COMPENDIUM OF SUMMARIES OF JUDICIAL DECISIONS IN ENVIRONMENT RELATED CASES

PHILIPPINES

Philippines- Constitutional Rights, Intergenerational Equity, Standing

JUAN ANTONIO OPOSA and others v. THE HONOURABLE FULGENCIO S. FACTORAN and another

G.R.NO: 101083 SUPREME COURT

Introduction

The Petitioners were a group of Filipino minors who brought this action on their own behalf and on behalf of generations yet unborn, through their respective parents together with the Philippine Ecological Network Incorporated. They claimed that the country's natural forest cover was being destroyed at such a rate that the country would be bereft of forest resources by the end of the decade if not sooner. They brought their action as a taxpayers' class suit claiming that as citizens and taxpayers they were entitled to the full benefit, use and enjoyment of "the natural resource treasure that is the country's virgin rain forests." They also asserted that they represented their generation as well as "generations yet unborn". They prayed for an order directing the Secretary to the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) to cancel all existing timber license agreements and cease from accepting or approving new agreements.

The Petitioners' suit in the Regional Trial Court had been dismissed on a motion of the Respondent, pleading that they had no cause of action against him and that the issue raised by them was a political question which properly pertained to the legislative or executive branches of Government. The Trial Judge had further ruled that the granting of the relief prayed for would result in the impairment of contracts, which was prohibited by the fundamental law of the land. The Petitioners sought a writ of certiorari under Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court to quash the Regional Trial Court Judge's order of dismissal.

The Supreme Court recognised at the outset that this case raised the right of the people of Philippines to a balanced ecology and the concept of inter-generational responsibility and intergenerational justice. The Petitioners led extensive scientific evidence to support their case that the widespread granting of timber license agreements by the first respondent and his predecessors had resulted in a vast depletion of the country's natural forest cover, and that at the present rate of deforestation the Philippines would be bereft of forest resources at the end of the decade, if not earlier. The Petitioners led evidence of the adverse environmental effects already experienced by the present generation of Filipinos and the even more serious effects that would be experienced by the Petitioners and their successors if licenses were given to continue the deforestation.

The Petitioners pleaded that the acts of the Respondent constituted a misappropriation and/or impairment of the natural resource property that he holds in trust for the benefit of the plaintiff minors and succeeding generations. The Petitioners further pleaded that they had a constitutional right to a "balanced and healthful ecology" and were entitled to the protection of the State in its capacity as "parens patriae".

Held

(1) Since the subject matter of the complaint was of common and general interest to all citizens and it was impracticable to bring them all before Court, the Petitioners' suit was a valid class action under Section 12, Rule 3 of the Revised Rules of Court.

2) The Petitioners had the right to sue on behalf of succeeding generations because every generation has a responsibility to the next to preserve the rhythm and harmony of nature for the full enjoyment of a balanced and healthful ecology.

(3) The Petitioners' complaint focused on one specific fundamental right, namely the right to a balanced and healthful ecology, which was incorporated in Article 16 of the 1987 Constitution. The fact that it was included under the Declaration of Principles and State Policies and not under the Bill of Rights did not make it any less important. This right implied, among other things, the judicious management and conservation of the country's forests.

In this regard the Supreme Court remarked, "As matter of fact, these basic rights need not even be written in the Constitution for they are assumed to exist from the inception of humankind. If they are now explicitly mentioned in the fundamental charter, it is because of the well-founded fear of its framers that unless the rights to a balanced and healthful ecology and to health are mandated as State policies by the Constitution itself, thereby highlighting their continuing importance and imposing upon the State a solemn obligation to preserve the first and protect and advance the second, the day would not be too far when all else would be lost not only for the present generation, but also for those to come- generations which stand to inherit nothing but parched earth incapable of sustaining life."

(4) The Petitioners' right to a balanced and healthful ecology and the DENR's duty to protect and advance that right were both clear, and gave rise to a cause of action as defined by the law.

(5) The case brought by the Petitioners could not be said to raise a political question because policy formulation by the executive or legislature was not in issue. What was principally involved was the enforcement of right vis-a-vis policies already formulated. In any event the political question doctrine was no longer an insurmountable obstacle to the exercise of judicial power owing to the provisions of Article VIII of the Constitution which gave the courts power to review the exercise of discretion by government departments.

(6) The Petitioners' application to set aside the Trial Judge's order of dismissal was accordingly allowed. The case was sent back to the Regional Trial Court with a direction to the Petitioners to implead the holders of the questioned timber licenses as defendants.

Note: Associate Justice Florentino P. Feliciano concurred in the result but wrote a separate judgement.

Cases Cited

Militante v. Edrosolano 39 SCRA 473(1971)
Daza v. Singson 180 SCRA 496 (1989)
Tan v. Director of Forestry SCRA 302 (1983)
People v. Ong Tin 54 O.g.7576
Felipe Ysmel Jr. & Co. Inc. v. Deputy Executive Secretary 190 SCRA 673 (1990) Abe v. Foster Wheeler Corp. 110 Phil. 198 (1960)
Nebia v. New York 291 U.S. 502