7/28/2019 Digested Case of Oposa vs Factoran

1/2

OPOSA vs. FACTORAN

FACTS:

The petitioners, all minors, sought the help of the Supreme Court to order therespondent, then Secretary of DENR, 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. They alleged that the massive

commercial logging in the country is causing vast abuses on rainforest.

They furthered the rights of their generation and the rights of the generations yetunborn to a balanced and healthful ecology.

Issue: Whether or not the petitioners have a locus standi.

Held:

Locus standi means the right of the litigant to act or to be heard.

The SC decided in the affirmative.

Under Section 16, Article II of the 1987 constitution, it states that:

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.Petitioners, minors assert that they represent their generation as well as generationyet unborn. We find no difficulty in ruling that they can, for themselves, for others

of their generation and for the succeeding generations, file a class suit. Theirpersonality to sue in behalf of the succeeding generations can only be based on the

concept of intergenerational responsibility insofar as the right to a balanced and

healthful ecology is concerned. Such a right, as hereinafter expounded considersthe rhythm and harmony of nature. Nature means the created world in its

entirety. Such rhythm and harmony indispensably include, inter alia, the judiciousdisposition, utilization, management, renewal and conservation of the countrys

forest, mineral, land, waters fisheries, wildlife, off- shore areas and other naturalresources to the end that their exploration, development and utilization be

equitably accessible to the present as well as future generations.

Needless to say, every generation has a responsibility to the next to preservethat rhythm and harmony for the full enjoyment of a balanced and healthfulecology.Put a little differently, the minors assertion of their right to a sound

environment constitutes, at the same time, the performance of their obligation toensure the protection of that right for the generations to come.

This landmark case has been ruled as a class suit because the subject matter of the

complaint is of common and general interest, not just for several but for ALL

http://savetheearth-now.blogspot.com/2008/02/oposa-vs-factoran.htmlhttp://savetheearth-now.blogspot.com/2008/02/oposa-vs-factoran.htmlhttp://savetheearth-now.blogspot.com/2008/02/oposa-vs-factoran.html

7/28/2019 Digested Case of Oposa vs Factoran

2/2

CITIZENS OF THE PHILIPPINES.

Bottom line:

These minors have fought for our rights up to the highest level of legal remedy.

These minors thought of our interest and right. These minors battled for our sonsand daughters and those yet to come. These minors were concern for us to live in a

balanced and healthful ecology. Sadly, we, who are learned and with discernment,are oblivious. Until when do we learn our lesson?

Remember, we have an "INTERGENERATIONAL RESPONSIBILITY" to ourfuture generations.

A taxpayers class suit was initiated by the Philippine Ecological Network Incorporated (PENI)together with the minors Oposa and their parents. All were duly represented. They claimed that

as taxpayers they have the right to the full benefit, use and enjoyment of the natural resources ofthe countrys rainforests. They prayed that a judgment be rendered ordering Honorable Factoran

Jr, his agents, representatives and other persons acting in his behalf to cancel all existing timber

license agreements in the country and cease and desist from receiving, accepting, processing,

renewing or approving new timber license agreements.

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 orviolation 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 byexecutive action.