Oposa vs Factoran
of contracts.
Rhett Alvin Bastareche
Facts
Plaintiffs are minors being represented by their parents against defendant
FULGENCIO S. FACTORAN as Secretary of the Department of
Environment and Natural Resources (DENR).
The plaintiffs claimed that they represent their generation as well as
generations yet unborn. It is the duty of the present generation to preserve
and protect the environment for the use and enjoyment of next generations.
(inter-generational responsibility)
Plaintiffs alleged that they and the succeeding generations are entitled to the
full benefit, use and enjoyment of the natural resource treasure that is the
country's virgin tropical forests. (inter-generational justice)
They revealed that the issuance of timber license to various corporations
resulted to the deforestation and destruction of tropical forests in the county.
They prayed for the cancellation of all existing Timber License Agreement
in the country and to cease and desist from receiving, accepting, processing,
renewing or approving new agreements.
The defendant filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that the complaint
had no cause of action against him since there was no legal right that has
been violated. The regional trial court 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. (Art 3, Sec.
10) The lower court contend that the issue raised by the petitioners is a
matter that must be decided upon by the President and Congress.
THUS, petitioners filed a special civil action for certiorari.
Issues
 Whether or not the plaintiffs have a cause of action.
 Whether or not the prayer of the plaintiffs results in the impairment
Ruling
1st Issue
ARTICLE II section 16 of the constitution provides:
“The state shall protect and advance the right of the people to a
balance and healthful ecology in accord with the rhythm and harmony
of nature.”
In the case at bar, respondent argues that the petitioners do not have a cause
of action since there was no legal right that has been violated. However, the
Supreme Court affirmed the justiciability of the issue raised by the
petitioners. The abuse in the issuance of timber license agreement to various
corporation is a violation of Article II section 16 of the Constitution which
is a fundamental legal right. The right to have a balance and healthful
ecology has a correlative duty to refrain from impairing the environment.
Therefore, the petitioners have a cause of action.
2nd Issue
Article III section 10 of the Constitution provides:
“No law impairing the obligations of contracts shall be passed.”
In the case at bar, the RTC contends that the prayer by the plaintiffs would
result in the impairment of contracts. However, timber license agreement is
not a contract but rather an instrument to regulate the utilization and
disposition of natural resources. It is not an obligation but rather a privilege
or permit given by DENR to various corporations in the timber industry.
Thus, the relief prayed for by the petitioners is not an impairment of
contracts.