The Case of Oposa vs Factoran

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. The United Nations Environmental Programme(UNEP) considers Oposa vs. Factoran alandmark case in judicial thinking for environmental governance. 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.

 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. 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); nonimpairment of contracts;Environmental law; judicial review and the politicalquestion doctrine; inter-generational 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 self-perpetuation, 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).