Facilitator: Good evening, classmates.
The case that we are going to discuss among
ourselves tonight, in relation to our topic on judicial review, is the case of Oposa vs.
Factoran with G.R. No. 101083. May I …. to please share with us the facts of this case.
FACTS:
The plaintiffs in this case are all minors duly represented and joined by their parents
and the Philippine Ecological Network. The first complaint was filed as a taxpayer's
class suit at the Branch 66 (Makati, Metro Manila), of the Regional Trial Court, against
defendant, Fulgencio S. Factoran, Secretary of the Department of Environment and
Natural Resources (DENR).
Plaintiffs alleged that they are entitled to the full benefit, use and enjoyment of the
natural resource treasure that is the country's virgin tropical forests. They further
asseverate that they represent their generation as well as generations yet unborn and
asserted that continued deforestation have caused a distortion and disturbance of the
ecological balance and have resulted in a host of environmental tragedies.
Plaintiffs prayed that judgement be rendered ordering the respondent, his agents,
representatives and other persons acting in his behalf 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.
Defendant, on the other hand, filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that the
complaint had no cause of action against him and that it raises a political question.
The RTC Judge granted the motion to dismiss of the defendant, further ruling that
granting of the relief prayed for would result in the impairment of contracts which is
prohibited by the Constitution.
The plaintiffs thus filed the instant special civil action for certiorari before the Supreme
Court and asked the court to rescind and set aside the dismissal order on the ground
that the respondent RTC Judge gravely abused his discretion in dismissing the action.
Facilitator: Thank you. So in this case, a Petition for Certiorari was filed before the
Supreme Court to seek for Judicial Review. Again, Judicial Review is defined as an
aspect of Judicial Power that allows the court to
ISSUES:
(1) Whether or not an actual controversy is present in this case.
(2) Whether or not the complaint raises a political issue which properly pertains to the
legislative or executive branches of the government.
(3) Whether or not the petitioners have a locus standi.
RULING:
First Issue:
Respondents aver that the petitioners failed to allege in their complaint a specific legal
right violated by the respondent Secretary for which any relief is provided by law. The
Court did not agree with this. The complaint focuses on one fundamental legal right --
the right to a balanced and healthful ecology which is incorporated in Section 16 Article
II of the Constitution. The said right carries with it the duty to refrain from impairing
the environment and implies, among many other things, the judicious management and
conservation of the country's forests. Section 4 of E.O. 192 expressly mandates the
DENR to be the primary government agency responsible for the governing and
supervising the exploration, utilization, development and conservation of the country's
natural resources. The policy declaration of E.O. 192 is also substantially re-stated in
Title XIV Book IV of the Administrative Code of 1987. Both E.O. 192 and Administrative
Code of 1987 have set the objectives which will serve as the bases for policy formation,
and have defined the powers and functions of the DENR. Thus, right of the petitioners
(and all those they represent) to a balanced and healthful ecology is as clear as DENR's
duty to protect and advance the said right.
A denial or violation of that right by the other who has the correlative duty or
obligation to respect or protect or respect the same gives rise to a cause of action.
Petitioners maintain that the granting of the TLA, which they claim was done with
grave abuse of discretion, violated their right to a balance and healthful ecology. Hence,
the full protection thereof requires that no further TLAs should be renewed or granted.
After careful examination of the petitioners' complaint, the Court finds it to be adequate
enough to show, prima facie, the claimed violation of their rights.
Second Issue: Political Issue.
Second paragraph, Section 1 of Article VIII of the constitution provides for the
expanded jurisdiction vested upon the Supreme Court. It allows the Court to rule upon
even on the wisdom of the decision of the Executive and Legislature and to declare their
acts as invalid for lack or excess of jurisdiction because it is tainted with grave abuse of
discretion.
Third Issue: Locus Standi.
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. 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. 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.
The instant petition, being impressed with merit, is hereby GRANTED and the RTC
decision is SET ASIDE.
