OPOSA v FACTORAN:

F: In a civil case in the RTC Makati, the petitioners, all minors duly represent
ed and joined by their respective parents, and PENI (a domestic non-stock/profit
corporation organized for the purpose of engaging in concerted action geared fo
r protection of env't and natural resources), institued a class suit, alleging t
hat they are citizens and taxpayers, and entitled to the full benefit, use and e
njoyment of the virgin tropical forests. Further, they claim to represent their
generation as well as generations yet unborn. To this end, they seek that the re
spondent SENR cancel all existing TLAs in the country, and cease and desist from
receiving/accepting/processing/renewing/approving new TLAs.
Their legal theory is as follows:
- Citing statistics, they show the alarming decline of the country's virgin rain
forest resources. Records show that this is because of logging operations, hence
the issue with the grant of the TLAs. If left to continue, the effects and cons
equences of deforestation to the present and unborn generations are evident and
incontrovertrible, and in fact alrady exist.
- Allowing the continuance of TLAs will work great damage and irreparable injury
to plaintiffs.
- Their legal basis is the constitutional right to a balanced and healthful ecol
ogy (Art. II), coupled with State protection as parens patriae.
- However, the defendant allows the continuation of TLAs. This failure and refus
al is an act violative of their rights, Philippine Environmental Policy under PD
1151, the Constitution (Art. II, Sec. 16; Art. XII, Secs. 1-2; Art. XIV, Sec.14
), and natural law.
Arguments in respondent's motion to dismiss: No cause of action, political quest
ion.
RTC: Motion to dismiss sustained. Considered respondent's arguments, and include
d that the grant of the reliefs sought would result in impairment of contracts w
hich is also Constitutionaly proscribed.
Hence this special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 (GAD). The parents
join their children as parties.
In their petition for certiorari, the petitioners have a slightly different lega
l theory, invoking Arts. 19-21 NCC (Human Relations), Sec. 4 of EO 192 creating
the DENR (the Policy behind the DENR), Sec. 3 of PD 1151 (Environmental Policy),
Sec. 16 Art. II of the Constitution, the concept of generational genocide in cr
iminal law, and the natural law concept of self-preservation. They focus on the
duty of the respondent under Sec. 4 of EO 192. GAD re: grant of TLAs is a judici
al question. Re: TLAs: not contracts, even if they are, they may be revoked by t
he Stated when the public interest so requires.
SolGen: No specific legal right invoked; all of these are vague allegations that
do not reveal a valid cause of action. As to TLAs, still a political question,
and even then, cancellation of TLAs has to observe due process-- the blanket can
cellation constitutes denial of due process.
PROCEDURAL ARGUMENT: Whether or not petitioners have locus standi.
- As class suit: This was instituted as a class suit, but there was no oppositio
n as to it being a class suit. The Court considers the subject matter as of comm
on and general interest to all citizens of the Philippines such that the parties
are indeed so numerous that it becomes impracticable to bring every Filipino be
fore the Court. Petitioners considered representative enough, allowing for the c
lass suit.

- Via generations yet unborn: Standing based on generations yet unborn can only
be based on the concept of intergenerational responsibility with respect to the
right to a balanced and healthful ecology, wrt the 'rhythm ahd harmony of nature
', as an obligation to regulate use, renewal, conservation, etc of the country's
natural resources s.t. they could be accessible to present and future generatio
ns. Asserting this right also means asserting the obligation.
(at any rate, the Court would just have gone transcendental importance)
PROCEDURAL ARGUMENT: Whether or not the facts state a cause of action.
Right asserted: Right to a balanced and healthful ecology under Sec. 16, Art. II
(read alongside Sec. 15-- right to health).
- Though it is a State Policy and not an actual right under the Bill of Rights,
it does not mean it is less important. This right is in an entirely new category
as it involves the natural law concept of self-preservation. They need not be m
entioned in the Constitution-- they only were mentioned out of fears that unless
mandated, it may be possible that our natural resources would be lost.
Related duty: Collerative duty to refrain from impairing the environment
- This was derived in one of the ConComm sessions: Azcuna said that the right to
healthful environment necessarily carries with it the correlative duty of not i
mpairing the same; sanctions may be provided for impairment of environmental bal
ance. It implies the judicious management and conservation of the forests, for w
ithout them, the ecological balance would be irreversibly disrupted.
- This is bolstered by similar duties in other laws:
EO 192 - DENR is the primary government agency responsible for the conservation,
management, development and proper use of the country's environment and natural
resources. It includes licensing and registration of use. They cite its Declara
tion of Policy (Sec. 3) alongside the RAC-- the DENR is mandated to maintain a s
ound ecological balance and protecting and enhancing the quality of the environm
ent. Sec. 2 refers to the DENR's mandate for the implementation of the policy, a
nd subjcets the same to law and higher authority.
PD 1151 and PD 1152 - Policy of the State to create, develop, maintain and impro
ve conditions under which man and nature can thrive in productive and enjoyable
harmoney with each other, fulfill the SE and other requirements of present and f
uture generations of Filipinos, and insure the attainment of an environmental qu
ality that is conducive to a life of dignity and well-being. Latter statute give
s flesh to the policy in PD 1151.
Based on this, there is a right-duty correlation, and a violation of such gives
rise to a cause of action. Petitioners argue that the granting of the TLAs (act)
, done with GAD, violated their right to a balanced and healthful ecology (right
-injury; in relation to DENR duty). Remedy: Previously mandamus; Relief: Stop gr
ant of TLAs, and cancel all current TLAs.
- Based on definition of cause of action: ". . . an act or omission of one party
in violation of the legal right or rights of the other; and its essential eleme
nts are legal right of the plaintiff, correlative obligation of the defendant, a
nd act or omission of the defendant in violation of said legal right. "
- Further, an MTD based on failure to state a cause of action involves the suffi
ciency of the facts alleged in the complaint. We deem the facts hypothetically a
dmitted, and we resolved as to whether or not a valid judgment could be rendered
in accordance with the prayer in the complaint. The Court must be careful in pa
ssing upon an MTD based on this test, lest its failure lead to a nullification o

f the laws. (Militante v Edrosolano)

- Court: Averments adequate enough to show, prima facie, claimed violation. They
may be granted the reliefs prayed for. However, to cancel the TLAs, there is a
need to implead the grantees as indispensable parties.
PROCEDURAL ARGUMENT: Whether or not the issue is justiciable (political question
).
- What is questioned here is not policy formulation; it is enforcement of a righ
t vis-a-vis policies. Even then, the GAD clause applies.
SUBSTANTIVE ARGUMENT: Whether or not the grant of the reliefs violates the non-i
mpairment of contracts clause in the Constitution.
- Note: The SolGen did not invoke this argument. The SolGen stressed that every
timber license must be read alongside Sec. 20 of PD 705-- the President may amen
d/modify/replace/rescind licenses including timber license agreements.
- That said, TLAs are not contracts. They are privileges or licenses (Tan v Dire
ctor of Forestry); these can be withdrawn when dictated by public interest. They
permit what normally would be illegal. Art. III, Sec. 10 is inapplicable.
- Even then, the freedom of contract is not absolute. It may yield to regulation
under police power in the interest of public health, safety, moral, and general
welfare. (Abe v Foster Wheeler, Phil-Am Life Insurance v Auditor General).