Scribd
Upload
80 views2 pages

Oposa Vs Factoran Case Digest

The Supreme Court granted the petition in Oposa vs. Factoran, recognizing the fundamental right of all citizens, including future generations, to a balanced and healthful ecology. The plaintiffs, represented by minors, argued the government's widespread granting of timber licenses was damaging the environment and violating this right. While the trial court dismissed the case for lack of a specific legal wrong, the Supreme Court found the complaint focused appropriately on the constitutional right to a healthy environment. This right belongs to all people from the beginning of humankind. The Court ruled the plaintiffs could amend their complaint to name the specific timber license holders as defendants.

Uploaded by

Angelica Carlos
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
80 views2 pages

Oposa Vs Factoran Case Digest

The Supreme Court granted the petition in Oposa vs. Factoran, recognizing the fundamental right of all citizens, including future generations, to a balanced and healthful ecology. The plaintiffs, represented by minors, argued the government's widespread granting of timber licenses was damaging the environment and violating this right. While the trial court dismissed the case for lack of a specific legal wrong, the Supreme Court found the complaint focused appropriately on the constitutional right to a healthy environment. This right belongs to all people from the beginning of humankind. The Court ruled the plaintiffs could amend their complaint to name the specific timber license holders as defendants.

Uploaded by

Angelica Carlos
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd

OPOSA vs FACTORAN

PETITIONER: Oposa Minors et. al.


RESPONDENT: Honorable Fulgencio S. Factoran (as sec of DENR) and Honorable
Eriberto U. Rosario (presiding judge of RTC, Makati) etc.

Facts:
On a broader sense, this petition bears upon THE RIGHT OF FILIPINOS TO A
BALANCED AND HEALTHFUL ECOLOGY which the petitioners call “Inter-generational
justice” and “inter-generational responsibility” since the minors represent their
generation and the generations yet unborn. The plaintiffs petitions defendant, his
agents, and representatives to (1) Cancel all existing Timber License Agreements (TLA)
in the country and (2) to Cease and desist from receiving, accepting, processing,
renewing or approving new TLA’s and grating the plaintiffs…such other reliefs just and
equitable under the premises. Furthermore, they assert that these adverse and
detrimental consequences of continued deforestation are deserving of judicial notice.

The RTC cannot help but to agree with the defendant on grounds that the petitioners fell
short in alleging a specific legal right and failed to state a cause of action in its complaint
against the defendant. Furthermore, granting their prayed relief will lead to impairment
of contracts prohibited by the Constitution. The Supreme Court, however, GRANTED
the petition.

Issues:
Whether or not it was proper to file a class suit - yes
Whether or not plaintiff stated a cause of action - yes
Whether or not there was a political question that courts cannot review - No

Ruling/Held:
We DO NOT AGREE with the conclusion of Trial Court that the plaintiffs failed to allege
a specific legal right involve or a specific legal wrong committed and that the complaint
is with vague assumptions and conclusions based on unverified data.

Complaint FOCUSES on one specific fundamental right: The right to a healthful and
balanced ecology which is in Section 16, Article II of the 1987 Constitution of the
Philippines: The state shall protect and advance the right of the people to a balanced
and healthful ecology and Sec 15 states that the State Shall protect and promote the
right to health of the people and instill a health consciousness among them.
Such rights belong to a different category of rights for it concerns nothing less than
self-preservation and self-perpetuation, the advancement of which predate all
government and constitutions. Actually, these rights need not to be in the constitution
since they are assumed to exist since the inception of human-kind. The right is linked to
the constitutional right to health, is “fundamental”, “constitutionalised”, “self-executing”
and “judicially enforceable”. It imposes the correlative duty to refrain from impairing the
environment.

Dispositive:
WHEREFORE, being impressed with merit, the instant Petition is hereby GRANTED,
and the challenged Order of respondent Judge of 18 July 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 questioned timber license
agreements.

You might also like