OPOSA v.
FACTORAN
G.R. No. 101083 | July 30, 1993
Topic: Right to a balanced and healthful ecology; “Inter-generational Responsibility”
Petitioners: Minors Juan Antonio, Anna Rosario, and Jose Alfonso Oposa, represented by their parents,
Antonio and Rizalina Oposa, et al. and Philippine Ecological Network, Inc.
Respondent: Fulgencio Factoran, Jr., Secretary of the DENR
Facts: The case is a taxpayers’ class suit, where petitioners allege that they are “representing their
generations and generations yet unborn”. The complaint was filed by the petitioners who were minors,
represented by their parents, against the respondent Secretary of DENR. The complaint prayed for the
cancellation of all existing timber license agreements and to cease and desist from further accepting,
renewing, and approving the same. As their cause of action, petitioners allege that the massive decline in
rainforest cover in the country’s land area (from 53% or 16 million hectares to 4% or 1.2 million hectares in
25 years), and its continuing decline (at the rate of 200,000 hectares per year) has resulted to
“environmental tragedies” such as water shortages, massive erosion and loss of soil fertility and agricultural
productivity, endangering and extinction of flora and fauna, drought, massive flooding, “greenhouse effect”
and so on.
As they have argued, “the adverse effects, disastrous consequences, serious injury and irreparable damage
of this continued trend of deforestation to the plaintiff minor's generation and to generations yet unborn are
evident and incontrovertible. As a matter of fact, the environmental damages enumerated x x x are already
being felt, experienced and suffered by the generation of plaintiff adults. The continued allowance by
defendant of TLA holders to cut and deforest the remaining forest stands will work great damage and
irreparable injury to plaintiffs — especially plaintiff minors and their successors — who may never see, use,
benefit from and enjoy this rare and unique natural resource treasure.” According to petitioners, the acts of
respondents have constituted a “misappropriation” of the natural resource which he (respondent) holds in
trust for the petitioners. Ultimately, it was argued that petitioners “have a clear and constitutional right to a
balanced and healthful ecology and are entitled to protection by the State in its capacity as parens patriae.”
Petitioners allege that their complaint states a cause of action concerning their right to a sound environment
based on the following:
1. Art. 19, 20, and 21 of the Civil Code (Human Relations)
2. Section 4 of Executive Order (E.O.) No. 192 creating the DENR
3. Section 3 of Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 1151 (Philippine Environmental Policy)
4. Section 16, Article II of the 1987 Constitution recognizing the right of the people to a balanced and
healthful ecology
5. Concept of generational genocide in Criminal Law
6. Concept of man's inalienable right to self-preservation and self-perpetuation embodied in natural
law.
7. Respondent's correlative obligation per Section 4 of E.O. No. 192, to safeguard the people's right
to a healthful environment.
On the other hand, respondent contends that the petitioners do not have a cause of action when they failed
to allege in their complaint a specific legal right which the latter has violated. The complaint merely mentions
vague environmental rights that supposedly entitles petitioners to protection of the state as parens patriae.
Further, respondents argue that the issue of whether or not logging should be permitted is a political
question and therefore outside the jurisdiction of the courts, and that the petitioners’ remedy is to lobby
before Congress for the passage of a bill banning logging activities in the country.
Issue: W/N petitioners’ complaint sufficiently states a cause of action, a specific legal right based on a
balanced and healthful ecology, which warrants the consideration of the court
Held: Yes.
The Court held that despite being found under the provisions of Declaration of State Policies and Principles,
it does not mean that such right to a healthful and balanced ecology is of less importance than the other
civil and political rights enumerated under the Bill of Rights. The Court stated, “Such a right belongs to a
different category of rights altogether for it concerns nothing less than self-preservation and self-
perpetuation — aptly and fittingly stressed by the petitioners — the advancement of which may even be
said to predate all governments and constitutions.” The Court also emphasized that these rights need not
be written in the Constitution “for they are assumed to exist from the inception of humankind.” Further,
having been written under the present Constitution, the framers have highlighted the continuing importance
and imposing upon the state the obligation to preserve and protect the people’s right to a healthful and
balanced ecology.
The state has already enacted laws, even before the 1987 Constitution, which paid special attention to the
environmental rights of present and future generations, such as P.D. 1151 (Philippine Environmental
Policy), P.D. 1152 (Philippine Environmental Code), and at present, the E.O. 192 and the Administrative
Code (creating and outlining the powers and functions of the DENR). Taken from all these, the Court held
that “the right of the petitioners (and all those they represent) to a balanced and healthful ecology is as clear
as the DENR's duty — under its mandate and by virtue of its powers and functions under E.O. No. 192 and
the Administrative Code of 1987 — to protect and advance the said right.”
“A denial or violation 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. Petitioners maintain that the granting of the TLAs, which they claim
was done with grave abuse of discretion, violated their right to a balanced and healthful ecology; hence,
the full protection thereof requires that no further TLAs should be renewed or granted.”
