DIGEST: Oposa vs. Factoran, G.R. No.

101083 July 30, 1993

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 non-impairment of contracts, so it was brought to the Supreme Court on certiorari.

ISSUE: Did the children have the legal standing to file the case?

HELD: 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 non-impairment of contracts must give way to the exercise of the police power of the state in
the interest of public welfare.

Yes. Petitioner-minors assert that they represent their generation as well as generations to come. The
Supreme Court ruled that they can, for themselves, for others of their generation, and for the
succeeding generation, file a class suit. Their personality to sue in behalf of succeeding generations is
based on the concept of intergenerational responsibility insofar as the right to a balanced and healthful
ecology is concerned. Such a right considers the rhythm and harmony of nature which indispensably
include, inter alia, the judicious disposition, utilization, management, renewal and conservation of the
countrys forest, mineral, land, waters, fisheries, wildlife, offshore areas and other natural resources to
the end that their exploration, development, and utilization be equitably accessible to the present as
well as the future generations.

Needless to say, every generation has a responsibility to the next to preserve that rhythm and harmony
for the full enjoyment of a balanced and healthful ecology. Put a little differently, 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.