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

101083)
An action was filed by several minors represented by their parents against the Department of
Environment and Natural Resources to cancel existing timber license agreements in the country and to
stop issuance of new ones. It was claimed that the resultant deforestation and damage to the
environment violated their constitutional rights to a balanced and healthful ecology and to health (Sections
16 and 15, Article II of the Constitution). The petitioners asserted that they represented others of their
generation as well as generations yet unborn.
Finding for the petitioners, the Court stated that even though the right to a balanced and healthful ecology
is under the Declaration of Principles and State Policies of the Constitution and not under the Bill of
Rights, it does not follow that it is less important than any of the rights enumerated in the latter: [it]
concerns nothing less than self-preservation and self-perpetuation, the advancement of which may even
be said to predate all governments and constitutions. The right is linked to the constitutional right to
health, is fundamental, constitutionalised, self-executing and judicially enforceable. It imposes the
correlative duty to refrain from impairing the environment.
The court stated that the petitioners were able to file a class 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
same time, the performance of their obligation to ensure the protection of that right for the generations to
come.
ISSUES:
(1) WON the right to a balanced and healthful ecology is a substantive right
(2) WON timber licenses are contracts;
WON the cancellation of which would constitute non- impairment clause which is prohibited
under the Constitution
RULING:
(1) Yes, it is a substantive right. Right of Filipinos to a balanced and healthful ecology
which the petitioners dramatically associate with the twin concepts of "intergenerational responsibility" and "intergenerational justice."
Needless to say, every generation has a responsibility to the next to preserve that
rhythm and harmony for the full enjoyment of a balanced and healthful ecology. Put a
little differently, 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) Since timber licenses are not contracts, the nonimpairment clause, cannot be invoked.

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.