OPOSA vs. FACTORAN 224 SCRA 792; G.R No.

101083; 30 Jul 1993 FACTS: The principal petitioners are all minors duly represented and joined by their respective parents. Impleaded as an additional plaintiff is the Philippines Ecological Network, Inc (PENI), a domestic, non-stock and nonprofit corporation organized for the purpose of, inter alia, engaging in concerted action geared for the protection of our environment and natural resources. The original defendant was the Honorable Fulgenicio S Factoran Jr, the secretary of the Department of Environment and National Resources (DENR). His substitution in this petition by the new Secretary, the Honorable Angel C. Alcala, was subsequently ordered upon proper motion by the petitioners. The complaint was instituted as a taxpayers class suit and alleges that the plaintiffs are all citizens of the Republic of the Philippines, taxpayers, and entitled to the full benefit, use and enjoyment of the natural resource treasure that is the countrys virgin tropical forests. The same was filed for themselves and others who are equally concerned about the preservation of said resource but are so numerous that if is further impracticable to bring them all before the Court. On 22 June 1990, the original defendant, Secretary Factoran, Jr., filed a Motion to Dismiss the complaint based on (2) grounds, 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. In their 12 July 1990 Opposition to the Motion, the petitioners maintain that, (1) the complaint shows a clear and unmistakable cause of action, (2) the motion is dilatory

and the action presents a justiciable question as it involves the defendant's abuse of discretion. On 18 July 1991, respondent Judge issued an order granting the aforementioned motion to dismiss. In the said order, not only was the defendant's claim that the complaint states no cause of action against him and that it raises a political question sustained, the respondent Judge further ruled that the granting of the relief prayed for would result in the impairment of contracts which is prohibited by the fundamental law of the land. Plaintiffs thus filed the instant special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court and ask this Court to rescind and set aside the dismissal order on the ground that the respondent Judge gravely abused his discretion in dismissing the action. Again, the parents of the plaintiffs-minors not only represent their children, but have also joined the latter in this case. 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 selfperpetuation 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. It is further claimed that the issue of the respondent Secretary's alleged grave abuse of discretion in granting Timber License Agreements (TLAs) to cover more areas for logging than what is available involves a judicial question. Anent the invocation by the respondent Judge of the Constitution's non-impairment clause, petitioners maintain that the same does not apply in this case because TLAs are not contracts. They likewise submit that even if TLAs may be considered protected by the said clause, it is well settled that they may still be revoked by the State when the public interest so requires. ISSUE: 1. Whether or not the petitioners, as minors, have the legal standing to file the case. RULING: 1. Yes, The 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 the environment for the succeeding generations. In this the court recognized legal standing to sue on behalf of the future generations. The Court also ruled that the law on non-impairment of contract must give away to the exercise of the police power of the

state in the interests of public welfare. Hence, they may bring the matter at hand to court and be granted the proper recognition. SECTION 16, Article II which recognizes above all: THE STATE SHALL PROTECT AND ADVANCE THE RIGHT TO A BALANCED AND HEALTHFUL ECOLOGY IN ACCORD WITH THE RHYTHM AND HARMONY OF NATURE. Petition is hereby GRANTED, and the challenged Order of the 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 agreement.