OPOSA vs. FACTORAN
G.R. No. 101083. July 30, 1993 - - Digested Case
LANDMARK CASE: In 1990, 44 children, through their parents, sought to make the DENR Secretary
stop issuing licenses to cut timber, invoking their right to a
healthful environment. They brought the case in the name of all the
children in the Philippines and in the name of the generations yet unborn!
FACTS:
The petitioners, all minors, sought the help of the Supreme Court to
order the respondent, then Secretary of DENR, to cancel all existing
Timber License Agreement (TLA) in the country and to cease and desist
from receiving, accepting, processing, renewing or approving new TLAs.
They alleged that the massive commercial logging in the country is
causing vast abuses on rain-forest.They further asserted that the rights
of their generation and the rights of the generations yet unborn to a
balanced and healthful ecology. Plaintiffs further assert that the
adverse and detrimental consequences of continued and deforestation are
so capable of unquestionable demonstration that the same may be
submitted as a matter of judicial notice. This notwithstanding, they
expressed their intention to present expert witnesses as well as
documentary, photographic and film evidence in the course of the trial.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the petitioners have a locus standi.
HELD:
The SC decided in the affirmative. Locus standi means the right of the
litigant to act or to be heard.Under Section 16, Article II of the 1987
constitution, it states that: The state shall protect and advance the
right of the people to a balanced and healthful ecology in accord with
the rhythm and harmony of nature. Petitioners, minors assert that they
represent their generation as well as generation 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”.
Nature means the created world in its entirety. Such rhythm and harmony
indispensably include, inter alia, the judicious disposition,
utilization, management, renewal and conservation of the country’s
forest, mineral, land, waters fisheries, wildlife, off- shore areas and
other natural resources to the end that their exploration, development
and utilization be equitably accessible to the present as well as future
generations. 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 minor’s
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. This landmark case has been
ruled as a class suit because the subject matter of the complaint is of
common and general interest, not just for several but for ALL CITIZENS
OF THE PHILIPPINES.