1. The petition was a class action suit brought by 44 children through their parents seeking to cancel all timber license agreements in the Philippines. They argued this was necessary to protect their constitutional right to a balanced and healthy ecology.
2. The Supreme Court ruled the children had legal standing to file the case based on the concept of "intergenerational responsibility". Their right to a healthy environment carried an obligation to preserve it for future generations. The Court recognized legal standing to sue on behalf of future generations.
3. The Court found the right to a balanced and healthy ecology, like civil and political rights, is essential to humankind. It includes responsible management of natural resources between generations. Each generation must preserve the environment for future
1. The petition was a class action suit brought by 44 children through their parents seeking to cancel all timber license agreements in the Philippines. They argued this was necessary to protect their constitutional right to a balanced and healthy ecology.
2. The Supreme Court ruled the children had legal standing to file the case based on the concept of "intergenerational responsibility". Their right to a healthy environment carried an obligation to preserve it for future generations. The Court recognized legal standing to sue on behalf of future generations.
3. The Court found the right to a balanced and healthy ecology, like civil and political rights, is essential to humankind. It includes responsible management of natural resources between generations. Each generation must preserve the environment for future
1. The petition was a class action suit brought by 44 children through their parents seeking to cancel all timber license agreements in the Philippines. They argued this was necessary to protect their constitutional right to a balanced and healthy ecology.
2. The Supreme Court ruled the children had legal standing to file the case based on the concept of "intergenerational responsibility". Their right to a healthy environment carried an obligation to preserve it for future generations. The Court recognized legal standing to sue on behalf of future generations.
3. The Court found the right to a balanced and healthy ecology, like civil and political rights, is essential to humankind. It includes responsible management of natural resources between generations. Each generation must preserve the environment for future
1. The petition was a class action suit brought by 44 children through their parents seeking to cancel all timber license agreements in the Philippines. They argued this was necessary to protect their constitutional right to a balanced and healthy ecology.
2. The Supreme Court ruled the children had legal standing to file the case based on the concept of "intergenerational responsibility". Their right to a healthy environment carried an obligation to preserve it for future generations. The Court recognized legal standing to sue on behalf of future generations.
3. The Court found the right to a balanced and healthy ecology, like civil and political rights, is essential to humankind. It includes responsible management of natural resources between generations. Each generation must preserve the environment for future
Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
Download as doc, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1/ 1
O
POSA VS FACTORAN Facts: This case is a class suit brought by 44 children, through their parents, claiming that they bring the case in the name of their generation as well as those generations yet unborn. It was filed against the Secretary of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources, seeking to have him cancel all the timber licence agreements (TLAs) in the country and to cease and desist from accepting and approving more timber licence agreements. The children invoked their right to a balanced and healthful ecology and to protection by the State in its capacity as parens patriae. The petitioners claimed that the DENR Secretary's refusal to cancel and to stop issuing TLAs was "contrary to the highest law of humankind-- the natural law-- and violative of plaintiffs' right to self-preservation and perpetuation." The Lower Court dismissed the case. Hence the instant petition. Issue Did the children have the legal standing to file the case? Ruling Yes. 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 Court recognized legal standing to sue on behalf of future generations. 1. a. The petition instituted is a class suit seeking the cancellation and non-issuance of timber licence agreements which allegedly infringed the constitutional right to a balanced and healthful ecology. The subject matter of the complaint is of common and general interest not just to several, but to all citizens of the Philippines . Petitioners minors assert that they represent their generation as well as generations yet unborn. The Court find 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 healthful ecology is concerned. b. The right to a balanced and healthful ecology , considers the "rhythm and harmony of nature." Nature means the created world in its entirety. Such rhythm and harmony indispensably include, inter alia, the judicious disposition, utilization, management, renewal and conservation of the country's forest, mineral, land, waters, fisheries, wildlife, off-shore areas and other natural resources to the end that their exploration, development and utilization be equitably accessible to the present as well as future generations. Every generation has a responsibility to the next to preserve that rhythm and harmony 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 the generations to come.
c.
While the right to a balanced and healthful ecology is to be found under the 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 latter. As a matter of fact, these basic rights need not even be written in the Constitution for they are assumed to exist from the inception of humankind. The right to a balanced and healthful ecology carries with it the correlative duty to refrain from impairing the environment. Section 16 is unusual among those found in Article II in that, whereas almost all the other provisions in the Article are not self-executing but need implementing legislation to make them effective, Section 16 has been recognized by the Supreme Court as self- executing like the provisions in the Bill of Rights.
Justa G. Guido V. Rural Progress Administration, C/O FAUSTINO AGUILAR, Manager, Rural Progress Administration G.R. No. L-2089, 31 October 1949, EN BANC, TUASON, J.
