Oposa.v.factoran.

digest
Ratings: (0)|Views: 9,523|Likes: 67
Published by ronanvillagonzalo
See more
Facts
This case is unique in that it is a class suit brought by
44children, through their parents, claiming that they
bringthe case in the name of their generation as well
asthose generations yet unborn. Aiming
to stopdeforestation, it was filed against the Secretary
of theDepartment of Environment and Natural
Resources, seeking to have him cancel all the timber
licenseagreements (TLAs) in the country and to cease
anddesist from accepting and approving more timber
licenseagreements. The children invoked their right to
abalanced and healthful ecology and to protection by
theState in its capacity as
parens patriae
. The petitionersclaimed that the DENR Secretary's refusal
to cancel theTLAs and to stop issuing them was "contrary
to thehighest law of humankind-- the natural law-andviolative of plaintiffs' right to self-preservation
andperpetuation." The case was dismissed in the
lower court, invoking the law on non-impairment of
contracts,so it was brought to theSupreme Courton
certiorari.
Issue
Did the children have the legal standing to file the case?
Ruling
Yes. The Supreme Court in granting the petition ruledthat
the children had the legal standing to file the casebased on
the concept of intergenerationalresponsibility. Their right

to a healthy environmentcarried with it an obligation

to preserve that environmentfor the succeeding
generations. In this, the Courtrecognized legal standing to
sue on behalf of futuregenerations. Also, the Court said, the
law on non-impairment of contracts must give way to the
exercise of the police power of the state in the interest of
publicwelfare.
Relevance
The case of
Oposa vs. Factoran
has been widely citedworldwide for its concept of
intergenerationalresponsibility, particularly in cases related
to ecologyand the environment. For example:

Oposa vs. Factoran'

s concept of "intergenerational responsibility" was cited in
acase in Bangladesh.
[1]

The United Nations Environmental Programme(UNEP)

considers
Oposa vs. Factoran
alandmark case in judicial thinking for environmental
governance.
[2]

In the book
Public Health Law and Ethics
byLarry O. Gostin,
Oposa vs. Factoran
is cited asa significant example of the justiciability of
theright to health.
[3]

In the book
The Law of Energy for SustainableDevelopment

by the IUCN Academy of Environmental Law Research

Studies, a studycites
Oposa vs. Factoran
as basis for assertingthat the right to breathe is part of the
right to lifeas an acknowledged human right.
[4]

Oposa et al. v. Fulgencio S. Factoran, Jr. et al

(G.R.No. 101083)Nature of the case
Class action seeking the cancellation and non-issuanceof
timber licence agreements which allegedly infringedthe
constitutional right to a balanced and healthfulecology
(Section 16); non-impairment of contracts;Environmental
law; judicial review and the politicalquestion doctrine; intergenerational responsibility;Remedial law: cause of action
and standing; Directiveprinciples; Negative obligation on
State
Summary
An action was filed by several minors represented bytheir
parents against the Department of Environment andNatural
Resources to cancel existing timber licenseagreements in
the country and to stop issuance of newones. It was
claimed that the resultant deforestation anddamage to the
environment violated their constitutionalrights to a
balanced and healthful ecology and to health(Sections 16
and 15, Article II of the Constitution). Thepetitioners
asserted that they represented others of their generation
as well as generations yet unborn.Finding for the
petitioners, the Court stated that eventhough the right to a
balanced and healthful ecology isunder the Declaration of
Principles and State Policies of the Constitution and not
under the Bill of Rights, it doesnot follow that it is less
important than any of the rightsenumerated in the latter:
[it] concerns nothing less thanself-preservation and selfperpetuation, theadvancement of which may even be said
to predate all governments and constitutions.

The right is linked tothe constitutional right to health, is

fundamental,constitutionalised, self-executing and
judiciallyenforceable. It imposes the correlative duty
to refrainfrom impairing the environment.The court stated
that the petitioners were able to file aclass suit both for
others of their generation and for succeeding generations
as
the minors' assertion of their right to a sound environment
constitutes, at the sametime, the performance of their
obligation to ensure the protection of that right for the
generations to come.
Significance of the case

This case has been widely-cited in

jurisprudenceworldwide, particularly in
cases relating
toforest/timber licensing. However,
the approach of the Philippino
Supreme Court to economic, socialand
cultural rights has proved
somewhatinconsistent, with some
judgments resulting in
theenforcement of such rights (e.g.,
Del Rosario vBangzon, 180 SCRA 521
(1989);
Manila Prince Hotel v Government Service Insurance
System

, G. R. No.122156 (3 February, 1997)

but at least one instancein which the

Court made a statement that

economic,social and cultural rights are
not real rights (see,
Brigido Simon v Commission on Human Rights,

G. R. No. 100150, 5 January 1994)