Professional Documents
Culture Documents
No. 101083)
This case is unique in that it is a class suit brought by 44
children, through their parents, claiming that they bring Nature of the case
the case in the name of their generation as well as
those generations yet unborn. Aiming to stop Class action seeking the cancellation and non-issuance
deforestation, it was filed against the Secretary of the of timber licence agreements which allegedly infringed
Department of Environment and Natural Resources, the constitutional right to a balanced and healthful
seeking to have him cancel all the timber license ecology (Section 16); non-impairment of contracts;
agreements (TLAs) in the country and to cease and Environmental law; judicial review and the political
desist from accepting and approving more timber license question doctrine; inter-generational responsibility;
agreements. The children invoked their right to a Remedial law: cause of action and standing; Directive
balanced and healthful ecology and to protection by the principles; Negative obligation on State
State in its capacity as parens patriae. The petitioners
claimed that the DENR Secretary's refusal to cancel the Summary
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 An action was filed by several minors represented by
perpetuation." The case was dismissed in the lower their parents against the Department of Environment and
court, invoking the law on non-impairment of contracts, Natural Resources to cancel existing timber license
so it was brought to the Supreme Court on certiorari. 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
Issue rights to a balanced and healthful ecology and to health
(Sections 16 and 15, Article II of the Constitution). The
Did the children have the legal standing to file the case? petitioners asserted that they represented others of their
generation as well as generations yet unborn.
Ruling
Finding for the petitioners, the Court stated that even
Yes. The Supreme Court in granting the petition ruled though the right to a balanced and healthful ecology is
that the children had the legal standing to file the case under the Declaration of Principles and State Policies of
based on the concept of intergenerational the Constitution and not under the Bill of Rights, it does
responsibility. Their right to a healthy environment not follow that it is less important than any of the rights
carried with it an obligation to preserve that environment enumerated in the latter: [it] concerns nothing less than
for the succeeding generations. In this, the Court self-preservation and self-perpetuation, the
recognized legal standing to sue on behalf of future advancement of which may even be said to predate all
generations. Also, the Court said, the law on non- governments and constitutions. The right is linked to
impairment of contracts must give way to the exercise of the constitutional right to health, is fundamental,
the police power of the state in the interest of public constitutionalised, self-executing and judicially
welfare. enforceable. It imposes the correlative duty to refrain
from impairing the environment.
Relevance
The court stated that the petitioners were able to file a
class suit both for others of their generation and for
The case of Oposa vs. Factoran has been widely cited succeeding generations as the minors' assertion of their
worldwide for its concept of intergenerational right to a sound environment constitutes, at the same
responsibility, particularly in cases related to ecology time, the performance of their obligation to ensure the
and the environment. For example: protection of that right for the generations to come.