Right to a Balanced and Healthful

25
Oposa v. Factoran Ecology
GR No. 101083 July 30, 1993 J. Davide Nikos Cabrera
Petitioner/s: Respondent/s:
Juan Antonio, Anna Rosario, and Jose Alfonso all Fulgencio S. Factoran Jr. in his capacity as
surnamed Oposa, minors, represented by their Secretary of the Department of Environment and
parents. Natural Resources

Eriberto U. Rosario, Presiding Judge of RTC

Makati Branch 66
Recit Ready Summary

Civil Case no. 90-77 was filed before the RTC Makati Branch 66 by the petitioners. The case was for
the purpose of engaging in concerted action geared for the protection of our environment and natural
resources. They prayed that the court order the Secretary of the DENR to (1) cancel all existing timber
license agreements in the country and (2) cease and desist from receiving, accepting, processing,
renewing or approving new timber license agreements. Secretary Factoran filed a MTD based on two
grounds (1) the plaintiffs have no cause of action against him and (2) the issue raised by the plaintiffs is
a political question which properly pertains to the legislative or executive branches of Government.
Respondent judge granted the MTD on the grounds that   the complaint states no cause of action
against him and that it raises a political question — sustained, the respondent Judge further ruled that
the granting of the relief prayed for would result in the impairment of contracts which is prohibited by
the fundamental law of the land. Petitioners filed the instant special civil action for certiorari under Rule
65 of the ROC.

Issues:
(Procedural) WON petitioners have locus standi to file the case (YES)
(Substantive) WON petitioners have a cause of action to file a case based on the right to a balanced
and healthful ecology (YES)

The SC finds no difficulty in ruling that they can, for themselves, for others of their generation and for
the succeeding generations, file a class suit. Their personality to sue in behalf of the succeeding
generations can only be based on the concept of intergenerational responsibility insofar as the right to
a balanced and healthful ecology is concerned. Every generation has a responsibility to the next to
preserve that rhythm and harmony for the full enjoyment of a balanced and healthful ecology.

The complaint focuses on one specific fundamental legal right — the right to a balanced and healthful
ecology. While the right to a balanced and healthful ecology is to be found under the Declaration of
Principles and State Policies and not under the Bill of Rights, it does not follow that it is less important
than any of the civil and political rights enumerated in the latter. Such a right belongs to a different
category of rights altogether for it concerns nothing less than self-preservation and self-perpetuation.

A denial or violation of that right by the other who has the correlative duty or obligation to respect or
protect the same gives rise to a cause of action. Petitioners maintain that the granting of the TLAs,
which they claim was done with grave abuse of discretion, violated their right to a balanced and
healthful ecology; hence, the full protection thereof requires that no further TLAs should be renewed or
granted.

Facts

1. A class suit docketed as Civil Case no. 90-77 was filed before the RTC Makati Branch 66 by the
petitioners, all minors duly represented. The case was for the purpose of engaging in concerted
action geared for the protection of our environment and natural resources. The complaint2 was
instituted as a taxpayers' class suit 3 and alleges that the plaintiffs "are all citizens of the Republic

1
ALS B2021
 of the Philippines, taxpayers, and entitled to the full benefit, use and enjoyment of the natural
resource treasure that is the country's virgin tropical forests." The same was filed for themselves
and others who are equally concerned about the preservation of said resource but are "so
numerous that it is impracticable to bring them all before the Court." The minors further asseverate
that they "represent their generation as well as generations yet unborn.

2. They prayed that the court order the Secretary of the DENR to (1) cancel all existing timber
license agreements in the country and (2) cease and desist from receiving, accepting, processing,
renewing or approving new timber license agreements.

3. The complaint starts off with the general averments that the Philippine archipelago of 7,100
islands has a land area of 30,000,000 hectares and is endowed with rich, lush and verdant
rainforests in which varied, rare and unique species of flora and fauna may be found; these
rainforests contain a genetic, biological and chemical pool which is irreplaceable; they are also the
habitat of indigenous Philippine cultures which have existed, endured and flourished since time
immemorial.
4. Scientific evidence reveals that in order to maintain a balanced and healthful ecology, the
country's land area should be utilized on the basis of a ratio of 54% for forest cover and 46% for
agricultural, residential, industrial, commercial and other uses; the distortion and disturbance of
this balance as a consequence of deforestation have resulted in a host of environmental
tragedies.
5. Plaintiffs further assert that the adverse and detrimental consequences of continued and
deforestation are so capable of unquestionable demonstration that the same may be submitted as
a matter of judicial notice. This notwithstanding, they expressed their intention to present expert
witnesses as well as documentary, photographic and film evidence in the course of the trial.
6. Petitioner’s Causes of Action
- 25 years ago, the Philippines had some 16 million hectares of rainforests constituting roughly
53% of the country's land mass.
- Satellite images taken in 1987 reveal that there remained no more than 1.2 million hectares.
- More recent surveys reveal that a mere 850,000 hectares of virgin old-growth rainforests are
left.
- Public records reveal that the defendant's, predecessors have granted timber license
agreements ('TLA's') to various corporations to cut the aggregate area of 3.89 million hectares
- At the present rate of deforestation, the Philippines will be bereft of forest resources after the
end of this ensuing decade, if not earlier.
- The adverse effects, disastrous consequences, serious injury and irreparable damage of this
continued trend of deforestation to the plaintiff minor's generation and to generations yet
unborn are evident and incontrovertible
- The continued allowance by defendant of TLA holders to cut and deforest the remaining forest
stands will work great damage and irreparable injury to plaintiffs — especially plaintiff minors
and their successors.
- Plaintiffs have a clear and constitutional right to a balanced and healthful ecology and are
entitled to protection by the State in its capacity as the  parens patriae
- Plaintiff have exhausted all administrative remedies with the defendant's office. On March 2,
1990, plaintiffs served upon defendant a final demand to cancel all logging permits in the
country.
- Defendant, however, fails and refuses to cancel the existing TLA's
- The continued failure and refusal by defendant to cancel the TLA's is an act violative of the
rights of plaintiffs.
- Defendant's refusal to cancel the aforementioned TLA's is manifestly contrary to the public
policy enunciated in the Philippine Environmental Policy
- Defendant's continued refusal to cancel the aforementioned TLA's is contradictory to the
Constitutional policy of the State.
- Defendant's act is contrary to the highest law of humankind — the natural law — and violative
of plaintiffs' right to self-preservation and perpetuation.

2
ALS B2021
 - No other plain, speedy and adequate remedy in law other than the instant action to arrest the
unabated hemorrhage of the country's vital life support systems and continued rape of Mother
Earth.

Procedural History

1. A civil case was filed before the RTC Makati by petitioners.

2. Secretary Factoran filed a MTD based on two grounds
- The plaintiffs have no cause of action against him.
- The issue raised by the plaintiffs is a political question which properly pertains to the
legislative or executive branches of Government.
3. In their Opposition to the Motion, petitioners allege
- the complaint shows a clear and unmistakable cause of action
- the motion is dilatory
- the action presents a justiciable question as it involves the defendant's abuse of discretion.
4. Respondent judge granted the MTD.
5. Petitioners filed the instant special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 of the ROC.
6. Supreme Court gave due course to the issue and required the parties to submit their respective
Memoranda.

Point/s of Contention
1. Petitioners contend that the complaint clearly and unmistakably states a cause of action as it
contains sufficient allegations concerning their right to a sound environment based on Articles 19,
20 and 21 of the Civil Code, Section 4 of E.O. No. 192 creating the DENR, Section 3 of P.D. No.
1151 (Philippine Environmental Policy), Section 16, Article II of the 1987 Constitution recognizing
the right of the people to a balanced and healthful ecology, the concept of generational genocide
in Criminal Law and the concept of man's inalienable right to self-preservation and self-
perpetuation embodied in natural law. Petitioners likewise rely on the respondent's correlative
obligation per Section 4 of E.O. No. 192, to safeguard the people's right to a healthful
environment.
2. It is further claimed that the issue of the respondent Secretary's alleged grave abuse of discretion
in granting Timber License Agreements (TLAs) to cover more areas for logging than what is
available involves a judicial question.
3. Anent the invocation by the respondent Judge of the Constitution's non-impairment clause,
petitioners maintain that the same does not apply in this case because TLAs are not contracts. 
4. 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. They see nothing in
the complaint but vague and nebulous allegations concerning an "environmental right" which
supposedly entitles the petitioners to the "protection by the state in its capacity as  parens
patriae."
5. As to the matter of the cancellation of the TLAs, respondents submit that the same cannot be
done by the State without due process of law. Once issued, a TLA remains effective for a certain
period of time. During its effectivity, the same can neither be revised nor cancelled unless the
holder has been found, after due notice and hearing, to have violated the terms of the agreement
or other forestry laws and regulations. Petitioners' proposition to have all the TLAs
indiscriminately cancelled without the requisite hearing would be violative of the requirements of
due process.

Issue/s Ruling
1. (Procedural) WON the petitioners have locus standi to file the petition 1. Yes
2. (Substantive) WON the petitioners have a cause of action for filing a case based 2. Yes
on their right to a balanced and healthful ecology.
Rationale

1. Procedural – Petitioners have locus standi since every generation has a responsibility to

3
ALS B2021
 the next to preserve that rhythm and harmony for the full enjoyment of a balanced and
healthful ecology.

The SC ruled that the said civil case is indeed a class suit. The subject matter of the complaint is
of common and general interest not just to several, but to all citizens of the Philippines.
Consequently, since the parties are so numerous, it, becomes impracticable, if not totally
impossible, to bring all of them before the court. 

Petitioners assert that they represent their generation as well as generations yet unborn. The SC
finds no difficulty in ruling that they can, for themselves, for others of their generation and for the
succeeding generations, file a class suit. Their personality to sue in behalf of the succeeding
generations can only be based on the concept of intergenerational responsibility insofar as
the right to a balanced and healthful ecology is concerned. Such a right, as hereinafter
expounded, considers the "rhythm and harmony of nature." Such rhythm and harmony
indispensably include the judicious disposition, utilization, management, renewal and conservation
of the country's natural resources to the end that their exploration, development and utilization be
equitably accessible to the present as well as future generations. Every generation has a
responsibility to the next to preserve that rhythm and harmony for the full enjoyment of a
balanced and healthful ecology.

2. Substantive - The SC does not agree with the RTC’s ruling that the petitioners failed to
allege with sufficient definiteness a specific legal right involved or a specific legal wrong
committed and that the complaint is replete with vague assumptions and conclusions
based on unverified data.

The complaint focuses on one specific fundamental legal right — the right to a balanced
and healthful ecology.

While the right to a balanced and healthful ecology is to be found under the Declaration of
Principles and State Policies and not under the Bill of Rights, it does not follow that it is less
important than any of the civil and political rights enumerated in the latter. Such a right belongs to
a different category of rights altogether for it concerns nothing less than self-preservation and self-
perpetuation.  If they are now explicitly mentioned in the fundamental charter, it is because of the
well-founded fear of its framers that unless the rights to a balanced and healthful ecology
and to health are mandated as state policies by the Constitution itself, thereby highlighting
their continuing importance and imposing upon the state a solemn obligation to preserve
the first and protect and advance the second, the day would not be too far when all else
would be lost not only for the present generation, but also for those to come — generations
which stand to inherit nothing but parched earth incapable of sustaining life. The right to a
balanced and healthful ecology carries with it the correlative duty to refrain from impairing
the environment.

Constitutional Commission Plenary Session –

MR. VILLACORTA: Does this section mandate the State to provide sanctions against all forms of pollution — air, water
and noise pollution?
MR. AZCUNA: Yes, Madam President. The right to healthful (sic) environment necessarily carries with it the correlative
duty of not impairing the same and, therefore, sanctions may be provided for impairment of environmental balance.

Then President Corazon C. Aquino promulgated E.O. No. 192, Sec 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”

This policy declaration is substantially re-stated it Title XIV, Book IV of the Administrative Code of
1987. The provision stresses "the necessity of maintaining a sound ecological balance and
protecting and enhancing the quality of the environment."

4
ALS B2021
 Both E.O. NO. 192 and the Administrative Code of 1987 have set the objectives which will serve
as the bases for policy formulation, and have defined the powers and functions of the DENR. The
right of the petitioners (and all those they represent) to a balanced and healthful ecology is as
clear as the DENR's duty — under its mandate and by virtue of its powers and functions under
E.O. No. 192 and the Administrative Code of 1987 — 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 the same gives rise to a cause of action. [So there is a cause of action]

Petitioners maintain that the granting of the TLAs, which they claim was done with grave abuse of
discretion, violated their right to a balanced and healthful ecology; hence, the full protection
thereof requires that no further TLAs should be renewed or granted.

Civil Case No. 90-777 be said to raise a political question however it must, be emphasized that the
political question doctrine is no longer, the insurmountable obstacle to the exercise of judicial
power or the impenetrable shield that protects executive and legislative actions from judicial
inquiry or review.

Lastly, in the case of Ysmael Jr. & Co. v. Deputy Executive Secretary, the Court said that timber
licenses, permits and license agreements are the principal instruments by which the State
regulates the utilization and disposition of forest resources to the end that public welfare is
promoted. And it can hardly be gainsaid that they merely evidence a privilege granted by the State
to qualified entities, and do not vest in the latter a permanent or irrevocable right to the particular
concession area and the forest products therein. 

Since timber licenses are not contracts, the non-impairment clause cannot be invoked. The Court
emphasized that the non-impairment clause must yield to the police power of the state.

Disposition

WHEREFORE, being impressed with merit, the instant Petition is hereby GRANTED, and the
challenged Order of respondent Judge of 18 July 1991 dismissing Civil Case No. 90-777 is hereby set
aside. The petitioners may therefore amend their complaint to implead as defendants the holders or
grantees of the questioned timber license agreements.

Separate Opinion/s

1. J. Feliciano, concurring

The Court explicitly states that petitioners have the locus standi necessary to sustain the bringing
and, maintenance of this suit. Locus standi refers to the legal interest which a plaintiff must have in
the subject matter of the suit. Because of the very broadness of the concept of "class" here
involved — membership in this "class" appears to embrace everyone living in the country whether
now or in the future — it appears to me that everyone who may be expected to benefit from the
course of action petitioners seek to require public respondents to take, is vested with the
necessary locus standi.

There is no question that "the right to a balanced and healthful ecology" is "fundamental" and that,
accordingly, it has been "constitutionalized." But although it is fundamental in character, I suggest,
with very great respect, that it cannot be characterized as "specific," without doing excessive
violence to language.

My suggestion is simply that petitioners must, before the trial court, show a more specific legal
right — a right cast in language of a significantly lower order of generality than the Constitution —

5
ALS B2021
 that is or may be violated by the actions, or failures to act, imputed to the public respondent by
petitioners so that the trial court can validly render judgment granting all or part of the relief prayed
for. To my mind, the Court should be understood as simply saying that such a more specific legal
right or rights may well exist in our corpus of law, considering the general policy principles found in
the Constitution and the existence of the Philippine Environment Code, and that the trial court
should have given petitioners an effective opportunity so to demonstrate, instead of aborting the
proceedings on a motion to dismiss.

My learned brother Davide, Jr., J., rightly insists that the timber companies, whose concession
agreements or TLA's petitioners demand public respondents should cancel, must be impleaded in
the proceedings below. It might be asked that, if petitioners' entitlement to the relief demanded
is not dependent upon proof of breach by the timber companies of one or more of the specific
terms and conditions of their concession agreements (and this, petitioners implicitly assume), what
will those companies litigate about? The answer I suggest is that they may seek to dispute the
existence of the specific legal right petitioners should allege, as well as the reality of the claimed
factual nexus between petitioners' specific legal rights and the claimed wrongful acts or failures to
act of public respondent administrative agency. They may also controvert the appropriateness of
the remedy or remedies demanded by petitioners, under all the circumstances which exist.

6
ALS B2021