oposa et al. v. fulgencio s. factoran, jr

8/9/2019 Oposa Et Al. v. Fulgencio S. Factoran, Jr.

1/3

FACTS:

The plaintiffs in this case are all minors duly represented and

joined by their parents. 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 Reasources (DENR). Plaintiffs

alleged that they are entitled to the full benefit, use and

enjoyment of the natural resource treasure that is the

country's virgin tropical forests. They further asseverate that

they represent their generation as well as generations yet

unborn and asserted that continued deforestation have

caused a distortion and disturbance of the ecological balance

and have resulted in a host of environmental tragedies.

Plaintiffs prayed that judgement 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 plaintiffs have a cause of action.

(2) Whether or not the complaint raises a political issue.

(3) Whether or not the original prayer of the plaintiffs result in

the impairment of contracts.

RULING:

First Issue: 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

1


2/3

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 andconservation 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 willserve 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 respectthe 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 jurisdictionbecause it is tainted with grave abuse of discretion.

Third Issue: 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 ispromoted. 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.

2


3/3

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.

HELD:

1.The petitioners have locus standi (legal standing) on

the case as a taxpayers (class) suit. The subject

matter of complaint is of common and general interest

to all the citizens of the Philippines. The court found

difficulty in ruling that the appellants can, for

themselves, and for others file a class suit.

2.The right of the petitioners to a balanced and healthfulecology has been clearly stated. 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. The granting of the TLAs, as the

petitioners claim to be done with grave abuse of

discretion, violated their right to a balanced and

healthful ecology hence, the full protection thereof

requires that no TLAs should be renewed or

granted. The appellants have also submitted a

document with the sub-header CAUSE OF ACTION

which is adequate enough to show, prima facie, the

violation of their rights. On this basis, these actions

must therefore be granted, wholly or partially.

3.Despite the Constitutions non-impairment clause,

TLAs are not contracts, rather licenses; thus, the said

clause cannot be invoked. Even if these are protected

by the said clause, these can be revoked if the public

interest so required as stated in Section 20 of the

Forestry Reform Code (P.D. No. 705). Furthermore,

Section 16 of Article II of the 1987 Constitution

explicitly provides that: The State shall protect the

right of the people to a balanced and healthful ecology

in accord with the rhythm and harmony of nature.

The right to a balanced and healthful ecology carries

with it the correlative duty to refrain from impairingthe government. The said right is also clear as the

DENRs duty under its mandate and by virtue of its

powers and functions under Executive Order No. 192

and the Administrative Code of 1987 to protect and

advance the said right.

3

oposa et al. v. fulgencio s. factoran, jr

Documents