8/12/2019 (25) Digest- Oposa vs. Factoran

1/3

G.R. No. 101083 July 30, 1993

Juan Antonio, Anna Rosario and Jose Alfonso, all surnamed Oposa, vs.The Honorable

Fulgencio S. Factoran, Jr.Consti tuti onal Provision when executor ; Capacity to F il e Suit; Art. II, Sec. 15 of the 1987

Constitution states that it is among the policies of the State to protect and promote the right to

health of the people and instil health consciousness among them. Sec. 16 of the same Articlereads that State shall protect and advance the right of the people to a balanced and healthfulecology in accord with the rhythm and harmony of nature.

FACTS:

1. The case is a class suit instigated by petitioners who are minors, represented by theirparents along with the Philippine Ecological Network, Inc,, a non-stock, non- profitcorporation concerned with the protection of environment and natural resources. The

petitioners are represented by Oposa Law Office

2.

Petitioners lobbied for the revocation of the Timber License Agreements (TLA) grantedby DENR, as represented by then Secretary Fulgencio Factoran, respondent, based on the

right of the Filipinos to a balanced and healthful ecology. They wish to assert the rights

of their generation as well as the generation yet unborn.

3. The cause of action stated by the petitioners made mention of the alleged facts about thefollowing:

a. decline of the countrys landmass covered by forest from 16 million hectares to850,000 hectares in just a matter of 25 years

b. with the rate of deforestation of about 200 000 hectares per annum, thePhilippines would be bereft of forest resources by the end of the 1990s, depriving

the unborn generation of their right to balanced and healthful environment, which

they may not even seec. plaintiffs have a constitutional right to a balanced and healthful ecology and are

entitled to protection by the state in its capacity as theparens partiae

4. The petition was initially filed with the Regional Trial Court, NCR. In response,respondent Sec. Factoran filed for a Motion to Dismiss based on two grounds:

a. the plaintiffs have no cause of action against him; andb. the issue raised by the plaintiffs is a political question which properly pertains to

the legislative or executive branches of Government

5. Respondent Judge issued an order granting the aforementioned motion to bedismissed. In the said order, not only was the defendant's claim 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.

6. Petitioners filed for instant special civil action for certiorariunder Rule 65 of the RevisedRules of Court and asked the Supreme Court to rescind and set aside the dismissal orderon the ground that the respondent Judge gravely abused his discretion in dismissing the

action.

ISSUE:

8/12/2019 (25) Digest- Oposa vs. Factoran

2/3

1. Whether or not the petitioners have a justiciable cause of action rising from their claimof a right to balanced and healthful ecology as stated in the Declaration of Principles and

State Policies2. Whether or not the case is a political question which should be addressed to the

legislative and executive branches

3.

Whether or not cancellation of the TLA will result to impairments of contracts andwhether such impairment will be against the fundamental laws of the land

HELD:

1. The Supreme Court held in favor of the petitioners, it stated that the complaint focuses onone 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. And although 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 isless 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

petitionersthe advancement of which may even be said to predate all governments andconstitutions. As a matter of fact, these basic rights need not even be written in the

Constitution for they are assumed to exist from the inception of humankind. 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 healthare mandated as state policies by the Constitution itself, thereby highlighting their

continuing importance and imposing upon the state a solemn obligation to preserve thefirst and protect and advance the second, the day would not be too far when all elsewould 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 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. Supreme Court held that the petition is not a political question. The case filed principallyinvolves the enforcement of a right vis-a-vispolicies already formulated and expressed inlegislation.

It must, nonetheless, be emphasized that the political question doctrine is no longer, theinsurmountable obstacle to the exercise of judicial power or the impenetrable shield that

protects executive and legislative actions from judicial inquiry or review. The second

paragraph of section 1, Article VIII of the Constitution states that:

8/12/2019 (25) Digest- Oposa vs. Factoran

3/3

Judicial power includes the duty of the courts of justice to settle actual

controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable, and

to determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amountingto lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the

Government.

3. Supreme Court decided that the position of the RTC Judge was shockingly unacceptable.They stated that Sec. Factoran did not even invoke the non-impairment clause when he

filed for Motion to Dismiss petition. He was aware that as correctly pointed out by thepetitioners, into every timber license must be read Section 20 of the Forestry Reform

Code (P.D. No. 705) which provides:

. . .Provided, 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 . . .

Needless to say, all licenses may thus be revoked or rescinded by executive action. It isnot a contract, property or a property right protested by the due process clause of the

Constitution.