Oposa v.
Factoran powers and functions of the DENR to be the primary government agency
Preliminary Readings | 1936| Davide Jr.
Nature of Case: SPECIAL CIVIL ACTION for certiorari
Digest maker: Selene
SUMMARY: Minors, represented by their parents filed a petition for the revocation of TLAs
to protect the ecology. It was claimed that the deforestation violated their right to a
balanced and healthful ecology as provided by Sec. 16 of ART II of the Constitution. The
court ruled in favor of the petitioners stating that it is a correlative duty to refrain from
impairing the environment.
DOCTRINE: This case stated that Sec. 16 of ART II of the Constitution is a self-executing
provision. It was also most noted for its concept of “intergenerational responsibility.”
FACTS:
 The plaintiffs (minors represented by their parents) filed a complaint as a class suit at
the Makati RTC against DENR Secretary Factoran, Jr.
 The plaintiffs alleged that they “are all citizens of the Republic of the Philippines,
taxpayers, and entitled to the full benefit, use and enjoyment of the natural resources
treasure that is the country’s virgin tropical rainforests.”
 They further assert that they represent their generation as well as the future
generations.
 They plaintiffs also stated that continued deforestation have caused a distortion and
disturbance of the ecological balance and have resulted in a host of environmental
tragedies.
 The plaintiffs prayed that the judgment be rendered ordering the respondent to:
o Cancel all existing timber license agreements in the country
o Cease and desist from receiving, accepting, processing, renewing or
approving new timber license agreements.
 The defendant files a motion to dismiss the complaint on the grounds that: the
plaintiffs have no cause of action against him and that the issue raised is a political
question
ISSUE/S & RATIO:
Procedural:
1. WON the civil case is a class suit? – YES
a. It is a class suit given that the subject matter of the complaint is of common
and general interest not just to several but to all citizens of the Philippines.
b. Since the parties are so numerous, it becomes impracticable, if not totally
impossible to bring all of them to court.
Substantive:
2. WON the plaintiffs have a cause of action? – YES
a. Respondents assert 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. But the Court did not agree with this because the
complaint focuses on one fundamental legal right -- the right to a balanced
and healthful ecology which is incorporated in Section 16 Article II of the
Constitution.
b. The said right carries with it the duty to refrain from impairing the
environment and implies, among many other things, the judicious
management and conservation of the country's forests.
c. Both E.O. 192 and Administrative Code of 1987 have set the objectives
which will serve as the bases for policy formation, and have defined the
responsible for the governing and supervising the exploration, utilization,
development and conservation of the country's natural resources.
d. Thus, the 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.
i. A denial or violation of that right by the other who has the
correlative duty or obligation to respect or protect or respect the
same gives rise to a cause of action.
3. WON the complaint raises a political issue? – NO
a. Section 1 (2) 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 jurisdiction because
it is tainted with grave abuse of discretion.
4. WON the original prayer of the plaintiffs result in the impairment of contracts? – NO
a. 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 is promoted.
b. It is not a contract within the purview of the due process clause thus, the
non-impairment clause cannot be invoked.
c. It can be validly withdrawn whenever dictated by public interest or public
welfare as in this case.
d. The granting of license does not create irrevocable rights, neither is it
property or property rights.
e. 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.
RULING: The instant petition, being impressed with merit, is hereby GRANTED and the RTC decision
of dismissal is SET ASIDE.
Relevant Provisions:
1987 Constitution: Art II, Section 16 – The State shall protect and advance the right of the
people to a balanced and healthful ecology in accord with the rhythm and harmony of
nature.
Rules of Court: Section 12. Class suit. — When the subject matter of the controversy is one
of common or general interest to many persons so numerous that it is impracticable to join
all as parties, a number of them which the court finds to be sufficiently numerous and
representative as to fully protect the interests of all concerned may sue or defend for the
benefit of all. Any party in interest shall have the right to intervene to protect his individual
interest.
1987 Constitution: Art III Section 10. No law impairing the obligation of contracts shall be
passed