Oposa vs. Factoran, Jr., 224 SCRA 792, G.R. No. 101083 July 30, 1993

Oposa vs. Factoran, Jr., 224 SCRA 792, July 30, 1993

Case Nature:SPECIAL CIVIL ACTION for certiorari of the dismissal order of the RTC of Makati, Br. 66.

Division:EN BANC

Docket Number:G.R. No. 101083
Ponente: DAVIDE, JR.

Dispositive Portion:

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.

DOCTRINES:

• Petitioners instituted Civil Case No. 90-777 as a class suit. The original defendant and the present respondents did not take issue with this matter. Nevertheless, We hereby rule that the said civil case is indeed a class suit. The subject matter of the complaint is of common and general interest not just to several, but to all citizens of the Philippines. Consequently, since the parties are so numerous, it becomes impracticable, if not totally impossible, to bring all of them before the court. We likewise declare that the plaintiffs therein are numerous and representative enough to ensure the full protection of all concerned interests. Hence, all the requisites for the filing of a valid class suit under Section 12, Rule 3 of the Revised Rules of Court are present both in the said civil case and in the instant petition, the latter being but an incident to the former.
• This case, however, has a special and novel element. Petitioners minors assert that they represent their generation as well as generations yet unborn. We find no difficulty in ruling that they can, for themselves, for others of their generation and for the succeeding generations, file a class suit. Their personality to sue in behalf of the succeeding generations can only be based on the concept of intergenerational responsibility insofar as the right to a balanced and healthful ecology is concerned. Such a right, as hereinafter expounded, considers the “rhythm and harmony of nature.”
• Needless to say, every generation has a responsibility to the next to preserve that rhythm and harmony for the full enjoyment of a balanced and healthful ecology. Put a little differently, the minors’ assertion of their right to a sound environment constitutes, at the same time, the performance of their obligation to ensure the protection of that right for the generations to come.
• The complaint focuses on one specific fundamental legal right—the right to a balanced and healthful ecology which, for the first time in our nation’s constitutional history, is solemnly incorporated in the fundamental law.
• The right to a balanced and healthful ecology carries with it the correlative duty to refrain from impairing the environment.
• Thus, 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. 
• The foregoing considered, Civil Case No. 90-777 cannot be said to raise a political question. Policy formulation or determination by the executive or legislative branches of Government is not squarely put in issue. What is principally involved is the enforcement of a right vis-a-vis policies already formulated and expressed in legislation. It must, nonetheless, be emphasized that the political question doctrine is no longer the insurmountable obstacle to the exercise of judicial power or the impenetrable shield that protects executive and legislative actions from judicial inquiry or review.
• Needless to say, all licenses may thus be revoked or rescinded by executive action. It is not a contract, property or a property right protected by the due process clause of the Constitution.
• A license is merely a permit or privilege to do what otherwise would be unlawful, and is not a contract between the authority, federal, state, or municipal, granting it and the person to whom it is granted; neither is it property or a property right, nor does it create a vested right; nor is it taxation’ (37 C.J. 168). Thus, this Court held that the granting of license does not create irrevocable rights, neither is it property or property rights.
• Since timber licenses are not contracts, the non-impairment clause, cannot be invoked.
• In short, the non-impairment clause must yield to the police power of the state.

Synopsis:

Petitioners minors assert that they represent their generation as well as generations yet unborn. We find no difficulty in ruling that they can, for themselves, for others of their generation and for the succeeding generations, file a class suit. Their personality to sue in behalf of the succeeding generations can only be based on the concept of intergenerational responsibility insofar as the right to a balanced and healthful ecology is concerned.

The Oposa vs. Factoran, Jr. case was a special civil action for certiorari of the dismissal order of the RTC of Makati, Br. 66. The petitioners, minors represented and joined by their parents, and the Philippine Ecological Network, Inc. (PENI), instituted a class suit for the cancellation of all existing timber license agreements (TLAs) and the cessation of the issuance of new TLAs. The minors asserted that they represent their generation as well as generations yet unborn, based on the concept of intergenerational responsibility. The Supreme Court granted the petition and ruled that the civil case is indeed a class suit, as the subject matter is of common and general interest to all citizens of the Philippines. The court declared that the right to a balanced and healthful ecology is a fundamental legal right and the enforcement of this right cannot be considered as a political question. The court emphasized that licenses such as timber licenses are not contracts and the non-impairment clause must yield to the police power of the state.

Facts:

The petitioners are minors represented and joined by their parents, and the Philippine Ecological Network, Inc. (PENI), a domestic, non-stock and non-profit corporation. They instituted a class suit as taxpayers who are all entitled to the enjoyment of the natural resources of the Philippines, specifically, the virgin tropical forests. They pray for the cancellation of all existing timber license agreements (TLAs) and the cessation of the issuance of new TLAs. The petitioners claim that “they represent their generation as well as generations yet unborn.”

The complaint alleges that to maintain a balanced and healthful ecology, “the country’s land area should be utilized on the basis of a ratio of 54 percent for forest cover and 46 percent for agricultural, residential, industrial, commercial and other uses.” Moreover, it alleges that due to the degradation and deforestation of the forests, there are a number of environmental tragedies in the country. The petitioners base their cause of action on scientific evidence of the adverse effects of deforestation as a result of the issuance of the TLAs of the public respondents. Public respondents assert that there is no cause of action, and that the question raised by the petitioners is a political question that should be directed towards the legislative or executive branches of the government. The lower court granted the motion to dismiss, thus the petitioners were constrained to file a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court.

Issue:

Whether the petitioners have a cause of action to “prevent the misappropriation or impairment” of Philippine rainforests and “arrest the unabated hemorrhage of the country’s vital life support systems and continued rape of Mother Earth.”

Ruling:

Yes. The petitioners have a cause of action.

The complaint of the petitioners is based on the Right to a Balanced and Healthful Ecology as provided in Section 16, Article II of the 1987 Constitution. Although this right falls under the Declaration of Principles and State Policies, the right to a balanced and healthful ecology is not less important than the civil and political rights under the Bill of Rights. “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 reason why this right is placed under Article II of the Constitution is to emphasize the importance of the State’s obligation to preserve the Right to a Balanced and Healthful Ecology, and to protect and advance the Right to Health.

The Supreme Court also held that “the right to a balanced and healthful ecology carries with it the correlative duty to refrain from impairing the environment.” Section 3 of EO No. 192 declares as a policy of the State “to ensure the sustainable use, development, management, renewal, and conservation of the country’s forest, mineral, land, off-shore areas and other natural resources, including the protection and enhancement of the quality of the environment, and equitable access of the different segments of the population to the development and the use of the country ’s natural resources, not only for the present generation but for future generations as well.” This declaration is affirmed in Title XIV, Book IV of the Administrative Code of 1987 and included as part of the DENR’s responsibility to carry out “the State’s constitutional mandate to control and supervise the exploration, development, utilization, and conservation of the country’s natural resources.”

Therefore, it is definite that the petitioners have the right to a balanced and healthful ecology and the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) has the duty to protect and advance such right. The violation of the petitioners’ right gives rise to a cause of action. The Supreme Court thus held that the full protection of the environment requires that no further TLAs should be renewed or granted.