Oposa v. Factoran

Date of Application:	Fri, 22 Jun 1990
Date of Decision:	Fri, 30 Jul 1993
Decision Making Body:	Supreme Court, Manilla, Republic of the Philippines
Law Applied:	Civil code Art 19, 20 and 21, Philippines Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines – section 16(2) Executive order no. 192 (1987) - section 4, Philippines Presidential decree no 1151 (Philippine environmental Policy) section 3
Keywords:	Intergenerational equity, standing, the right to full enjoyment of a balanced and healthful ecology, justiciability.

Minors Oposa v. Secretary of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources 33 I.L.M 173 (1994) 

Summary: This action was initiated by (among others) a group of children in the Philippines, who represented themselves and generations yet to be born, and The Philippine Ecological Network, Inc.  They demanded that the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (“DENR”) discontinue existing and further timber license agreements (“TLA”) in view of deforestation, on the basis of a fundamental right to a balanced and healthful ecology which was embodied in the Constitution and various legislations.  Their action was however dismissed at lower court on the basis that (i) there was a lack of a legally recognised wrong giving raise to the claim, (ii) the issue raised was a political question and (iii) on the ground of the non-impairment of contracts clause in the Constitution. The applicants appealed to the Supreme Court, which had to rule on whether there was a legally recognised wrong that could give raise to a claim to "prevent [and stop] the misappropriation or deterioration" (p. 2) of the Philippine rainforests. 

The Supreme Court first considered the procedural issue in respect of standing, which it concluded that not only were the child applicants entitled to represent themselves and others of their generation, they were also entitled to sue on behalf of the future generations based on the concept of intergenerational responsibility.  By asserting their right to a healthy environment, the applicants were also, at the same time, performing their obligation to protect the right to full enjoyment of a balanced and healthful ecology for the future generations. 

Reasoning 

The Court recognised that the right to a balanced and healthful ecology was so fundamental that it was “assumed to exist from the inception of humankind” (p. 9).  Such right was provided for in the Constitution and various legislations, hence imposing upon the state a correlative obligation to preserve the right to a balanced and healthful ecology. DENR’s duty to protect and advance the right to a balanced and healthful ecology was also clearly stated under its mandate and by virtue of its statutory powers and functions. Hence, DENR’s refusal to refrain from harming the environment by continuing to grant and/or renew the TLAs would therefore constitute a legally recognised wrong that could give raise to a claim, as it was an act or omission in violation of the plaintiffs’ legal rights.  The Court further concluded that the issue in question was not one concerning policy formulation or determination by the state, rather, it involved the enforcement of a certain right in the face of formulated policies and written legislation.  Lastly, the court considered that all TLAs could be revoked or rescinded by executive action, given that the TLAs were simply instruments for the state to regulate the utilization and disposition of forest resources, instead of contracts or properties being protected by the Constitution.  

Remedy 

The court found in favour of the applicants and set aside the lower court’s dismissal order. The Court ruled that the applicants might amend their complaint to include as respondents the holders or grantees of the challenged timber license contracts. 

Role of children 

Forty-five children based in the Philippines were the applicants in this case and asserted their rights to a balanced and healthful ecology.  The children applicants also represented the succeeding generations based on an intergenerational responsibility.  

Enforcement and other outcomes 

In practice, the case did not result in the cancellation of the existing TLAs. Indeed, since the early 1990s the issuance of TLAs had been discontinued. However, it had an immediate effect contributing to forest protection in the Philippines: a logging ban from 1991 was imposed in old-grown forests and the number of TLAs holders was reduced. Legal remedies to stop threats or degradation to the environment are now available and documented in the Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases (2010). 

 

(Summary provided by ACRSL at Minors Oposa v. Secretary of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources 33 I.L.M. 173 (1994) - Philippines — ACRiSL ) 

Court documents: 

Decision 

The date of application is unknown, but the earliest date of filing of papers after the launch is 22 June 1990 (motion to strike). 

Related CRC articles

• 24. Right to health, healthcare, and a healthy environment (CRC Article 24)

The court recognises the applicants’ right to a balanced and healthful ecology. 

Involvement of children in hearings

• Other

The application is not available. It is difficult to know how the cases were presented to the court. 

Intergenerational rights

On page 2 the court says: 

“In a broader sense, this petition bears upon the right of Filipinos to a balanced and healthful ecology which the petitioners dramatically associate with the twin concepts of "inter-generational responsibility" and "inter-generational justice." 

 

On page 7 the court says: 

“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." Nature means the created world in its entirety.”

Future generations

On page 7 the court says: 

“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." Nature means the created world in its entirety.” 

 

On page 8 of the judgement the court says: 

“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.” 

Outcome of decision for the applicants

• Relief sought by applicants granted

The court ordered the cancellation and further non-issuance of timber licence agreements. 

Did outcome of decision develop the law

• Yes

The court finds that: 

• The children have standing to bring a class action.  
• The children are entitled to represent themselves.  
• The children are entitled to represent future generations. The court endorses the principle of intergenerational responsibility. 
• The rights of future generations are justiciable through the current generations.  
• The children have an obligation to protect the right to full enjoyment of a balanced and healthful ecology for the future generations. 
• The right to a balanced and healthful ecology is fundamental. It exists even before the constitution and is justiciable even if it weren’t written in law.  
• The right is justiciable. 
• The state has an obligation to preserve the right.  
   

The case positively develops the law on children’s standing, the justiciability of the right, and intergenerational equity and justice. Many subsequent cases have relied on this cases in many jurisdictions.

Involvement of NGO/law firm in application

• Lead counsel and representative of the plaintiffs:  

Antonio Oposa 

Philippines 

 

• The Philippine Ecological Network 

Age range of litigants

• Other (Under 25)

Number of children or youth involved

45