Oposa Vs Factoran - Digest

Oposa vs. Factoran Case Digest (G.R. No.
101083, July 30,

1993)
FACTS:
The principal petitioners in this case are all minors duly represented and joined by their parents.
Impleaded as an additional plaintiff is the Philippine Ecological Network, Inc. (PENI), a domestic, nonstick
and nonprofit corporation organized for the purpose of, inter alia, engaging in concerted action geared for
the protection of our environment and natural resources.
The first complaint was filed as a taxpayer's class suit at the Branch 66 (Makati, Metro Manila), of the
Regional Trial Court, National capital Judicial Region against defendant (respondent) Secretary of the
Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR). Plaintiffs alleged that they are all citizens of
the Republic of the Philippines and are entitled to the full benefit, use and enjoyment of the natural
resource treasure that is the country's virgin tropical forests. The minors further asseverate that they
represent their generation as well as generations yet unborn. Petitioners asserted that the adverse and
detrimental consequences of continued deforestation are capable of unquestionable demonstration that
the same may be submitted as a matter of judicial notice.
Plaintiffs prayed that judgment be rendered ordering the respondent, his agents, representatives and
other persons acting in his behalf to cancel all existing Timber License Agreement (TLA) in the country
and to cease and desist from receiving, accepting, processing, renewing or approving new TLAs.
Defendant, on the other hand, filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that the complaint had no cause of
action against him and that it raises a political question.
The RTC Judge sustained the motion to dismiss, further ruling that granting of the relief prayed for would
result in the impairment of contracts which is prohibited by the Constitution.
Plaintiffs (petitioners) thus filed the instant special civil action for certiorari and asked the court to rescind
and set aside the dismissal order on the ground that the respondent RTC Judge gravely abused his
discretion in dismissing the action.
ISSUES:
(1) Whether or not the petitioners have a cause of action.
(2) Whether or not the complaint raises a political issue.
(3) Whether or not the original prayer of the petitioners result in the impairment of contracts.
RULING:
1. Yes, petitioners have a cause of action. Respondents aver that the petitioners failed to allege in their
complaint a specific legal right violated by the respondent Secretary for which any relief is provided by
law. The Court did not agree with this. The complaint focuses on one fundamental legal right -- the right to
a balanced and healthful ecology which is incorporated in Section 16 Article II of the Constitution. The
said right carries with it the duty to refrain from impairing the environment and implies, among many other
things, the judicious management and conservation of the country's forests. Section 4 of E.O. 192
expressly mandates the DENR to be the primary government agency responsible for the governing and
supervising the exploration, utilization, development and conservation of the country's natural resources.
The policy declaration of E.O. 192 is also substantially re-stated in Title XIV Book IV of the Administrative
Code of 1987. Both E.O. 192 and Administrative Code of 1987 have set the objectives which will serve as
the bases for policy formation, and have defined the powers and functions of the DENR. Thus, right of the
petitioners (and all those they represent) to a balanced and healthful ecology is as clear as DENR's duty
to protect and advance the said right.
A denial or violation of that right by the other who has the correlative duty or obligation to respect or
protect or respect the same gives rise to a cause of action. Petitioners maintain that the granting of the
TLA, which they claim was done with grave abuse of discretion, violated their right to a balance and
healthful ecology. Hence, the full protection thereof requires that no further TLAs should be renewed or
granted.
After careful examination of the petitioners' complaint, the Court finds it to be adequate enough to show,
prima facie, the claimed violation of their rights.
Second Issue: Political Issue.

Second paragraph, Section 1 of Article VIII of the constitution provides for the expanded jurisdiction
vested upon the Supreme Court. It allows the Court to rule upon even on the wisdom of the decision of
the Executive and Legislature and to declare their acts as invalid for lack or excess of jurisdiction because
it is tainted with grave abuse of discretion.
3. No, there was no violation of the non-impairment clause. The Court held that the Timber License
Agreement is an instrument by which the state regulates the utilization and disposition of forest resources
to the end that public welfare is promoted. It is not a contract within the purview of the due process clause
thus, the non-impairment clause cannot be invoked. It can be validly withdraw whenever dictated by
public interest or public welfare as in this case. The granting of license does not create irrevocable rights,
neither is it property or property rights.
Moreover, the constitutional guaranty of non-impairment of obligations of contract is limit by the exercise
by the police power of the State, in the interest of public health, safety, moral and general welfare. In
short, the non-impairment clause must yield to the police power of the State.
The instant petition, being impressed with merit, is hereby GRANTED and the RTC decision is SET
ASIDE.
Oposa v Factoran (Environmental Law)

Oposa v Factoran
GR No. 101083
July 30, 1993
FACTS:
Petitioners herein are all minors duly represented and joined by their respective
parents contesting the granting of the Timber License Agreement (TLAs), which they claim
was done with grave abuse of discretion, violated their right to a balanced and
healthful ecology.
ISSUES:
(1) WON the right to a balanced and healthful ecology is a substantive right
(2) WON timber licenses are contracts;
WON the cancellation of which would constitute non- impairment clause which is prohibited
under the Constitution
APPLICABLE LAWS:
Art II, Sec. 16. The State shall protect and advance the right of the people to a
balanced and healthful ecology in accord with the rhythm and harmony of nature.
Art. II, Sec. 15. The State shall protect and promote the right to health of the
people and instill health consciousness among them.
E.O. No. 192, Section 4. of which expressly mandates that the Department of
Environment and Natural Resources "shall be the primary government agency
responsible for the conservation, management, development and proper use of the
country' s environment and natural resources, specifically forest and grazing lands,
mineral, resources, including those in reservation and watershed areas, and lands of
the public domain, as w ell as the licensing and regulation of all natural resources as
may be provided for by law in order to ensure equitable sharing of the benefits derived
therefrom for the welfare of the present and future generations of Filipinos.
Art. III, Sec.
10. No law impairing the obligation of contracts shall be passed
RULING:
(1) Yes, it is a substantive right. Right of Filipinos to a balanced and healthful ecology
which the petitioners dramatically associate with the twin concepts of "intergenerational responsibility" and "intergenerational justice."
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. (2) Since timber licenses are not contracts, the nonimpairment clause, cannot be invoked.

Oposa Vs Factoran - Digest

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Oposa Vs Factoran - Digest

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Oposa Vs Factoran - Digest

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Oposa vs. Factoran Case Digest (G.R. No.

101083, July 30,

Second Issue: Political Issue.

Oposa v Factoran (Environmental Law)

10. No law impairing the obligation of contracts shall be passed

You might also like