Natural and Environmental Laws; Constitutional Law: Intergenerational Responsibility
OPOSA v. FACTORAN
GR No. 101083; July 30 1993
FACTS: A taxpayer’s class suit was filed by minors Juan Antonio Oposa, et al., representing their generation and generations yet unborn, and represented by their parents against Fulgencio Factoran Jr., Secretary of DENR.
ISSUE: WON the petitioner-minors have a cause of action in filing a class suit to “prevent the misappropriation or impairment of Philippine rainforests?” HELD: Yes. RATION DECIDENDI:
Petitioner-minors assert that they represent their generation as well as generations to come.
They prayed that judgment be rendered ordering the defendant, his agents, representatives and other persons acting in his behalf to:
The Supreme Court ruled that they can, for themselves, for others of their generation, and for the succeeding generation, file a class suit.
1. Cancel all existing Timber Licensing Agreements (TLA) in the country; 2. Cease and desist from receiving, accepting, processing, renewing, or appraising new TLAs;
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.
and granting the plaintiffs “such other reliefs just and equitable under the premises.” They alleged that they have a clear and constitutional right to a balanced and healthful ecology and are entitled to protection by the State in its capacity as parens patriae.
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 country’s 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.
Furthermore, they claim that the act of the defendant in allowing TLA holders to cut and deforest the remaining forests constitutes a misappropriation and/or impairment of the natural resources property he holds in trust for the benefit of the plaintiff minors and succeeding generations. The defendant filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on the following grounds: 1. Plaintiffs have no cause of action against him; 2. The issues raised by the plaintiffs is a political question which properly pertains to the legislative or executive branches of the government.
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 assertion of environment time, the
differently, the minor’s their right to a sound constitutes at the same performance of their
Natural and Environmental Laws; Constitutional Law: Intergenerational Responsibility
obligation to ensure the protection of that right for the generations to come.
“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
OPOSA v. FACTORAN
on non-impairment of contracts must give way to the exercise of the police power of the state
Facts
in the interest of public welfare. 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
Department
against of
the
Secretary
Environment
and
of
the
Natural
Resources, seeking to have him cancel all the
Relevance
The case of Oposa vs. Factoran has been widely cited
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
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? 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
concept
of
For example:
healthful ecology and to protection by the State
"contrary to the highest law of humankind-- the
its
cases related to ecology and the environment.
approving more timber license agreements. The children invoked their right to a balanced and
for
intergenerational responsibility, particularly in
timber license agreements (TLAs) in the country and to cease and desist from accepting and
worldwide
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 [2] governance. 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]
Oposa et al. v. Fulgencio S. Factoran, Jr. et al (G.R. No. 101083)
Natural and Environmental Laws; Constitutional Law: Intergenerational Responsibility
Nature of the case
Class action seeking the cancellation and nonissuance 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).