Oposa v. Factoran G.R. No.

101083

Date of Promulgation: July 30, 1993 Ponente: Davide,

Jr., J.
Petition: special civil action for certiorari
Petitioner/s: all minor duly represented and joined by respective parents. Minors further
assert that they represent their generation and the generation not yet born.
Respondent/s: original defendant is Fulgencio Factoran, then Secretary of DENR; his sub
in the current petition was then Secretary Angel C. Alcala

Facts:
Petitioners brought issue to court that timber license agreements violated their right to a
balanced and healthful ecology as stated in Sect 16 Article II of the Constitution. -focused
on twin concepts of "inter-generational responsibility" and "inter-generational justice"

In original case they filed petition for:

1) cancellation of all existing timber license agreements in the country
2) cease and desist from receiving, accepting, processing, renewing or approving new timber
license agreements

Petitioners claim for cause of action includes:

-To ensure this generation and the next its right to a balanced and healthful ecology
-Defendant fails and refuses to cancel existing TLAs causing serious damage to plaintiffs
-Continued failure to cancel violates Sect 16, Article II rights and brings damage to general
public.

Respondents replied that:

1) plaintiffs have no cause of action against him
2 )issue raised by the plaintiffs is a political question which properly pertains to the legislative
or executive branches

July 18, 1991 Judge issued an order granting motion to dismiss, favoring with respondent,
also adding that canceling contracts would result in impairment of contracts, which is
prohibited by the fundamental law of the land.

Plaintiffs then filed the instant special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Revised
Rules of Court and ask SC to rescind and set aside dismissal order on the ground that the
Judge gravely abused his discretion in dismissing the action.

Issues:

1) Whether cause of action (violation of right to balanced and healthful ecology) is adequate –
YES
2) Whether non-impairment of contracts clause prevents Court from authorizing cancellation of
TLAs contracts – NO

Ratio:

1) It is stated explicitly that citizens have said rights and that defendant can be seen impinging
on these rights

Prepared by Erson Villangca (1E)

 -Also EO 192, creating the DENR as the primary government agency responsible for
environment
-> as such based on the Administrative Code of 1987 Title XIV, Book IV Section 1,
"State shall ensure, for the benefit of the Filipino people, the full exploration and utilization...
consistent with the necessity of maintaining a sound ecological balance.
-The fact that policies to protect environment is already expressed in legislation ceases the
question to be purely political, allowing judicial power to protect established law.

2) When it is within public interest all licenses can be revoked by executive action
-Also TLAs are not contracts, the non-impairment clause does not apply
-Public interest shall always be prioritized over private interests/rights

OPINION:
Concur: Cruz, Padilla, Bidin, Grino-Aquino, Regalado, Romero, Nocon, Bellosillo, Melo, and
Quiason
Separate Opinion: Feliciano, J

Prepared by Erson Villangca (1E)