Oposa vs.

Factoran

1 Facts:
2
3 The Complainants who are the petitioners in the case filed a petition for
Certiorari
4 before the Supreme Court because the respondent-judge committed a
grave abuse of
5 discretion in favouring the public respondent, DENR represented by Hon.
Factoran as
6 DENR Secretary.
7
8 There is no contest concerning the type of suit that the petitioners filed;
it was
9 acknowledged that the type of suit filed by the complainants is a class
suit. However
10 there was a clash when it comes to the merits of the case. According to
the petitioners,
11 there is a cause of action and that it involves a justiciable question. First,
the cause of
12 action alleged that Timber Licenses and Timber Licensing Agreements
promote further
13 degradation of the environment due to deforestation and destruction of
ecosystems.
14 This violated the rights of the present and generations yet unborn to a
balanced and
15 healthful ecology. Secondly, they believe that this involves a justiciable
question because
16 it questioned the application of the Constitution of and of other special
laws related to
17 logging.
18
19 Public respondent averred that there is no clear and unmistakeable
cause of action
20 and that the questions raised are political questions. For the public
respondent, the
21 proper venue where the issue must be settled is in the legislature. The
respondent –
22 judge agreed to the contentions of the public respondent and in addition,
opined that
23 revoking TLAs are violative of the non-impairment clause of the
Constitution.
24
25 Issues:
26
27 1) Do petitioners’ contentions have merit?
28 2) Is respondent-judge correct in his application of non-impairment
clause?
29
30 Ratio:
31
32 1) Yes, petitioners’ contentions have merit.
33
34 The Court started to tackle the Locus Standi of the Petitioners with the
case. The
35 Court extended the application of Locus Standi to the generations yet
unborn. Through
36 acknowledgement of legal standing, they are counted among those who
are entitled to
37 right of balanced and healthful ecology aside from those living in the
present. There is
38 no contest that the case is a class suit because the persons petitioners
represent are
39 so numerous that counting is no longer possible. In the case, what the
petitioners repre-
40 sent are all citizens of the Philippines who are of the present generation
and
41 generations yet unborn. This is in line with the principle of
intergenerational
42 accountability for environmental cases.
43
44 2) No, respondent judge is not correct in his application of the non-
impairment cause.
45 TLAs are not contract but are privileges which may be taken away by the
State at any
46 Moment. Contracts are governed by the Civil Code.