Oposa v Factoran

Subject: CONSTI 1 Topic: Promotion of Health and Digest Maker: Keziah Acharon
Ecology
Case Name: (shortened the case name, original case name very long) JUAN ANTONIO, ANNA ROSARIO, and JOSE
ALFONSO, all surnamed OPOSA, minors and represented by their parents ANTONIO and RIZALINA OPOSA,
ROBERT A. NICOLE SADIUA, minor, represented by her parents CALVIN AND ROBERTA SADIUA, CARLO,
AMANDA SALUD and PATRISHA, et. al., petitioners, vs. THE HONORABLE FULGENCIO S. FACTORAN, JR., in his
capacity as the Secretary of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources, and THE HONORABLE
ERIBERTO U. ROSARIO, presiding judge of the RTC, Makati, Branch 66, respondents.
G.R No. 101083 Date: July 30, 1993. Ponente: DAVIDE, JR., J.
Doctrine: Section 16, Article II of the 1987 Constitution: the State shall protect and advance the right of the people to
a balanced and healthful ecology in accord with the rhythm and harmony of nature. The said right, implies, among many
other things, the judicious management and conservation of the country’s forests. Without such forests, the ecological or
environmental balance would be irreversibly disrupted.
Summary: The principal plaintiffs are all minors, duly represented and joined by their respective parents. The petitioners
asserted that the adverse effects of continued deforestation violate the plaintiffs’ right to a balanced and healthful
ecology. The complaint was filed as a taxpayers’ class suit against then Secretary of the Department of Environment and
Natural Resources, Hon. Fulgencio S. Factoran, Jr, praying that all existing timber license agreements in the country be
cancelled. The Court ultimately ruled in favor of the petitioners, citing that it is a correlative duty to refrain from impairing
the environment.

Relevant Facts:
● This petition was forwarded by minors duly represented and joined by their respective parents. Additional
plaintiff was the Philippine Ecological Network, Inc. (PENI).
● The complaint was instituted as a taxpayers’ class suit and alleged that the plaintiffs “are all citizens of the
Republic of the Philippines, taxpayers, and entitled to the full benefit, use and enjoyment of the national
resource treasure that is the country’s virgin tropical rainforests.”
● Petitioners stated that they represent the present and future generations. Petitioners prayed for the judgment to
declare the cancellation of all existing timber license agreements. It also sought the declaration to cease and
desist from receiving, accepting, processing, renewing, or approving new timber license agreements.
● As for their cause of action, the plaintiffs generally stated that they have a clear and constitutional right to a
balanced ecology and are entitled to protection by the State in its capacity as the parens patriae. Petitioners
further said that the adverse effects, disastrous consequences, serious injury and irreparable damages of this
continued trend of deforestation to the plaintiffs’ generation and to generations yet unborn are evident and
incontrovertible. They further said that the environmental damages are already being felt, experienced, and
suffered by the generation of plaintiff adults.
● The original defendant, Secretary Factoran Jr. filed a Motion to Dismiss, citing that the petitioners had (1) no
cause of action and that (2) the issue raised by the petitioners is a political question which properly pertains to
the legislative or executive branch of the government.
● On Jul. 18, 1991, respondent Judge issued an order granting the aforementioned motion to dismiss. The
respondent Judge ruled that the granting of reliefs prayed for would result in the impairment of contracts which
is prohibited by the fundamental law of the land.
● 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 Arts. 19, 20, and 21 of the NCC; Sec. 4 of
E.O. No. 192, Sec. 3 of P.D. 1151, and Sec. 16, Art. II of the 1987 Philippine Constitution.
● Respondents asserted that the petitioners’ recourse is not to file an action in court, but to lobby before
Congress for the passage of a bill that would ban logging totally. As to the matter of the cancellation of the
Timber License Agreements, respondents submitted that the same cannot be done by the State without due
process of the law. They claimed that petitioners’ proposition to have all the TLAs indiscriminately cancelled w/o
the requisite hearing would be violative of the requirements of due process.
Ratio Decidendi

1. Do the petitioners have locus standi?

YES. The Supreme Court clarified that the said civil case is a class suit.

The subject matter of the complaint is of common and general interest not just to several, but to all citizens of the
Philippines. The Court also declared that the plaintiffs therein are numerous and representative enough to ensure the
full protection of all concerned interests. Petitioner minors also asserted that they represent their generation as well as
generations yet unborn. 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.

2. Do the petitioners have a cause of action to “prevent the misappropriation or impairment” of Philippine
rainforest and “arrest the unabated hemorrhage of the country’s vital life-support and continued rape of
Mother Earth”?

YES. The right to balanced and healthful ecology is provided in Section 16, Art. II of the 1987 Constitution.

The said right, implies, among many other things, the judicious management and conservation of the country’s forests.
Without such forests, the ecological or environmental balance would be irreversibly disrupted.

Pres. Corazon C. Aquino also promulgated E.O. No. 192 on June 10, 1987. This expressly mandates that the Dept. of
Environment and Natural Resources “shall be the primary government agency responsible for the conservation,
management, development and proper use of the country’s environment and natural resources, specifically forest and
grazing lands, mineral resources, including those in reservation and watershed areas, and lands of the public domain,
as well as the licensing and regulation of all natural resources as may be provided for by law in order to ensure
equitable sharing of the benefits derived there for the welfare of the present and future generations of Filipinos.” Thus,
the right of the petitioners to a balanced and healthful ecology is as clear as the DENR’s duty to protect and advance
the said right. A denial or violation of that right by the other who has the correlative duty or obligation to respect or
protect the same gives rise to a cause of action.

3. Is the complaint a political issue?

NO. The Court 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 if the government.”

4. Would the cancellation of TLAs result in the impairment of contracts?

NO. Timber licenses are not contracts. The non-impairment clause, then, cannot be invoked.

Section 20 of the Forestry Reform Code (P.D. 705) provides that “when national interest so requires, the President may
amend, modify, replace or rescind any contract, concession, permit, licenses, or any other form of privilege granted
herein”. This is to say that all licenses may be revoked or rescinded by executive action. The TLA, according to the
Court, is not a contract, property, or a property right protected by the due process clause of the Constitution.

The Court cited Tan v. Director of Forestry, where the Court held that a timber license is an instrument by which the
State regulates the utilization and disposition of forest resources to the end that public welfare is promoted. It further
asserted that the timber license is not a contract within the purview of the due process clause; it is only a license or
privilege, w/c can be validly withdrawn whenever dictated by public interest or public welfare.
Ruling
WHEREFORE, being impressed with merit, the instant Petition is hereby GRANTED, and the challenged Order of
respondent Judge of 18 July 1991 dismissing Civil Case No. 90-777 is hereby set aside. The petitioners may therefore
amend their complaints to implead as defendants the holders or grantees of the questioned timber license agreements.

Cruz, Padilla, Bidin, Grino-Aquino, Regalado, Nocon, Bellosillo, Melo and Quiason, JJ., concur.

Separate Opinions:

Feliciano, J. – Concurring
- Although the right to a balanced and healthful ecology is fundamental, the right cannot be characterized as
specific. This does excessive violence to language. The list of particular claims which can be subsumed under this
rubric appears to be entirely open-ended. The P.D. No. 1152, or The Philippine Environment Code is, on the other
hand, a compendious collection of more specific environment management policies and environment quality
standards.
- Neither petitioners nor the Court has identified the particular provision or provisions (if any) of the PH Environment
Code which give rise to a specific legal right w/c petitioners are seeking to enforce.
- As a matter of logic, by finding petitioners’ cause of action as anchored on a legal right comprised in the
constitutional statements above noted, the Court is in effect saying that Section 15 (and Section 16) of Article II of
the Constitution are self-executive and judicially enforceable in their present form. The implications of this doctrine
are too large and far-reaching in nature even to be hinted at here.
- Suggestion: petitioners must, before the trial court, show a more specific legal right – a right cast in language of a
significantly lower order of generality than Article II (15) of the Constitution – that is or may be violated by the
actions, or failures to act, imputed to the public respondent by petitioners so that the trial court can validly render
judgment granting all or part of the relief prayed for.
- It is important that the legal right which is an essential component of a cause of action be a specific, operable
legal right, rather than a constitutional or statutory policy.
o Unless that legal right claimed to have been violated or disregarded is given specification in operational
terms, defendants may well be unable to defend themselves intelligently and effectively.
o Where a specific violation of law or applicable regulation is not alleged or proved, petitioners can
be expected to fall back on the expanded conception of judicial power in the second paragraph of
Section 1 of Article VIII of the Constitution.
- When substantive standards as general as the right to a balanced and healthful ecology are combined with
remedial standards as broad ranging as “a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction,
the result will be to propel courts into the uncharted ocean of social and economic policy making.
o Where no specific, operable norms and standards are shown to exist, then the policy making
departments – the legislative and executive departments must be given a real and effective
opportunity to fashion and promulgate those norms and standards, and to implement them before
the courts should intervene.
- Vote to grant Petition for Certiorari because protection of environment is of extreme importance for our country;
but the Court’s decision should be subjected to closer examination.