7/28/2019 58746913 Oposa vs Factoran

1/2

OPOSA vs. FACTORANCase Digest

FACTS: The petitioners, all minors, sought the help of the Supreme Court to order therespondent, then Secretary of DENR, 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. They alleged that the massive commercial logging inthe country is causing vast abuses on rainforest. They furthered the rights of theirgeneration and the rights of the generations yet unborn to a balanced and healthfulecology.

Issue: Whether or not the petitioners have a locus standi.

Held:Locus standi means the right of the litigant to act or to be heard.

The SC decided in the affirmative.

Under Section 16, Article II of the 1987 constitution, it states that:The state shall protect and advance the right of the people to a balanced andhealthful ecology in accord with the rhythm and harmony of nature.Petitioners, minors assert that they represent their generation as well as generation yetunborn. We find no difficulty in ruling that they can, for themselves, for others of theirgeneration and for the succeeding generations, file a class suit. Their personality to suein behalf of the succeeding generations can only be based on the concept ofintergenerational responsibility insofar as the right to a balanced and healthful ecology

is concerned. Such a right, as hereinafter expounded considers therhythm andharmony of nature. Nature means the created world in its entirety. Such rhythm andharmony indispensably include, inter alia, the judicious disposition, utilization,management, renewal and conservation of the countrys forest, mineral, land, watersfisheries, wildlife, off- shore areas and other natural resources to the end that theirexploration, development and utilization be equitably accessible to the present as wellas future generations.Needless to say, every generation has a responsibility to the next to preservethat rhythm and harmony for the full enjoyment of a balanced and healthfulecology. Put a little differently, the minors assertion of their right to a soundenvironment constitutes, at the same time, the performance of their obligation to

ensure the protection of that right for the generations to come.This landmark case has been ruled as a class suit because the subject matter of thecomplaint is of common and general interest, not just for several but for ALL CITIZENSOF THE PHILIPPINES.

Bottom line:These minors have fought for our rights up to the highest level of legal remedy. These

7/28/2019 58746913 Oposa vs Factoran

2/2

minors thought of our interest and right. These minors battled for our sons anddaughters and those yet to come. These minors were concern for us to live in abalanced and healthful ecology. Sadly, we, who are learned and with discernment, areoblivious. Until when do we learn our lesson?Remember, we have an "INTERGENERATIONAL RESPONSIBILITY" to our future

generations.