Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 279 views

    Oposa V Factoran

    Uploaded by

    Olek Dela Cruz
    1. Filipino minors filed a petition to prevent the logging of Philippine rainforests through timber license agreements granted to corporations, which were depleting forests at an unsustainable rate. 2. The court recognized the right of all Filipinos to a balanced and healthy ecology and environment. This is an basic right that belongs to both present and future generations. 3. The court ruled in favor of the minors, finding that timber license agreements granted by the government are revocable and not protected contracts, as the constitutional right to a healthy environment supersedes private logging interests. Upholding this right is a duty of the State.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as TXT, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Oposa V Factoran

    Uploaded by

    Olek Dela Cruz
    279 views2 pages
    1. Filipino minors filed a petition to prevent the logging of Philippine rainforests through timber license agreements granted to corporations, which were depleting forests at an unsustainable rate. 2. The court recognized the right of all Filipinos to a balanced and healthy ecology and environment. This is an basic right that belongs to both present and future generations. 3. The court ruled in favor of the minors, finding that timber license agreements granted by the government are revocable and not protected contracts, as the constitutional right to a healthy environment supersedes private logging interests. Upholding this right is a duty of the State.

    Original Description:

    Oposa v Factoran

    Original Title

    Oposa v Factoran

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    TXT, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1. Filipino minors filed a petition to prevent the logging of Philippine rainforests through timber license agreements granted to corporations, which were depleting forests at an unsustainable rate. 2. The court recognized the right of all Filipinos to a balanced and healthy ecology and environment. This is an basic right that belongs to both present and future generations. 3. The court ruled in favor of the minors, finding that timber license agreements granted by the government are revocable and not protected contracts, as the constitutional right to a healthy environment supersedes private logging interests. Upholding this right is a duty of the State.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as TXT, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as txt, pdf, or txt
    279 views2 pages

    Oposa V Factoran

    Uploaded by

    Olek Dela Cruz
    1. Filipino minors filed a petition to prevent the logging of Philippine rainforests through timber license agreements granted to corporations, which were depleting forests at an unsustainable rate. 2. The court recognized the right of all Filipinos to a balanced and healthy ecology and environment. This is an basic right that belongs to both present and future generations. 3. The court ruled in favor of the minors, finding that timber license agreements granted by the government are revocable and not protected contracts, as the constitutional right to a healthy environment supersedes private logging interests. Upholding this right is a duty of the State.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as TXT, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as txt, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    Human Rights Law Case Digest: Opposa V.

    Factoran (1993)
    G.R. No. 101083 July 30, 1993
    Lessons Applicable: right of Filipinos to a balanced and healthful ecology ,int
    er-generational responsibility, inter-generational justice
    Laws Applicable:
    FACTS:
    Petitioners Minors duly represented and joined by their respective parents agai
    nst original defendant Fulgencio S. Factoran, Jr., [Secretary of the Department
    of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR)] which he holds in trust for the ben
    efit of plaintiff minors and succeeding generations
    petition to prevent the misappropriation or impairment" of Philippine rainforest
    s and "arrest the unabated hemorrhage of the country's vital life support system
    s and continued rape of Mother Earth - granted timber license agreements ('TLA's
    ') to various corporations to cut the aggregate area of 3.89 million hectares fo
    r commercial logging purposes thus, at the present rate of deforestation, i.e. a
    bout 200,000 hectares per annum or 25 hectares per hour, the Philippines will b
    e bereft of forest resources after the end of this ensuing decade, if not earlie
    r.
    clear and constitutional right to a balanced and healthful ecology and are entit
    led to protection by the State in its capacity as the parens patriae
    Philippine Environmental Policy which, in pertinent part, states that it is the
    policy of the State: (a) to create, develop, maintain and improve conditions un
    der which man and nature can thrive in productive and enjoyable harmony with eac
    h other;(b) to fulfill the social, economic and other requirements of present an
    d future generations of Filipinos and;
    (c) to ensure the attainment of an environmental quality that is conductive to a
    life of dignity and well-being. (P.D. 1151, 6 June 1977)
    Constitutional policy of the State to:
    a. effect "a more equitable distribut
    ion of opportunities, income and wealth" and "make full and efficient use of nat
    ural resources (sic)." (Section 1, Article XII of the Constitution);
    b. "protect the nation's marine wealth." (Section 2, ibid);
    c. "conserve and promote the nation's cultural heritage and resources (sic)"
    (Section 14, Article XIV, id.);
    d. "protect and advance the right of the people to a balanced and healthful
    ecology in accord with the rhythm and harmony of nature." (Section 16, Article I
    I, id.)
    Secretary Factoran, Jr., filed a Motion to Dismiss the complaint based on 2 gro
    unds, namely: (1) the plaintiffs have no cause of action against him and (2) the
    issue raised by the plaintiffs is a political question which properly pertains
    to the legislative or executive branches of Government - granted further ruling
    that the granting of the relief prayed for would result in the impairment of con
    tracts which is prohibited by the fundamental law of the land.
    Special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 to set aside dismissal order
    ISSUE:
    1. whether or not the minors have locus standi - yes
    2. W/N the TLA should be cancelled
    HELD:Petition is granted
    2. Yes. While the right to a balanced and healthful ecology is to be found und
    er the Declaration of Principles and State Policies (NOT Bill of Rights), it doe
    s not follow that it is less important than any of the civil and political right
    s enumerated in the latter.
    Such a right belongs to a different category of rights altogether for it concern
    s nothing less than self-preservation and self-perpetuation-the advancement of w
    hich may even be said to predate all governments and constitutions.

    As a matter of fact, these basic rights need NOT even be written in the Constitu
    tion for they are assumed to exist from the inception of humankind.
    Explicitly mentioned in the fundamental charter because of the well-founded fear
    of its framers that unless the rights to a balanced and healthful ecology and t
    o health are mandated as state policies by the Constitution itself, thereby high
    lighting their continuing importance and imposing upon the state a solemn obliga
    tion to preserve the first and protect and advance the second, the day would not
    be too far when all else would be lost not only for the present generation, but
    also for those to come.
    The right to a balanced and healthful ecology carries with it the correlative du
    ty to refrain from impairing the environment.
    even before the ratification of the 1987 Constitution, specific statutes already
    paid special attention to the "environmental right" of the present and future g
    enerations [June 1977: P.D. No. 1151 (Philippine Environmental Policy) and P.D.
    No. 1152 (Philippine Environment Code)]
    Both E.O. NO. 192 and the Administrative Code of 1987 have set the objectives wh
    ich will serve as the bases for policy formulation, and have defined the powers
    and functions of the DENR.
    the non-impairment clause must yield to the police power of the state
    all licenses may thus be revoked or rescinded by executive action. It is not a c
    ontract, property or a property right protested by the due process clause of the
    Constitution.
    A timber license is an instrument by which the State regulates the utilization a
    nd disposition of forest resources to the end that public welfare is promoted. A
    timber license is not a contract within the purview of the due process clause;
    it is only a license or privilege, which can be validly withdrawn whenever dicta
    ted by public interest or public welfare as in this case
    the constitutional guaranty of non-impairment of obligations of contract is limi
    ted by the exercise of the police power of the State, in the interest of public
    health, safety, moral and general welfare
    Equally fundamental with the private right is that of the public to regulate it
    in the common interest.
    With respect to renewal, the holder is NOT entitled to it as a matter of right.

    You might also like