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

et al
(G.R. No. 101083)

Facts
This case is unique in that it is a class suit brought by 44 children, through their parents, claiming that
they bring the case in the name of their generation as well as those generations yet unborn. Aiming to
stop deforestation, it was filed against the Secretary of the Department of Environment and Natural
Resources, seeking to have him cancel all the timber license agreements (TLAs) in the country and to
cease and desist from accepting and approving more timber license agreements. The children invoked
their right to a balanced and healthful ecology and to protection by the State in its capacity as parens
patriae. The petitioners claimed that the DENR Secretary's refusal to cancel the TLAs and to stop issuing
them was "contrary to the highest law of humankind-- the natural law-- and violative of plaintiffs' right to
self-preservation and perpetuation." The case was dismissed in the lower court, invoking the law on nonimpairment of contracts, so it was brought to the Supreme Court on certiorari.

Issue
Did the children have the legal standing to file the case?

Ruling
Yes. The Supreme 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 that environment for the succeeding generations. In this, the Court
recognized legal standing to sue on behalf of future generations. Also, the Court said, the law on nonimpairment of contracts must give way to the exercise of the police power of the state in the interest of
public welfare.
Relevance
The case of Oposa vs. Factoran has been widely cited worldwide for its concept of intergenerational
responsibility, particularly in cases related to ecology and the environment. For example:

Oposa vs. Factoran's concept of "intergenerational responsibility" was cited in a case in

Bangladesh.[1]
The United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP) considers Oposa vs. Factoran a
landmark case in judicial thinking for environmental governance. [2]
In the book Public Health Law and Ethics by Larry O. Gostin, Oposa vs. Factoran is cited as a
significant example of the justiciability of the right to health. [3]
In the book The Law of Energy for Sustainable Development by the IUCN Academy of
Environmental Law Research Studies, a study cites Oposa vs. Factoran as basis for asserting
that the right to breathe is part of the right to life as an acknowledged human right. [4]

Nature of the case

Class action seeking the cancellation and non-issuance of timber licence agreements which allegedly
infringed the constitutional right to a balanced and healthful ecology (Section 16); non-impairment of
contracts; Environmental law; judicial review and the political question doctrine; inter-generational
responsibility; Remedial law: cause of action and standing; Directive principles; Negative obligation on
State
Summary
An action was filed by several minors represented by their parents against the Department of
Environment and Natural Resources to cancel existing timber license agreements in the country and to
stop issuance of new ones. It was claimed that the resultant deforestation and damage to the
environment violated their constitutional rights to a balanced and healthful ecology and to health (Sections
16 and 15, Article II of the Constitution). The petitioners asserted that they represented others of their
generation as well as generations yet unborn.
Finding for the petitioners, the Court stated that even though the right to a balanced and healthful ecology
is under the Declaration of Principles and State Policies of the Constitution and not under the Bill of
Rights, it does not follow that it is less important than any of the rights enumerated in the latter: [it]
concerns nothing less than self-preservation and self-perpetuation, the advancement of which may even
be said to predate all governments and constitutions. The right is linked to the constitutional right to
health, is fundamental, constitutionalised, self-executing and judicially enforceable. It imposes the
correlative duty to refrain from impairing the environment.
The court stated that the petitioners were able to file a class 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
same time, 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 jurisprudence worldwide, particularly in cases relating to
forest/timber licensing. However, the approach of the Philippino Supreme Court to economic,
social and cultural rights has proved somewhat inconsistent, with some judgments resulting in
the enforcement of such rights (e.g., Del Rosario v Bangzon, 180 SCRA 521 (1989); Manila
Prince Hotel v Government Service Insurance System , G. R. No. 122156 (3 February, 1997) but at
least one instance in 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).

FULL TEXT:
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1993/jul1993/gr_101083_1993.html