This document summarizes the 1993 Supreme Court case Oposa v. Factoran, Jr. regarding the right to a balanced and healthy ecology. The Court ruled that (1) the petitioners, represented by minors, have legal standing to file a class suit regarding this right, which is a constitutional duty. (2) The petitioners' complaint provided enough prima facie evidence that timber license agreements violated their right to a balanced ecology. (3) The order dismissing the case was set aside and petitioners could amend their complaint to include TLA holders as defendants.
This document summarizes the 1993 Supreme Court case Oposa v. Factoran, Jr. regarding the right to a balanced and healthy ecology. The Court ruled that (1) the petitioners, represented by minors, have legal standing to file a class suit regarding this right, which is a constitutional duty. (2) The petitioners' complaint provided enough prima facie evidence that timber license agreements violated their right to a balanced ecology. (3) The order dismissing the case was set aside and petitioners could amend their complaint to include TLA holders as defendants.
This document summarizes the 1993 Supreme Court case Oposa v. Factoran, Jr. regarding the right to a balanced and healthy ecology. The Court ruled that (1) the petitioners, represented by minors, have legal standing to file a class suit regarding this right, which is a constitutional duty. (2) The petitioners' complaint provided enough prima facie evidence that timber license agreements violated their right to a balanced ecology. (3) The order dismissing the case was set aside and petitioners could amend their complaint to include TLA holders as defendants.
This document summarizes the 1993 Supreme Court case Oposa v. Factoran, Jr. regarding the right to a balanced and healthy ecology. The Court ruled that (1) the petitioners, represented by minors, have legal standing to file a class suit regarding this right, which is a constitutional duty. (2) The petitioners' complaint provided enough prima facie evidence that timber license agreements violated their right to a balanced ecology. (3) The order dismissing the case was set aside and petitioners could amend their complaint to include TLA holders as defendants.
Healthful Ecology (inter-generational justice and responsibility) Oposa v. Factoran, Jr. G.R. No. 101083. July 30, 1993. SPECIAL CIVIL ACTION for certiorari of the dismissal order of the RTC of Makati, Br. 66. Facts: Principal petitioners, all minors, are duly represented by their parents in filing Civil Case No. 90-777, which is a class suit, before the RTC Branch 66 of Makati City originally against Sec. Fulgeciano S. Factoran, Jr. (former DENR Secretary). Original respondent was subsequently replaced by the current DENR Secretary Angel C. Alcala upon order of the court. Impleaded as an additional plaintiff is the Philippine Ecological Network, Inc. (PENI). The minors asseverate that they represent their generation as well as generation yet unborn. The civil case prays for judgment to be rendered ordering defendant, his agents, representatives and other persons acting in his behalf to: 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. As their cause of action, plaintiffs specifically allege among other things that they have a clear and constitutional right to a balanced and healthful ecology and are entitled to protection by the State in its capacity as the parens patriae. On June 22, 1990, the original defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss the complaint based on two (2) grounds, namely:
1. The plaintiffs have no cause of
action against him; and 2. The issue raised by the plaintiffs is a political question which properly pertains to the legislative or executive branches of the Government. On July 18, 1991, respondent Judge issued an order granting the aforementioned motion to dismiss.
Issues/Held & Ratio:
*1. Do petitioners have legal standing (locus standi) by virtue of Section 15 and 16 of Article II of the Constitution in filing the class suit? Yes. The said provisions of the Constitution, although found under the Declaration of Principles and State Policies, confer enforceable rights as it concerns nothing less than selfpreservation and self-perpetuation. The right to a balanced and healthful ecology carries with it the correlative duty to refrain from impairing the environment. Moreover, their personality 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. The right of the petitioners is also as clear as the DENRs dutyunder its mandate and by virtue of its powers and functions under E.O. No. 192 and Administrative Code of 1987to protect and advance the said right. 2. Does the issuance of the Timber License Agreements (TLAs) violate the petitioners right to a balanced and healthful ecology, and therefore the same should be cancelled? After a careful examination of the petitioners complaint , the Court found the statements under the introductory affirmative allegations, as well as the specific averments under the sub heading CAUSE OF ACTION, to be adequate enough to show prima facie, the claimed
violation of their rights. The cancellation may
thus be granted, wholly or partly. COURTS FINAL RULING: WHEREFORE, being impressed with merit, the instant Petition is hereby GRANTED, and the challenged Order of Respondent Judge of July 18, 1991 dismissing Civil Case No. 90-777 is hereby set aside. The petitioners may therefore amend their complaint to implead as defendants the holders or grantees of the question TLAs.
