Oposa vs. Factoran, G.R.

101083, July 30, 1993

(This is a landmark decision which recognizes the doctrine of Intergenerational Responsibility on the
environment in the Philippine legal system.)

*The lower court (RTC of Makati) dismissed Oposa’s suit, saying the plaintiff children did not have legal
personality. But the Supreme Court reversed the decision in favor of Oposa.

Facts: The Secretary of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources(DENR) and his
predecessors have granted timber license agreements (TLA) to various corporations to cut the aggregate
area of 3.89 million hectares for commercial logging purposes.

Petitioners, through their parents, sought to make the DENR Secretary stop issuing licenses to cut
timber, invoking their right to a healthy environment pursuant to Sections 15 and 16 of Article II of the
1987 Constitution of the Philippines. The petitioners further asserted that they "represent their
generation as well as generations yet unborn." They further claimed that the Secretary committed grave
abuse of discretion in granting TLAs to cover more areas for logging than what is available. Respondent,
on the other hand, filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that the complaint had no cause of action
against him and that it raises a political question.

The Judge of the Regional Trial Court(RTC) of Makati sustained the dismissal and ruled that granting of
the relief prayed for by petitioners would result in the impairment of contracts which is prohibited by
the Constitution.

Issues:

1. Whether or not petitioners have a cause of action. (YES)

2. Whether or not the action presents a justiciable question. (YES)

*As stated (Whether the said petitioners have a cause of action to "prevent the misappropriation or
impairment" of Philippine rainforests and "arrest the unabated hemorrhage of the country's vital life
support systems and continued rape of Mother Earth.")

Petitioners contend that the complaint clearly and unmistakably states a cause of action as it contains
sufficient allegations concerning their right to a sound environment based on Articles 19, 20 and 21 of
the Civil Code (Human Relations), Section 4 of Executive Order (E.O.) No. 192 creating the DENR, Section
3 of Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 1151 (Philippine Environmental Policy), Section 16, Article II of the
1987 Constitution recognizing the right of the people to a balanced and healthful ecology, the concept
of generational genocide in Criminal Law and the concept of man's inalienable right to self-preservation
and self-perpetuation embodied in natural law. Petitioners likewise rely on the respondent's correlative
obligation per Section 4 of E.O. No. 192, to safeguard the people's right to a healthful environment.

On the other hand, the respondents aver that the petitioners failed to allege in their complaint a specific
legal right violated by the respondent Secretary for which any relief is provided by law. They see nothing
in the complaint but vague and nebulous allegations concerning an "environmental right" which
supposedly entitles the petitioners to the "protection by the state in its capacity as parens patriae." Such
allegations, according to them, do not reveal a valid cause of action. They then reiterate the theory that
the question of whether logging should be permitted in the country is a political question which should
be properly addressed to the executive or legislative branches of Government. They therefore assert
that the petitioners' resources is not to file an action to court, but to lobby before Congress for the
passage of a bill that would ban logging totally.

Ruling:

The Court found 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. Such a right, as hereinafter expounded, considers
the "rhythm and harmony of nature."

The Court did not agree with the arguments of the respondent. The complaint focuses on one
fundamental legal right -- the right to a balanced and healthful ecology which is incorporated in the
Constitution. It carries with it the duty to refrain from impairing the environment and implies, among
many other things, the judicious management and conservation of the country's forests. Section 4 of
E.O. 192 expressly mandates the DENR to be the primary government agency responsible for the
governing and supervising the exploration, utilization, development and conservation of the country's
natural resources. Such policy is also substantially re-stated in the Administrative Code of 1987. Both
E.O. 192 and Administrative Code of 1987 have set the objectives which will serve as the bases for policy
formation, and have defined the powers and functions of the DENR. Thus, right of the petitioners to a
balanced and healthful ecology is as clear as DENR's duty to protect and advance the said right.

The Court further elicited that every generation has a responsibility to the next to preserve that rhythm
and harmony for the full enjoyment of a balanced and healthful ecology.

According to the Supreme Court:

Concept of Intergenerational Responsibility:

“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. If they are now explicitly mentioned in the
fundamental charter, it is because of the well-founded fear of its framers that unless the rights to a
balanced and healthful ecology and to health are mandated as state policies by the Constitution itself,
thereby highlighting their continuing importance and imposing upon the state a solemn obligation 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 — generations which stand to
inherit nothing but parched earth incapable of sustaining life.”

“What is principally involved is the enforcement of a right vis-a-vis policies already formulated and
expressed in legislation. It must, nonetheless, be emphasized that the political question doctrine is no
longer, the insurmountable obstacle to the exercise of judicial power or the impenetrable shield that
protects executive and legislative actions from judicial inquiry or review. The second paragraph of
section 1, Article VIII of the Constitution states that: Judicial power includes the duty of the courts of
justice to settle actual controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable, and
to determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the Government.”