The case was brought by 44 children through their parents against the Secretary of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources to stop deforestation by canceling all timber license agreements in the country. The children claimed their right to a balanced ecology and protection by the state. While the lower court dismissed the case based on non-impairment of contracts, the Supreme Court ruled that the children had legal standing to file the case based on their intergenerational responsibility to preserve the environment for future generations. The Court recognized standing to sue on behalf of future generations and said non-impairment of contracts must give way to public welfare.
The case was brought by 44 children through their parents against the Secretary of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources to stop deforestation by canceling all timber license agreements in the country. The children claimed their right to a balanced ecology and protection by the state. While the lower court dismissed the case based on non-impairment of contracts, the Supreme Court ruled that the children had legal standing to file the case based on their intergenerational responsibility to preserve the environment for future generations. The Court recognized standing to sue on behalf of future generations and said non-impairment of contracts must give way to public welfare.
The case was brought by 44 children through their parents against the Secretary of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources to stop deforestation by canceling all timber license agreements in the country. The children claimed their right to a balanced ecology and protection by the state. While the lower court dismissed the case based on non-impairment of contracts, the Supreme Court ruled that the children had legal standing to file the case based on their intergenerational responsibility to preserve the environment for future generations. The Court recognized standing to sue on behalf of future generations and said non-impairment of contracts must give way to public welfare.
The case was brought by 44 children through their parents against the Secretary of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources to stop deforestation by canceling all timber license agreements in the country. The children claimed their right to a balanced ecology and protection by the state. While the lower court dismissed the case based on non-impairment of contracts, the Supreme Court ruled that the children had legal standing to file the case based on their intergenerational responsibility to preserve the environment for future generations. The Court recognized standing to sue on behalf of future generations and said non-impairment of contracts must give way to public welfare.
Copyright:
Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
Download as pdf or txt
You are on page 1/ 2
Oposa et al. v. Fulgencio S. Factoran, Jr. et al (G.R.No.
101083) FactsThis case is unique in that it is a class suit brought by 44children, through their parents, claiming that they bring the case in the name of their generation as well as those generations yet unborn. Aiming to stopdeforestation, it was filed against the Secretary of the Department, seeking to have him cancel all the timber license agreements (TLAs) in the country and to cease and desist from accepting and approvingmore timber license agreements. The children invoked their right to a balanced and healthful ecology andto protection by the State in its capacity as parens patriae. The petitioners claimed that the DENRSecretary's refusal to cancel the TLAs and to stop issuing them was "contrary to the highest law of humankind-- the natural law and violative of plaintiffs' right to self-preservation and perpetuation." Thecase was dismissed in the lower court, invoking the law on non-impairment of contracts, so it was broughtto theSupreme Courton certiorari.IssueWhether or not the children have the legal standing to file the case.RulingYes. The Supreme Court in granting the petition ruled that the children had the legal standing to file the case based on the concept of intergenerational responsibility. Their right to a healthy environment
carried with it an obligation to preserve that environment for the succeeding generations. In this, the Courtrecognized legal standing to sue on behalf of future generations. Also, the Court said, the law on nonimpairment of contracts must give way to the exercise of the police power of the state in the interest of public welfare
