Oposa vs. Factoran, Jr.

224 SCRA 782

July 1993
FACTS:
Plaintiffs, who are minors represented by their parents, alleged that the then DENR
Secretary Fulgencio Factoran, Jr.s continued approval of the Timber License
Agreements (TLAs) to numerous commercial logging companies to cut and deforest
the remaining forests of the country will work great damage and injury to the
plaintiffs and their successors. Defendant, through the Office of the Solicitor General
(OSG), avers that the plaintiffs failed to state a specific right violated by the
defendant and that the question of whether logging should be permitted in the
country is a political question and cannot be tried in the Courts. The RTC of Makati,
Branch 66, granted defendants motion to dismiss.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the case at bar subject to the judicial power of the Court
COURT RULING:
Being impressed with merit, the Supreme Court granted the petition and set aside
the Order of the RTC which dismissed the case.
The case at bar is subject to judicial review by the Court. Justice Davide, Jr. precisely
identified in his opinion the requisites for a case to be subjected for the judicial
review by the Court. According to him, the subject matter of the complaint is of
common interest, making this civil case a class suit and proving the existence of an
actual controversy. He strengthens this conclusion by citing in the decision Section
1, Article 7 of the 1987 Constitution.
Although concurring in the result, Justice Feliciano penned his separate opinions on
a number of topics pointed by Justice Davide, Jr. in this Court decision. Justice
Feliciano said that the concept of the word class is too broad to cover the plaintiffs
and their representatives alone, and that the Court may be deemed recognizing
anyones right to file action as against both the public administrative agency and
the private entities of the sector involved in the case at bar, to wit:
Neither petitioners nor the Court has identified the particular provisions of the
Philippine Environment Code which give rise to a specific legal right which
petitioners are seeking to enforce.

Justice Feliciano further stated that the Court in the case at bar in effect made
Sections 15 and 16 of Article 2 of the 1987 Constitution to be self-executing and
judicially enforceable even in its present form, and that these implications are too
large and far reaching in nature ever to be hinted in this instant case.