Title
Oposa vs. Factoran Jr.
Case
G.R. No. 101083
Decision Date
Jul 30, 1993
Minors and PENI sued to halt deforestation, invoking the constitutional right to a balanced ecology and inter-generational responsibility; Supreme Court upheld their standing and cause of action.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 101083)

Petition and Prayer

Petitioners brought a taxpayers’ class suit seeking (1) cancellation of all existing timber license agreements (TLAs) and (2) a cease-and-desist order against processing or approving new TLAs. They invoked their right to a balanced and healthful ecology and intergenerational justice, alleging the State’s failure to protect vital forest resources.

Factual Allegations

The complaint traced forest cover decline from roughly 16 million hectares (53% of land area) in the 1960s to about 850,000 hectares of old-growth rainforest by 1990. It linked this deforestation to water shortages, salinization of aquifers, massive soil erosion, biodiversity loss, cultural displacement of indigenous communities, siltation of rivers and dams, droughts, intensified typhoons, flooding of lowlands, and contributions to global warming.

Cause of Action and Legal Basis

Petitioners asserted that the DENR Secretary’s issuance and renewal of TLAs constituted misappropriation or impairment of natural resources held in trust. They claimed a clear constitutional right to a balanced ecology (Art. II, § 16) and a correlative State duty under Civil Code Articles 19–21, EO 192 § 4, PD 1151, and parens patriae theory.

Procedural History and Dismissal

On June 22, 1990, the DENR Secretary moved to dismiss for lack of cause of action and for presenting a non-justiciable political question. The Makati RTC granted the motion on July 18, 1991, finding the complaint vague, raising political issues, and suggesting relief would impair contracts. Petitioners then filed a Rule 65 certiorari before the Supreme Court.

Constitutional and Statutory Framework

The Court reviewed the newly constitutionalized right to a balanced and healthful ecology (Art. II, § 16) alongside the right to health (Art. II, § 15). It examined EO 192’s mandate for DENR to ensure sustainable resource use and the Administrative Code’s parallel policy. PD 1151 (1977) reinforced the intergenerational environmental stewardship principle.

Locus Standi and Class Suit

The Supreme Court upheld the action as a valid class suit under Rule 3, § 12, finding the subject matter common to all Filipinos and impracticable to join individually. It recognized minors’ standing to represent present and future generations in defending the ecological right.

Merits: Right to a Balanced and Healthful Ecology

Admitting petitioners’ allegations as hypothetically true for a motion-to-dismiss analysis, the Court found a specific fundamental right at issue. The complaint adequately alleged denial of the constitutional right to a healthful ecology and the DENR Secretary’s correlative duty, establishing a prima facie cause of action.

Abuse of Discretion and Political Question Doctrine

The Court rejected the political question defense, emphasizing its constitutional duty (Art. VIII, § 1) to

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources. AI digests are study aids only—use responsibly.