRANTED.
Feliciano, J Concurring in result:
- The Court explicitly states that petitioners have the
locus standi necessary to sustain the bringing and
maintenance of this suit. Locus standi is not a
function of petitioners' claim that their suit is
properly regarded as a class suit . I understand
locus standi to refer to the legal interest which a
plaintiff must have in the subject matter of the suit.
Because of the very broadness of the concept of
"class" here involved membership in this "class"
appears to embrace everyone living in the country
whether now or in the future it appears to me
that everyone who may be expected to benefit
from the course of action petitioners seek to
require public respondents to take, is vested with
the necessary locus standi.
- The Court may be seen therefore to be recognizing
a beneficiaries' right of action in the field of
environmental protection, as against both the
public administrative agency directly concerned
and the private persons or entities operating in the
field or sector of activity involved.
- The Court has also declared that the complaint has
alleged and focused upon "one specific
fundamental legal right the right to a balanced
and healthful ecology. There is no question that
"the right to a balanced and healthful ecology" is
"fundamental" and that, accordingly, it has been
"constitutionalized." But although it is fundamental
in character, I suggest, with very great respect,
that it cannot be characterized as "specific,"
without doing excessive violence to language.
- It is in fact very difficult to fashion language more
comprehensive in scope and generalized in
character than a right to "a balanced and healthful
ecology.
- Two (2) points are worth making in this connection.
Firstly, neither petitioners nor the Court has
identified the particular provision of the Philippine
Environment Code which give rise to a specific
legal right which petitioners are seeking to enforce.
Secondly, the Philippine Environment Code
identifies with notable care the particular
government agency charged with the formulation
and implementation of guidelines and programs
dealing with each of the headings and sub-
headings mentioned above.
- The Philippine Environment Code does not, in other
words, appear to contemplate action on the part of
private persons who are beneficiaries of
implementation of that Code.
- As a matter of logic, by finding petitioners' cause of
action as anchored on a legal right comprised in
the constitutional statements above noted, the
Court is in effect saying that Section 15 (and
Section 16) of Article II of the Constitution are self-
executing and judicially enforceable even in their
present form.
- The implications of this doctrine will have to be
explored in future cases; those implications are too
large and far-reaching in nature even to be hinted
at here.
TIMELESS REVIEWERS B2017 | ADMINISTRATIVE LAW | DEAN SALVADOR CARLOTA |3
- My suggestion is simply that petitioners must,
before the trial court, show a more specific legal
right.
- It seems to me important that the legal right which
is an essential component of a cause of action be a
specific, operable legal right, rather than a
constitutional or statutory policy, for at least two
(2) reasons: One is that unless the legal right
claimed to have been violated or disregarded is
given specification in operational terms,
defendants may well be unable to defend
themselves intelligently and effectively; in other
words, there are due process dimensions to this
matter. The second is a broader-gauge
consideration where a specific violation of law or
applicable regulation is not alleged or proved,
petitioners can be expected to fall back on the
expanded conception of judicial power in the
second paragraph of Section 1 of Article VIII.
- I VOTE TO GRANT THE PETITION.
Joya v. Presidential Commission on Good Governance
(1993) Bellosillo, J.
Plaintiff: Dean Jose Joya, Carmen Guerrero Nakpil,
Armida Siguion Reyna, Prof Ricarte Puruganan, Irma
Potenciano, Adrian Cristobal, Ingrid Santamaria,
Corazon Fiel, Ambassador Aguilar Cruz, Florencio
Jacela, Mauro Malang, et al.
Respondent: Presidential Commission on Good
Governance, Catalino Macaraig Jr. in his official
capacity and/or Executive Secretary, and Chairman
Mateo Caparas
Concept: Standing to Challenge
Brief Facts: PCGG sought authorization from
President Aquino to sell 82 Old Master Paintings and
antique silverware which were confiscated from
Malacanang. Petitioners seek to enjoin the sale,
claiming that the public has a right to these items since
they belong to the public as national cultural treasures.
The sale pushed through but they seek the relaxation
of the rule on moot and academic cases. The court
denied their petition on the premise that they do not
have the legal standing to question the sale since they
are not the real parties-in-interest.
Doctrine: Legal standing means a personal and
substantial interest in the case such that the party has
sustained or will sustain direct injury as a result of the
governmental act that is being challenged. Having
failed to show that they are the legal owners of the
artworks or that the valued pieces have become
publicly owned, petitioners do not possess any clear
legal right whatsoever to question their disposition.
FACTS:
1. Mateo Caparas, then Chairman of PCGG, wrote
President Corazon Aquino, requesting her for
authority to sign the proposed Consignment
Agreement between the Philippines (through
PCGG) and Christie Manson and Woods
International, Inc. concerning the scheduled sale on
January 11, 1991 of 82 Old Masters Paintings
and antique silverware contained in 71
 cartons which were seized from Malacanang and
Metropolitan Museum of Manila. The items
scheduled for sale were alleged to be part of the ill-
gotten wealth of President Marcos.
2. On August 14, 1990, President Aquino, through
former Executive Secretary Macaraig, authorized
Chairman Caparas to sign the Consignment
Agreement
3. On August 15, 1990, PCGG signed the
Consignment Agreement with Christies of New
York.
4. On October 26, 1990, the Commission on Audit,
through Chairman Domingo, submitted to President
Aquino audit findings of COA on the Consignment
Agreement to the effect that:
o The authority of PCGG Chairman Caparas
to enter into the agreement was of
doubtful legality.
o The contract was highly disadvantageous
to the government.
o PCGG had a poor track record in asset
disposal by auction in the US.
o The assets subject of the auction were
historical relics and had cultural
significance, hence, their disposal was
prohibited by law.
5. New Chairman of PCGG, David Castro, wrote
President Aquino, defending the Consignment
Agreement and refuting the allegations of COA. The
Director of National Museum on the same date
issued a certification that the items didnt fall
within the classification
6. Petitioners, as Filipino taxpayers, concerned with
the preservation and protection of the countrys
wealth, file the instant petition for Prohibition and
Mandamus with Prayer for Preliminary Injunction
and Restraining Order, seeking to enjoin the PCGG
from proceeding with the sale.
o Court denied the preliminary injunction on
the ground that petitioners had not
presented a clear legal right to a
restraining order and that proper parties
had not been impleaded (in this case, the
Imelda and Ferdinand Marcos).
7. On January 11, 1991, the sale at public auction
proceeded as scheduled and the proceeds of $13,
302, 604.86.
ISSUES:
1. WON the petitioners have legal standing to file the
instant petition (NO)
2. WON the action fulfills the criteria for mandamus
(NO)
3. WON the petition can be allowed as a taxpayers suit
(NO)
4. WON the case falls under the exception to the rule
on moot and academic cases (NO)
5. WON the properties fall under the definition of either
important cultural properties or national cultural
treasures (NO)
RATIO:
TIMELESS REVIEWERS B2017 | ADMINISTRATIVE LAW | DEAN SALVADOR CARLOTA |4
1. The petitioners do not possess any clear legal
right to question the alleged unauthorized
disposition.
- Under Sec.2, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court, every
action must be prosecuted and defended in the
name of the real party-in-interest, and that all
persons having interest in the subject of the action
in obtaining the relief demanded shall be joined as
plaintiffs. The court will exercise its power of
judicial review only if the case is brought before it
by a party who has legal standing to raise the
constitutional or legal question.
- Legal standing means a personal and substantial
interest in the case such that the party has
sustained or will sustain direct injury as a result of
the governmental act that is being challenged.
- Interest is material interest, an interest in issue
and to be affected by the decree, as distinguished
from mere interest in the question involved, or a
mere incidental interest.
- The interest of the party must be personal and
not one based on a desire to vindicate the
constitutional right of some 3rd and unrelated party.
- There are instances when the court has allowed
exceptions to this rule, as when a citizen brings a
case for mandamus to procure the enforcement of
a public duty, and when a taxpayer questions the
validity of a governmental act authorizing the
disbursement of public funds,
- Petitioners claim that as Filipino citizens,
taxpayers, and artists deeply concerned with
the preservation and protection of the countrys
artistic wealth, they have the legal personality to
restrain respondents from acting contrary to their
public duty to conserve the artistic creations as
mandated by Art. XIV, Secs. 14-18 of the
Constitution and RA 4846 known as The Cultural
Properties Preservation and Protection Act.
- They also anchor their claim on the premise that
the paintings and silverware are public
properties collectively owned by them and by the
people in general to view and enjoy as great works
of art. They allege that PCGG deprived them of
their right to public property without due process.
- Their arguments are devoid of merit. They
themselves allege that the paintings were donated
by private persons from different parts of the world
to the Metropolitan Museum of Manila Foundation
which is a non-stock, non-profit corporation
established to promote Philippine arts. The
foundations chairman was Imelda Marcos while its
President was Bienvenido Tantoco.
- The ownership of these paintings legally belongs to
the foundation or the members thereof, although
the public has been given the opportunity to view
and appreciate these paintings when they were
placed on exhibit.
- The pieces of antique silverware were given to the
Marcos couple as gifts from friends and dignitaries
from foreign countries on their silver wedding
anniversary.
- The confiscation of these properties by the Aquino
administration shouldnt be understood to mean
 that the ownership of these paintings has
automatically passed on to the government
without complying with constitutional and statutory
requirements of due process and just
compensation.
- If these properties were already acquired by the
government, any constitutional defect and
subsequent disposition must be raised only by the
proper partiesthe true owners thereofwhose
authority to recover emanates from their
proprietary rights.
- Having failed to show that they are the legal
owners of the artworks or that the valued pieces
have become publicly owned, petitioners do not
possess any clear legal right whatsoever to
question their disposition.
2. A writ of mandamus may be issued to a citizen
only when the public right to be enforced and
the concomitant duty of the state are
unequivocally set forth in the Constitution.
- In this case, petitioners arent after the fulfillment
of a positive duty required of the respondents.
What they seek is the enjoinment of an official act
because it is constitutionally infirm. Also, they
claim for a continued enjoyment by the public of
the artworks which is at most a privilege and is
unenforceable as a constitutional right.
3. Not every action filed by a taxpayer can
qualify to challenge the legality of the official
acts done by the government. It can only prosper
when the governmental acts being questioned
involve the disbursement of public funds.
- Obviously, petitioners arent challenging any
expenditure of public funds but the disposition of
what they allege to be public properties.
TIMELESS REVIEWERS B2017 | ADMINISTRATIVE LAW | DEAN SALVADOR CARLOTA |5
4. The case is already moot and academic since
the sale has already pushed through.
- Petitioners claim that the novelty and importance
of the issues raised by them will establish future
guiding principles and doctrines on the
preservation of the nations priceless artistic and
cultural possessions for the benefit of the public as
a whole.
- There is no justification in the petition at bar to
warrant the relaxation of the rule that there must
be an actual case or controversy which involves a
conflict of legal rights.
5. The properties involved do not constitute
protected cultural properties and are not among
those listed in the Cultural Properties Register of
the National Museum.
- Important cultural properties are cultural properties
which have been singled out from among the
innumerable cultural properties as having
exceptional historical and cultural significance to
the Philippines but arent sufficiently outstanding
to merit the classification of national cultural
treasures.
- Natural cultural treasures possess outstanding
historical, cultural, artistic, and/or scientific value
which is highly significant and important to this
country and nation.
- The certification from the Director of national
Museum states that these properties do not belong
to the above-stated categories.
DISPOSITIVE: Petition DISMISSED