Oposa et al. v. Fulgencio S. Factoran, Jr. et al (G.R.No.

101083) Nature of the case Class action seeking the cancellation and non-issuanceof timber licence agreements which allegedly infringedthe constitutional right to a balanced and healthfulecology (Section 16); non-impairment of contracts;Environmental law; judicial review and the politicalquestion doctrine; inter-generational responsibility;Remedial law: cause of action and standing; Directiveprinciples; Negative obligation on State Summary An action was filed by several minors represented bytheir parents against the Department of Environment andNatural Resources to cancel existing timber licenseagreements in the country and to stop issuance of newones. It was claimed that the resultant deforestation anddamage to the environment violated their constitutionalrights to a balanced and healthful ecology and to health(Sections 16 and 15, Article II of the Constitution). Thepetitioners asserted that they represented others of their generation as well as generations yet unborn.Finding for the petitioners, the Court stated that eventhough the right to a balanced and healthful ecology isunder the Declaration of Principles and State Policies of the Constitution and not under the Bill of Rights, it doesnot follow that it is less important than any of the rightsenumerated in the latter: [it] concerns nothing less thanself-preservation and self-perpetuation, theadvancement of which may even be said to predate all governments and constitutions. The right is linked tothe constitutional right to health, is fundamental,constitutionalised, self-executing and judiciallyenforceable. It imposes the correlative duty to refrainfrom impairing the environment.The court stated that the petitioners were able to file aclass suit both for others of their generation and for succeeding generations as the minors' assertion of their right to a sound environment constitutes, at the sametime, the performance of their obligation to ensure the protection of that right for the generations to come. Significance of the case This case has been widely-cited in jurisprudenceworldwide, particularly in cases relating toforest/timber licensing. However, the approach of the Philippino Supreme Court to economic, socialand cultural rights has proved somewhatinconsistent, with some judgments resulting in theenforcement of

such rights (e.g., Del Rosario vBangzon, 180 SCRA 521 (1989); Manila Prince Hotel v Government Service Insurance System , G. R. No.122156 (3 February, 1997) but at least one instancein which the Court made a statement that economic,social and cultural rights are not real rights (see, Brigido Simon v Commission on Human Rights, G. R. No. 100150, 5 January 1994

Alternative Oposa vs. Factoran, G.R. 101083 Fact: a cause of action to "prevent the misappropriation or impairment" of Philippine rainforests and "arrest the unabated hemorrhage of the country's vital life support systems and continued rape of Mother Earth." The complaint2 was instituted as a taxpayers' class suit 3 and alleges that the plaintiffs "are all citizens of the Republic 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." 4Consequently, it is prayed for that judgment be rendered: 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. 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. Issue: Whether or not petitioners have a cause of action? HELD: YES petitioners have a cause of action. The case at bar is of common interest to all Filipinos. The right to a balanced and healthy ecology carries with it the

correlative duty to refrain from impairing the environment. The said right implies the judicious management of the countrys forests. This right is also the mandate of the government through DENR. 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. All licenses may thus be revoked or rescinded by executive action. The right to a balanced and healthful ecology carries with it the correlative duty to refrain from impairing the environment