EcoLaw Report - Oposa vs. Factoran

Prepared by:
Phoebes Concepcion Almasco, CPA

Khristian Damielle A. Jamer, RN, LPT
G.R. No. 101083 - July 30, 1993

ARTICLE II – DECLARATION OF STATE
PRINCIPLES AND POLICIES
“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.”
 Civil Case No. 90-77
 Filed before Branch 66 Regional
Trial Court
 Principal Plaintiffs:
 34 Minors duly represented by their
Parents
 Philippine Ecological Network, Inc.
(PENI)
Antonio Oposa is one of Asia's leading voices in the
global arena of Environmental Law. His work is
internationally known for establishing in the
highest Court of Law the principle of inter-
generational responsibility.
 Original Defendant:
 Honorable Fulgencio S. Factoran,
Jr., then Secretary of the
Department of Environment and
Natural Resources (DENR)
 Substituted by:
 Honorable Angel C. Alcala, new
DENR Secretary
 Rule III, Section 12. Class Suit – When the
subject matter of the controversy is one of
common or general interest to many persons
so numerous that it is impracticable to join
all as parties, a number of them which the
court finds to be sufficiently numerous and
representative as to fully protect the
interests of all concerned may sue or defend
for the benefit of all. Any party in the
interest shall have the right to intervene to
protect his individual interest.
“represent their generation as
well as generations yet unborn”
 Conservation Authorities deliver practical, cost
effective programs that ensure healthy ecosystems
which enable them to generate and maintain
valuable goods and services, often preventing the
need for costly technological solutions to
environmental problems.
 Human Health A healthy watershed provides safe

drinking water, provides food, enables us to adapt
to the impacts of climate change more easily by
cooling the air and absorbing greenhouse gas
emissions, and provides natural areas for people to
keep active and recharge our batteries.
 Ecological Health A healthy watershed conserves
water, promotes streamflow, supports sustainable
streams, rivers, lakes, and groundwater sources,
enables healthy soil for crops and livestock, and also
provides habitat for wildlife and plants.
 Economic Health A healthy watershed produces
energy and supplies water for agriculture, industry
and households. Forests and wetlands help to prevent
or reduce costly climate change and flooding impacts,
manages drought, contributes to tourism, fisheries,
forestry, agriculture and mining industries.
 To maintain a balanced and healthful
ecology, the country's land area should
be utilized on the basis of a ratio of
fifty-four per cent (54%) for forest
cover and forty-six per cent (46%) for
agricultural, residential, industrial,
commercial and other uses.
 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 for
commercial logging purposes
 “An instrument by which the state regulates
the utilization and disposition of forest
resources to the end that public welfare is
promoted”
This act of defendant constitutes a
misappropriation and/or impairment of the natural
resource property he holds in trust for the benefit of
plaintiff minors and succeeding generations.
 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
 Defendant's refusal to cancel the aforementioned
TLA's is manifestly contrary to the public policy
enunciated in the Philippine Environmental Policy
which, in pertinent part, states that it is the policy
of the State —
 (a) to create, develop, maintain and improve
conditions under which man and nature can thrive in
productive and enjoyable harmony with each other;
 (b) to fulfill the social, economic and other

requirements of present and future generations of
Filipinos and;
 (c) to ensure the attainment of an environmental
quality that is conductive to a life of dignity and well-
being. (P.D. 1151, 6 June 1977)
 (1) Cancel all existing timber license
agreements in the country;
 (2) Cease and desist from receiving,
accepting, processing, renewing or
approving new timber license
agreements.
 On 22 June 1990, the original defendant,
Secretary Factoran, Jr., filed a Motion to
Dismiss the complaint
 (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
 On 18 July 1991, respondent Judge
issued an order granting the motion
to dismiss.
 states no cause of action
 raises a political question
 the granting of the relief
prayed for would result in
the impairment of contracts
 Plaintiffs thus filed the instant
special civil action for certiorari
under Rule 65 of the Revised
Rules of Court
 complaint clearly and unmistakably states a cause of
action as it contains sufficient allegations concerning
their right to a sound environment
 Judicial question
 TLAs are not contracts.
 Whether or not the petitioners have the
locus standi to bring this action to the
judicial power of the Court.
 Whether or not there’s a failure to identify a
specific legal right violated by the
respondent.
 Whether or not the petition for
indiscriminate cancellation of all the TLAs
violates due process and the non-
impairment clause.
YES. The petitioners can file a class suit because they
represent their generation as well as generations yet
unborn which makes this of substantial common interest
where the impugning parties will sustain injury.
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.” Nature means the
created world in its entirety. Such rhythm and harmony
indispensably include, inter alia, the judicious disposition,
utilization, management, renewal and conservation of the
country’s forest, mineral, land, waters, fisheries, wildlife,
off-shore areas and other natural resources to the end that
their exploration, development and utilization be
EQUITABLY ACCESSIBLE to the present as well as future
generations.
NO. The complaint focuses on one specific fundamental
legal right — the right to a balanced and healthful ecology
which, for the first time in our nation’s constitutional
history, is solemnly incorporated in the fundamental law.
Section 16, Article II of the 1987 Constitution explicitly
provides:
“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.”
And though this 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 — aptly and
fittingly stressed by the petitioners — the advancement of
which may even be said to predate all governments and
constitutions.
NO. As correctly pointed out by the petitioners, into every
timber license must be read Section 20 of the Forestry
Reform Code (P.D. No. 705) which provides that “when the
national interest so requires, the President may amend,
modify, replace or rescind any contract, concession, permit,
licenses or any other form of privilege granted herein”.
All licenses may thus be revoked or rescinded by

executive action. It is not a contract, property or a
property right protested by the due process clause of the
Constitution.
Moreover, the constitutional guarantee 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.

EcoLaw Report - Oposa vs. Factoran

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

EcoLaw Report - Oposa vs. Factoran

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

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

EcoLaw Report - Oposa vs. Factoran

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Prepared by:

Phoebes Concepcion Almasco, CPA

G.R. No. 101083 - July 30, 1993

 Human Health A healthy watershed provides safe

 (b) to fulfill the social, economic and other

 (2) the issue raised by the plaintiffs is a political

Their personality to sue in behalf of the succeeding

Such a right belongs to a different category of rights

All licenses may thus be revoked or rescinded by

You might also like