OPOSA V. FACTORAN, JR.

GR 101083 July 30, 1993 Davide, Jr.

Article XI – Section 5 Trixie Garcia
Petitioners Respondents
Juan Antonio, Anna Rosario and Jose Alfonso, Fulgencio Factoran, Jr. (Secretary of the Department
represented by their parents, Antonio and Rizalina of Environment and Natural Resources) and Eriberto
Oposa; other minors represented by their parents. Rosario (Presiding Judge of RTC, Makati, Branch 66)
Recit Ready Summary
Plaintiffs assail the timber license agreements granted by the Secretary of the Department of Environment and
Natural Resources and filed a class suit. Original defendant filed a motion to dismiss and the respondent judge
grants such. Petitions assail the decision hence, this petition. The Supreme Court held that the petitioners had
locus standi to file for a class suit based on the following: (1) subject matter being of interest to all citizens of the
Philippines and (2): the right to a sound environment entails an obligation to ensure the protection of the same
for generations to come. The Supreme Court held that the decision of the respondent judge is to be set aside.
Facts of the Case
Civil Case No. 90-777
· Plaintiffs are minors represented and joined by their parents; original defendant was Fulgencio Factoran Jr.
· Complaint was instituted as a taxpayers’ class suit; plaintiffs allege that they are citizens of the Philippines
entitles to the full benefit, use and enjoyment of the natural resource treasure or virgin tropical rainforests.
· Complaint was filed for themselves, those who are equally concerned about the preservation of rainforests,
their generation and the generations yet unborn.
· Plaintiffs pray that the defendant to (1) cancel all existing timber license agreements and (2) cease and
desist from receiving, accepting, processing, renewing or approving new timber license agreements.
· Original defendant filed a motion to dismiss the complaint and allege (1) the plaintiffs have no cause of
action and (2) the issue raised by the plaintiffs involve a political question.
· Respondent judge granted the motion to dismiss and further ruled that granting of the reliefs would result in
the impairment of contracts which is prohibited by the fundamental law of the land.
GR No. 101083
· Petitioners assert (1) they have cause of action based on their right to a sound environment based on the
Civil Code (Articles 19, 20 and 21 on Human Relations), Executive Order 192 (Creation of the DENR) and
Section 16 of Article II of the Constitution (Right to a Balanced and Healthful Ecology), (2) question on the
alleged grave abuse of discretion of the original defendant in granting timber license agreements involves a
juridical question and (3) timber license agreements are not contracts subject to non-impairment clause and
if they were, they may be revoked by the State when public interest so requires.
Issues Ruling
1. W/N the petitioners have a cause of action to prevent the misappropriation or impairment of Yes.
Philippine rainforests and arrest the unabated hemorrhage of the country’s vital life-support
systems and continued rape of Mother Earth?
2. W/N the respondent judge committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the civil case? Yes.
Rationale/Analysis/Legal Basis
1. LOCUS STANDI. The Supreme Court held that the civil case is indeed a class suit as the subject matter is
of common interest and general interest to all the citizens of the Philippines. Moreover, the requisites for
filing of a valid class suit under Section 12, Rule 3 of the Revised Rules of Court are present in the civil
case and petition. The Supreme Court held that their personality to sue in behalf of succeeding generations
is based on the concept of intergenerational responsibility as the right to a balanced and healthful ecology
is concerned - every generation has a responsibility to the next generation to preserve the rhythm and
harmony for the enjoyment of a balanced and healthful ecology and the right to a sound environment
entails an obligation to ensure the protection of the same right for generations to come.
2. GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION. The Supreme Court did not hesitate to rule against the order of the
respondent judge for having been issued with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction.
- Although the right to a balanced and healthful ecology is found under the Declaration of Principles and
State Policies and not under the Bill of Rights, it does not follow that it is less important than any of the civil
and political rights enumerated in the later.
- The right of a balanced and healthful ecology carries with it the correlative duty to refrain from impairing
the environment (as stated in the exchange between Commissioner Villacorta and Commissioner Azcuna
in the 1986 Constitutional Commission sessions).
- Section 4 of Executive Order 192 and Title XIV, Book IV of the Administrative Code stress the necessity
of maintaining the sound ecological balance and protecting/enhancing the quality of the environment.
 - Presidential Decree 1151 declared a continuing policy of the State to create, develop, maintain and
improve conditions under which man and nature can thrive unproductive and harmony with each other;
fulfill the social, economic and other requirements of present and future generations of Filipinos; insure the
attainment of an environmental quality that is conducive to a life of dignity and well-being.

ARTICLE VIII, SECTION 5: The Supreme Court shall have the following powers…
(1) Exercise original jurisdiction over cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consults, and
over petitions for certiorari prohibition, mandamus quo warranto and habeas corpus.
(2)(a) Review, revise, reverse, modify or affirm on appeal or certiorari as the law or rules of court may provide,
final judgements and orders of lower courts in: all cases in which the constitutionality or validity of any treaty,
international or executive agreement, law, presidential decree, proclamation, order, instruction, ordinance or
regulation is in question.
Disposition
Instant petition is granted. Order of respondent judge is set aside. Petitioners may amend their complaint to
implead as defendants the holders or grantees of the questioned timber license agreements.
Separate Opinions
Feliciano (concurring)
· The seminal principles laid down in this decision are likely to influence profoundly the direction and course
of the protection and management of the environment, which of course embraces the utilization of all the
natural resources in the territorial base of our polity.
· By finding petitioners' cause of action as anchored on a legal right comprised in constitutional statements,
the Court is in effect saying Section 15 and Section 16 of Article II of the Constitution are self-executing
and judicially enforceable even in their present form.
· Protection of the environment, including the forest cover of our territory, is of extreme importance for the
country. However, the doctrines set out in this decision should be subjected to closer examination.